Argument
|
Maximum
Points
|
Due Process - nature of the right - is it
fundamental or nonfundamental? - identify issue
|
1
point
|
DC argues Fund’l Rt-rt to live together
as a
family - precedent - Moore (extended family)
|
3
points |
DC argues History/tradition - extended
family-grandparents/grandch, includes uncles & nephews
|
2
points
|
DC argues right central to personal
identity
-
decision to raise children/form a family unit
|
2
points |
JIF argues rt is Nonfund’l rt - precedent
-
Michael H. shows preference for marital family; this is
not marital
family - formed after death of parents and only uncle and
nephews
|
3
points |
JIF argues no history/tradition-extended
family tradition is grandparents/grandch, but not uncles
& nephews
|
2
points
|
JIF argues ct should only rely on
precedent
and history and tradition, but even if ct considers
whether right is
central to personal
identity - not a decision made by DC; made by deceased
parents
|
2
points
|
| DC argues Standard of Review-Strict
Scrutiny-narrowly tailored means to compelling end;
application to
facts-no compelling int & not least restrictive means,
alternative
means are available |
3
points
|
DC argues even under Minimum Scrutiny
(rat'l
means to legit end) the law is unconst'l - application to
facts - no legit
int & no rational relationship betw means and ends
|
2
points
|
JIF argues - Minimum scrutiny - rational
relationship betw custody decision and legit interest in
well being of
children
|
2
points
|
JIF argues even under Strict Scrutiny -
application to
facts - compelling int & narrowly tailored, least
restrictive means
|
3
points
|
Equal Protection - classification in
judge’s
comments, but not in statute (Palmore)
|
1
point
|
Nature of classification - physical
handicap
or quadriplegic vs. nonhandicapped
|
1
point
|
Identify Suspect Class criteria - hist.
of
disc.; immutable; unrelated to ability; label as inferior;
pol.
powerlessness
|
2
points
|
DC applies criteria to trait of physical
handicap (quadriplegic)
|
4
points
|
JIF applies criteria to trait
of
physical handicap (quadriplegic)
|
4
points
|
| Analogy to Cleburne and reasons why Court
rejected suspect class
status there and whether or not same analysis should be
used in this
case |
2
points
|
DC argues because classification is
quasi-suspect ct should apply Intermediate
Scrutiny-substantial
relationship between use of classification and important
gov’t
interest, app to facts-state has no important objective
and even if
objective is viewed as best interest of children,
discrimination based
on handicap is not substantially related to that objective
because
there are less restrictive alternative methods of
protecting the
children
|
3
points
|
DC argues even if Minimum Scrutiny - no
legitimate justification, just
reinforcing societal prejudice (Palmore) and no rational
relationship
to well being of children
|
2
points
|
JIF argues Minimum Scrutiny - rational
relationship to well being of children and even if
intermediate
scrutiny-app to facts-imp obj in well being of children
and use of
classification is substantially related to that objective
|
4
points
|
Miscellaneous and special level of
understanding of const'al
issues
|
2
points
|