| 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 argue 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 consider 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 |