Summary of Argument

This Court should apply strict scrutiny in analyzing Petitioner’s equal protection claim under Arlington Heights. Section 3051(h)’s disparate impact, historical background, legislative history, and substantive departure from related statutory law all evidence a “tough on crime” politics grounded in racial prejudice. In particular, these factors reveal a legislative embrace of stereotypes regarding young men of color as amoral, subhuman, and uniquely dangerous to free society. In this light, Section 3051(h)’s denial of a youth offender parole opportunity to 18- to-25-year-olds sentenced to LWOP is best understood as a concession to race bigotry for political gain. Such discrimination warrants the most exacting judicial review.

Summary of Argument

This Court should employ strict scrutiny in evaluating Petitioner's equal protection claim under Arlington Heights. The disparate impact, historical context, legislative history, and substantive divergence from related statutory law of Section 3051(h) all point towards a "tough on crime" political agenda rooted in racial prejudice. These factors expose a legislative endorsement of stereotypes that portray young men of color as amoral, subhuman, and uniquely threatening to a free society. Therefore, Section 3051(h)'s denial of parole eligibility for youth offenders between the ages of 18 and 25 sentenced to life without parole is best understood as a political expediency based on racial bigotry. Such discrimination necessitates the highest level of judicial scrutiny.

Summary of Argument

The Petitioner argues that the Court should apply strict scrutiny to their Equal Protection claim under the Arlington Heights case. The Petitioner claims that Section 3051(h) demonstrates a “tough on crime” political agenda rooted in racial prejudice. The Petitioner suggests that this law reveals stereotypes surrounding young men of color as being amoral, subhuman, and uniquely dangerous to society. They argue that the denial of parole opportunities for 18 to 25-year-olds sentenced to LWOP represents an example of racial bias for political gain. As such, they believe this discrimination requires the strictest judicial review.

Summary of Argument

This legal argument focuses on a law that denies parole to young adults sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole (LWOP). The argument claims this law unfairly discriminates against people of color and should be subject to the highest level of judicial scrutiny.

The court should use the strictest scrutiny when looking at the equal protection claim of the person challenging the law. This law’s impact, history, and how it differs from other similar laws show that it’s based on a “tough on crime” approach that’s rooted in racial prejudice. The law seems to accept stereotypes about young men of color as being immoral, less than human, and uniquely dangerous to society. The denial of a chance for parole to young adults sentenced to LWOP is best understood as giving in to racial prejudice for political gain. This kind of discrimination needs the most careful and thorough legal review.

Summary of Argument

This case is about whether the law is fair to everyone. The law says that young people between 18 and 25 who are sentenced to life in prison without parole (LWOP) can’t get a chance to have their sentences reviewed. The person who is asking the court to help thinks this law is unfair because it affects young men of color more than other groups.

The person asking the court to help says that the law was made based on the idea that young men of color are bad people and dangerous. They say that this is a racist idea and the law is unfair because of this. They want the court to look at the law very carefully to see if it’s truly fair.