Case # 2 -- Sperm Donation Bans

The State Y law is likely to be adjudicated unconstitutional because it infringes on fundamental rights without sufficient justification to satisfy the appropriate level of judicial scrutiny (Friedman, 2005). It can be argued that the statute infringes on and burdens a fundamental right (i.e. The right to start a family); therefore, the statute would have to satisfy the highest level of strict scrutiny to overcome a 14th Amendment constitutional challenge (Friedman, 2005). Since the aims of the state would have to be compelling and the methods imposed narrowly tailored to serve that purpose in the least burdensome manner, the statute would be overturned.

Even if the court applied only the intermediate level of scrutiny, such as that typically applied to issues of illegitimacy, the statute would probably be struck down because its purpose is not sufficiently important...

In fact, the stated purpose of the law could easily be attacked as unconstitutional because it is expressly intended to prevent single adults from adopting children in a discriminatory manner based strictly on their marital status and without even a rational basis for justifying that prohibition. Finally, even beyond the equal protection challenge, there would also be issues arising under the "penumbra" of privacy first articulated in Griswold V. Connecticut in 1965 in connection with the rights of married couples to receive birth control literature (Friedman, 2005). Ultimately, State Y would not be successful in regulating adoption rights in such an over-broad manner that violates so many constitutional principles and rights of individuals.
References

Friedman, L. (2005). A History of American Law. New York:…