Posted: April 26th, 2022

Judicial interpretation project

Judicial interpretation project

“Good morning, Your Honors. My name is [your name] and I am here to argue the case on behalf of the State of New York.” Mary, a 17-year-old woman has sued the State of New York because he was denied a driving license due to her pregnant condition. Her application was denied by the DMV because she was under 18 and pregnant. The application denial follows the statute law that was passed by the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Act (TPA). The law states that women who become pregnant before the age of 18 will not be issued a driver’s license by the Department of Motor Vehicles. Mary claims that the TPA law is violating her constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which provides in relevant part, that all people are entitled to the equal protection of the law.
However, the New York State takes its position at the TPA to combat the serious problem of teenage pregnancy which has reached its epidemic proportions. It makes sense to introduce such restrictions to reduce teen pregnancy because this will enforce teenage driving curfews (Deza,2019). These components of the TPA reduce freedom of mobility therefore reducing the opportunities for teenage pregnancies. Until recently, there hasn’t been any legislation that prohibits individuals from acquiring a driving license. The only conditions apply to individuals who have uncontrolled epilepsy or sudden attacks of disability.
From a rational review perspective, the New York State will win because on this level of review the government usually wins. The government can prove that the law of reasonable and legitimate to advance a government interest. GDL and teen fertility intersect where they are supposed to prevent teen pregnancy. Teen pregnancy I soften unintended pregnancy that often results in negative outcomes for both parents and children. Unplanned pregnancy is costly because young adults can barely afford prenatal care. Regulating teen mobilization is the best way to ensure parental supervision. Florida was the first state to implement an intermediate driving phase for teenagers who were obtaining their driving license for the first time. These intermediate laws act as transitions as young adults transition into adulthood. The intermediate restriction imposes a nighttime curfew. A teenager must be accompanied by an adult when driving at night. The second intermediate restricts the number of minor passengers to prevent teenagers to drive in an unsupervised car.
The research found that implementing the GDL laws decreased teenage fertility by 4%. The restriction had better results on 16-year-old teenage girls (Deza,2019). The implementations worked best in the states that held the phase for longer. The results are effective across the specification of the application. In this case; Mary claims that this law violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Based on the research and results, the government can rule out against Mary within its rights to create general restrictions. As long as the rule is a regulation of the economy and it’s not a discriminatory act the action can be regulated.
On the other hand, denying Mary a GLD because her condition is an act of discrimination. Research shows that pregnant women are not restricted to GDL. The fourteenth amendment states that all citizens of the U.S are entitled to receive the immunities and privileges of being a citizen. Moreover, the amendment prohibits the state from denying individuals of equal protection (Amar,2012). Every individual must be treated in an equal manner despite their condition or circumstance. Mary has a right to file an action against New York since they are violating her constitutional rights. Her pregnant condition should not hinder the DMV from giving her a driving license. If Mary was suffering from a special condition, the state could have denied her a driving license. Mary cannot just sit around for nine months thus it is reasonable for her to acquire her license before she delivers.
However, driving may increase stress in pregnant women. Driving in bad weather conditions or at night can get stressful for pregnant women. Therefore; issuing a driving license to Mary could put her in danger of stress or fatigue while driving without supervision. At this point, the court can apply intermediate scrutiny because the statute passed negatively affects the protected classes. Mary is a protected class because she is a U.S citizen and in the pregnant women demographic. Mary argues that she is being denied equal protection clause rights because she is being denied a driving license (Amar,2012). However, the city of New York has prohibited the issuing of a driving license to teenagers to combat the high rate of teenage fertility. The reason behind the restriction is further an important governmental interest. Mary is 17 years old thus issuing her a driving license puts her at risk of driving at night or with other minors thus putting her in danger.
