Analysis of the Free Exercise Clause and statutory preemption implications

Free exercise clause
1. Why does this clause raise equal protection issues instead of substantive due process concerns?
Equal protection requires that no person may be denied equal protection or be discriminated by any governmental body through its laws. To this effect, all individuals must be treated in the same manner as in the same circumstances and conditions (Blair, 1997). On the other hand, substantive due process seeks to guard a right that might not be expressed elsewhere in the constitution (Fenster, 2014). With this background, it is obvious that the state statute bears more weight as a matter of equal protection and not as a substantive due process right. Motorcycle users, in this case, are required to wear protective helmets when on the state’s highways, despite the fact they are not the only users of the state’s highways. This, therefore, raises equal protection issues. This would have been a substantive due process issue if the state required motorcycle users to use the state highways in a particular isolative manner, e.g. rise on a specific side of the highway only.
2. The three levels of scrutiny used by courts
In this case, Jim Alderman will first need to prove that the state has discriminated against him as a licensed motorcycle operator, and prove how this statute has actually harmed him as an individual. The court will then use the three levels of scrutiny which are rational basis scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny (Blair, 1997).
Rational basis scrutiny is used by the court to determine the constitutionality of the statute. To satisfy this scrutiny, the statute must be rationally related to a legitimate state interest.
Intermediate scrutiny tests a statute’s constitutionality and it is only invoked when the state has a statute that affects certain protected classes negatively. To satisfy the intermediate scrutiny, the statute must (1) promote a vital state interest and (2) do so in a way(s) that is/are substantially in relation to the interest.
Strict scrutiny is the highest standard and it is applied when a plaintiff sues a governmental body for discrimination. To satisfy this level, the statute has to have been passed to promote compelling interests of the state and be narrowly tailored to achieve the interest.
Relying on precedent, the court determines the scrutiny level to apply; however, a court can apply tow or all three levels to establish an ad hoc test.
3. Standard of scrutiny applicable in this case
A precondition to application of the levels of scrutiny is that the plaintiff has to first prove that the statute/law is discriminative. Assuming that Alderman proves that the statute on motorcycle operators and passengers is discriminative (this information is not disclosed in the presented case), then it is recommended that the court applies the strict scrutiny level which is the highest level. Otherwise, and as stated by Blair (1997), the court can apply the three levels for an ad hoc test.
4. Based on the test, is the helmet statute constitutional
As mentioned above, for application of the standard of scrutiny, the plaintiff must prove am harm caused by the statute, which so far there doesn’t seem to be any. However, assuming there is any - possibly financial harm due to the additional cost of a helmet – then the statute would also satisfy the highest level of scrutiny, the scrutiny analysis, because the statue has been past to promote the duty of the state to protect individuals from themselves and this has been done without discrimination to any of the classes i.e. race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, social status, etc.
5. Legislative aimed at protecting people from themselves
Probably the most important duty of any governmental body is to protect lives and property. To this effect, the government has to duty to protect the individual from themselves, even in cases where an action threatens the individual’s life e.g. in the case of a suicide attempt. Additionally, in cases where an activity threatens the life of the individual and other, e.g. driving under the influence, governmental bodies have a duty to prevent and stop the active participation in such an activity (Johns & Sedgwick, 1999). Therefore, individual should not be allowed to engage in unsafe activities that threaten the individual’s life as well as those of others.


References
Blair, A. K. (1997). Constitutional Equal Protection, Strict Scrutiny, and the Politics of Marriage Law. Cath. UL Rev., 47, 1231.
Fenster, M. (2014). Substantive Due Process by Another Name: Koontz, Exactions, and the Regulatory Takings Doctrine. TOuRO L. REv., 30, 403.
Johns, R., & Sedgwick, A. (1999). Protecting People from Themselves. In Law for Social Work Practice (pp. 162-192). Palgrave, London.