←
↑
↓
→
You can use arrow keys to navigate in the map.
Loading tree...
Oklahoma's 3.2% beer statute violates the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause.
-
because
score: 1
Gender must be an accurate proxy for what is to be regulated.
-
because
score: 1
The male/female difference with respect to 3.2% beer does not warrant the age differential.
-
however
score: -10
Traffic safety is an important governmental objective.
-
but
score: 10
Appellees' statistics cannot support the gender-based distinction
-
because
score: 3
The only study focused on young drivers was bad.
-
because
score: 1
It did not focus on 3.2% beer.
-
because
score: 1
It did not have impressive results.
- 1 branch
- ‒
-
because
score: 2
If maleness is a proxy for drinking and driving, 2% rate for males (compared to .18% for females) is a poor statistical fit.
-
because
score: 1
Previous cases have rejected sex as decisionmaking factor with even stronger statistical evidence.
- 0 branch
- ‒
-
because
score: 1
There are methodological problems with the studies.
-
because
score: 1
No research was done to compare how used or dangerous 3.2% beer is compared to other alcohol.
-
because
score: 1
No research shows that increases in drunk driving are due to men under 21.
-
because
score: 1
Oklahoma law considers 3.2% beer to be "nonintoxicating"
- 5 branch
- ‒
-
but
score: 1
The law only prohibits selling 3.2% to men under 21, not their drinking it.
- 1 branch
- ‒
- 0 branch
- ‒
- 1 branch
- ‒
The argument is too complex. You can switch to list view.
last update:
mmcr
mmcr