No law prohibits pregnant women from driving. However, the law prohibits pregnant women from driving if they cannot do it so safely. Mary is a pregnant teenager, therefore; she intersects with both the TPA act and restrictions that apply to pregnant women. If she was an adult, her judgment could have been more trustworthy especially in her condition. Studies found that teenage drivers require supervision, especially when driving at night. It is reasonable to deny Mary a driving license until she is eighteen years old. Moreover, when a woman is heavily pregnant, it can be difficult to get behind the steering wheel and strap up. Driving can cause fatigue thus increasing accident risks. Pregnant women often feel sick thus they are advised to avoid driving during such days (Deza,2019). Mary can get her driving license if she will adhere to strict supervision. However, this is not a guaranteed solution because the law will not be watching her at all times. Therefore the best solution is to deny her a GDL for now.
The court should uphold the TPA to prevent teenage pregnancy. The court can apply strict scrutiny because the TPA act has been passed to further compelling government interest ((Fallon,2006). The state of New York is interested in reducing teenage pregnancy. Taking a position at the TPA is a major action that the state is taking to achieve its interest. Marty claims that she is facing discrimination thus the case can get reviewed at the scrutiny level. However, the court might lose this case because teenagers can access intermediate GDL. If Mary is accessing the GDL for the first time, she will be issued an intermediate phase GDL. Also, she has the right to drive a car in her condition under supervision. Considering these factors can cause the New York state to lose the case.
Under the TPA, New York can establish efforts to reduce teen pregnancy. Collaboration with institutions and communities is a guaranteed way to accomplish this objective (Rankin,2014). Restricting teenagers from accessing graduated driving licenses will keep them from nighttime driving thus keeping them from irresponsible sexual activities. Also, the objective can be characterized by cross-collaboration with the health and education departments. Mandating comprehensive sex education in high school is one of the ways that can reduce teenage pregnancy (Rankin,2014). Teenagers need improving engagement and linkage to proper medical care. Unintended pregnancies result in negative consequences. The research found that teen mothers are unemployed thus they can’t afford to raise a child on their own. Therefore, restricting GDL is an effective solution that ensures teenagers are supervised. Even when the teenagers have driving privileges, their driving experience is controlled through intermediate GDL. The minimum amount of age that one must be to acquire an intermediate GDL is 16 years. For instance, in Alaska one must be 16 years of age to attain an intermediate GDL and must be in the phase for 6 months before obtaining an unrestricted GDL, There are no laws that should restrict a teenager in applying for a driving license (Rankin,2014). Mary is 17 years and if she applies for a license she will have to abide by the intermediate phase rules and restrictions. The TPA law can be classified as a tough law because it is denying Mary a GDL because of her pregnant condition. If she was not pregnant she would have at least received a restricted GDL.To some level, Mary is right to feel discriminated against thus leading her to file a violation against the state. The New York state needs to consider other factors before denying Mary of her driving license. If she can have supervision during her driving, the State should issue her a driving license.
The State of New York has an important governmental interest in preventing teenage pregnancy. However, establishing tough restricting laws will create hostility, stigma, and negative public opinions for teenagers. More laws should be directed towards sex education and healthcare. The government cannot always dictate how people should live their lives. Regardless, the government should encourage responsibility by sending the right message to young people (Rankin,2014). It is important to implement laws that have long-term effects on teenagers. Restricting the driver’s license for teenagers until they are of legal age should instill behaviors that can automatically combat teenage pregnancies. For instance, offering restrictive GDL’s curfew can put teenagers out of the streets at night when they are most likely to engage in sexual activities. Restrictions and curfews can become a habit for teenagers. However, once the teenagers reach 18 years, the alleviated laws can be permitted to engage in irresponsible sexual behavior thus creating more teenage pregnancies (Deza,2019). Therefore; the government should apply the TPA laws with much more consideration. In this case, the state Of New York has the upper hand in implementing TPA laws while Mary can access her driving license after she delivers her baby.

References
Deza, M. (2019). Graduated driver licensing and teen fertility. Economics & Human Biology, 35, 51-62.
Rankin, L. A. (2014). Shame and blame campaign: the use of shame in teen pregnancy prevention campaigns (Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University-Graduate School-New Brunswick).
Fallon Jr, R. H. (2006). Strict judicial scrutiny. UCLA L. rev., 54, 1267.
Amar, A. R. (2012). The bill of rights and the fourteenth amendment. Yale Law Journal, 1193-1284.

Order | Check Discount

Tags: best dissertation writing services, best research paper writing services, college paper writing service, dissertation writing services cost, dissertation writing services near me, dissertation writing services reviews