Reference no: EM133394723
Case Study: For many years, Charleston has had to deal with the vandalism and defacement of public property caused by unauthorized graffiti. In an effort to stop the damage, the city banned the sale of aerosol spray-paint cans to persons under 21 years of age. The new rules also prohibited people from possessing spray-paint cans on property other than their own. Within a year, five people under age 21 were cited for violations of these regulations, and 123 individuals were arrested for actually making graffiti.
Addy Arrow-Saul and other artists wished to create graffiti-inspired art using spray paint on portable surfaces, such as canvas, wood, and clothing. Unable to buy spray paint in the city or to carry it into the city from elsewhere, Addy and her artist friends come to your law office seeking your help to sue the city.
"This law is wrong" Addy says, continuing "what does being 21 have to do with whether or not I'm responsible enough to buy spray paint? This is discrimination! We can sue for that, right?"
Questions: Please discuss the following issues with your prospective clients:
Issue 1: Equal Protection
You explain to Addy Arrow-Saul and her artist friends that what they are talking about is a potential equal protection violation because the spray-paint can rules apply only to persons under age 21.
Please discuss the strength and weaknesses of this equal protection claim. What is the equal protection clause; what does it mean? Identify and explain what equal protection test (i.e. what level of scrutiny) will be used by the court in analyzing the claim. (10 points)
Do you believe your clients will be successful on this claim? Why?