Verified Document

Hypotheticals Brian Short V. State Of Florida Case Study

Hypotheticals Brian Short v. State of Florida

Is it legal for the State of Florida to prohibit the marriage of two very short people to each other, using the rationale that two short people are likely to produce short children and short children are less likely to help maintain dominance in state athletic programs and in more danger of falling into holes and not fitting properly into seatbelts?

Relevant Legal Concepts from Text

The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the making or enforcing of any laws "which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" (U.S. Const. amend. XIV).

Relevant Case Law from Text

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival" (Loving v. Virginia). "To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process...

Virginia).
Rationale

Being short is either an immutable characteristic, much like race or country of origin, or a suspect classification . Any law that restricts a fundamental freedom, such as marriage, needs to have a supportable basis. Discrimination on the basis of height is not a supportable basis.

Ruling

The court should strike down the State of Florida law prohibiting the marriage of two very short people to each other.

2. Michael v. University

Main Issue

Is it legal for a University to dismiss a student, fail to refund his tuition, and delete his transcripts because of a professor's unproven suspicion that the student was cheating on an exam? Relevant Legal Concepts from Text

The Fifth Amendment, which is made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" (U.S. Const amend. V).

Relevant Case…

Sources used in this document:
References

Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715 (1961).

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967).

Meister v. Moore, 96 U.S. 76 (1877).

U.S. Const. amend. V.
Cite this Document:
Copy Bibliography Citation

Sign Up for Unlimited Study Help

Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.

Get Started Now