Problem

A state legislature enacted a statute that required any motorcycle operator or passenger...

A state legislature enacted a statute that required any motorcycle operator or passenger on the state’s highways to wear a protective helmet. Jim Alderman, a licensed motorcycle operator, sued the state to block enforcement of the law. Alderman asserted that the statute violated the equal protection clause because it placed requirements on motorcyclists that were not imposed on other motorists. Using the information presented in the chapter, answer the following questions.

1. Why does this statute raise equal protection issues instead of substantive due process concerns?

2. What are the three levels of scrutiny that the courts use in determining whether a law violates the equal protection clause?

3. Which level of scrutiny or test would apply to this situation? Why?

4. Applying this standard or test, is the helmet statute constitutional? Why or why not?

Step-by-Step Solution

Solution 1

(a)

As per the provisions of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, government is prohibited from depriving any individual from liberty, life, or property without due process of law.

On the other hand, as per the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution no state will "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." This equal protection clause directs that the government must render similar treatment to similarly situated individuals.

If the law prohibits only motorcycle operators and passengers to wear protective helmets, and not all the motorists in the same state, it violates the equal protection issue.

(b)

The courts apply three different levels of scrutiny to determine if the law violates equal protection clause.

Minimal Scrutiny: Government may interfere with certain liberties granted when there is a “rational” and “valid” requirement to regulate it “in the public interest”. It is, generally, impossible for a state to fail minimal scrutiny test.

Some claims of liberties at minimal scrutiny level comprises of martial sexual privacy, abortion during the first weeks of pregnancy, family living privacy, educating children in private schools, departure from confinement in governmental institutions for the disabled, and public education to children of illegal immigrants.

Intermediate Scrutiny: Government may interfere with certain liberties granted when there is a “substantial” requirement to regulate it “in the public interest”.

Some claims of liberties at intermediate scrutiny level comprises of gender, and illegitimacy.

Strict Scrutiny: Government may interfere with certain liberties granted when there is a “necessary” requirement to regulate it “in the public interest”.

Some claims of liberties at intermediate scrutiny level comprises of Race, religion, national origin, and alienage.

(c)

The minimal scrutiny test applies to the statute requiring motorcycle operators and passengers to wear protective helmets. This statute is presumed to be “rational” and “valid” requirement to regulate it “in the public interest. Since motorcycle operators are more prone to accidental damage, the statute rationally requires such individuals to be protected against any accidents.

(d)

Yes, the helmet statute is constitutional as it would possible pass the rational basis test.

The statute requiring motorcycle operators and passengers to wear protective helmets will be upheld as the state offers a rational basis of avoiding accidental damage to motorcyclists who are more prone to accidents.

Add your Solution
Textbook Solutions and Answers Search
Solutions For Problems in Chapter 2