justin_meeks
New Member
- Jurisdiction
- US Federal Law
The State of Eureka operates a military college as part of its public university system, Eureka Military Institute (EMI). It admits both male and female students as cadets. Cadets of both sexes share the same academic requirements and the physical requirements are tailored to individual characteristics but differ according to gender. The school requires cadets to wear a uniform consistent with their birth sex and their personal grooming must match. Male and female cadets are housed in separate dormitories. Cadet Jones goes by the name Amanda, wears her hair shoulder length (regulation for females), wants to be evaluated according to the physical standards of female cadets, and she wishes to be housed with other females. Amanda's birth certificate states the name "Peter" and her body is anatomically male in every respect.
Does Amanda Jones have a constitutional claim against EMI? What Supreme Court opinions seem most instructive. Why are they instructive? Is there a "reasonable accommodation" that EMI can make that would resolve this situation? If Amanda argues that all cadets should be subject to the same physical fitness requirements regardless of sex, does gender equality require that the school treat everyone the same way? Does the military environment fostered by the school make any difference to how this case should be resolved?
Bill and Zeke have been married for four years. Bisexuals, the two of them begin a sexual relationship with a woman named Gladys. All three of them have other sexual partners also, in an open polyamorous relationship. Ultimately, the trio decides upon a three-way marriage. For six years they live together, share all expenses, and even have two kids together. ("We don't know which of us is the biological father. We're just a happy family and biology doesn't matter. We are all three both dads and moms to our children." One hospital listed both men as dads (although the form only had space for one name) and the other hospital refused to list both and so listed neither. When Gladys becomes ill, Bill seeks to add her to his health insurance as a spouse. The public insurance agency denies the request as his spouse Zeke is already covered on the policy. The three of them go to the town clerk's office to request a marriage license so that Gladys can join the existing union. The clerk refuses to issue a license. Nothing in state law of Eurkea acknowledges such a tripartite relationship. Nothing forbids it either in so many words.
What are some potential legal issues in the scenario above. If you were the lawyer representing the trio, what constitutional claim would you make to state your client's claim and what precedents would you rely on to buttress the argument? If you were the lawyer representing the state, what arguments would you make to rebut the claims stated before and what precedents would you rely on to buttress your argument?
Does Amanda Jones have a constitutional claim against EMI? What Supreme Court opinions seem most instructive. Why are they instructive? Is there a "reasonable accommodation" that EMI can make that would resolve this situation? If Amanda argues that all cadets should be subject to the same physical fitness requirements regardless of sex, does gender equality require that the school treat everyone the same way? Does the military environment fostered by the school make any difference to how this case should be resolved?
Bill and Zeke have been married for four years. Bisexuals, the two of them begin a sexual relationship with a woman named Gladys. All three of them have other sexual partners also, in an open polyamorous relationship. Ultimately, the trio decides upon a three-way marriage. For six years they live together, share all expenses, and even have two kids together. ("We don't know which of us is the biological father. We're just a happy family and biology doesn't matter. We are all three both dads and moms to our children." One hospital listed both men as dads (although the form only had space for one name) and the other hospital refused to list both and so listed neither. When Gladys becomes ill, Bill seeks to add her to his health insurance as a spouse. The public insurance agency denies the request as his spouse Zeke is already covered on the policy. The three of them go to the town clerk's office to request a marriage license so that Gladys can join the existing union. The clerk refuses to issue a license. Nothing in state law of Eurkea acknowledges such a tripartite relationship. Nothing forbids it either in so many words.
What are some potential legal issues in the scenario above. If you were the lawyer representing the trio, what constitutional claim would you make to state your client's claim and what precedents would you rely on to buttress the argument? If you were the lawyer representing the state, what arguments would you make to rebut the claims stated before and what precedents would you rely on to buttress your argument?
