Santa Barbara City College Mock Trial Fundamental Rights Case Study Paper

Law Library Case 1A: Beyonce & Rihanna v. State of California Insurance Co.The 14th Amendment to the Constitution reads: “No state shall make or enforce
any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.”
The overall issue to be decided at trial is if the government’s difference in the
treatment of people is justified. Beyonce and Rihanna (Plaintiffs) will argue that
the law is unconstitutional; the State of California Insurance Company
(Defendants) will argue that it is constitutional. It is up to you to state why your
side is correct (arguments), and why the other side is incorrect (counterargument).
1) Do the Plaintiffs have standing to bring a constitutional law challenge?
Standing. To bring a challenge in court, the Plaintiffs must show (1) harm; (2)
caused by the Defendant’s law; and (3) that a decision in their favor would remedy
their harm.
2) How are the plaintiffs being discriminated against?
In order to qualify for equal protection, the Plaintiffs must show that the law
discriminates against them personally.
3) What level of scrutiny applies? The level of scrutiny is the standard of review
that a court uses to evaluate whether a law is constitutional. Nearly every law that
falls under rational basis review is constitutional, so the State/Defendant should
argue that the court should use a “Rational Basis” level of scrutiny. Nearly every
law that is reviewed under strict scrutiny category is unconstitutional, so the
Plaintiffs should argue that the court should apply “Strict Scrutiny” instead.
RBR Test: The law must be rationally related to a legitimate government
interest (almost any policy reason to pass the law are constitutional).
Example: Economic or wealth-based laws are evaluated under RBR.
SS Test: The law must be narrowly tailored to promote a compelling state
interest (none or very few other alternatives to the law are constitutional).
Example: Laws concerning “immutable” characteristics (things people
cannot change, such as national origin or race) and EPC violations
of fundamental rights under the 14th amendment are evaluated under SS.
Mock Trial #1A: Fundamental Rights (EPC)
Case: Beyonce & Rihanna v. State of California Insurance Co.
Beyonce and Rihanna are a same-sex couple who married two years ago in a
ceremony in New York. New York is one of thirty-seven states that allow same-
sex couples to marry. However, California law does not recognize same-sex
marriage licenses from other States or from same sex couples that were married in
California (Note: for purposes of this trial, assume that California does not
recognize same-sex marriages).
Beyonce and Rihanna want to be put on each other’s life insurance policies, and
the State of California Insurance Company denies their requests. Beyonce and
Rihanna wish to sue the State of lifornia Insurance Company on a violation of
their fundamental rights and receive the same benefits as opposite-sex married
couples, who are eligible to receive life insurance benefits in California. In court,
Beyonce and Rihanna will argue that the company has violated their fundamental
rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The State of
California Insurance Company will argue that even if it wanted to, the company
could not allow Beyonce and Rihanna’s request because it would be breaking the
law.
To Submit on Canvas
Opening Statement: Names of group members, the party you represent [Plaintiff or
Defendant, and what you want the court to do. (1 point)
Arguments: Write down 2 reasons why the court should rule in your favor. You
should use 1 justification using the law above (1 point) and 1 justification using the
facts/policy arguments (1 point). Your group should also come up with 1
counterargument that the other side will use (legal, factual or policy), and why it is
irrelevant/weak/less important (1 point).
Conclusion: Conclude in one sentence that the law is (Defendant) or is not
(Plaintiff) constitutional (1 point).