Sonoma County Case Study

Michael v. Superior Court of Sonoma County This case debated the constitutionality of a law where men were always accountable for statutory rape if they had sex with a female under 18 even with consent and even if both parties were both under the age of 18. Also, this law did not hold women accountable for the same crime. Michael argued that under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment both sexes were entitled to equal protection under the law, making this law a violation of the Constitution. Through this direct citation of the Constitution in their argument, Michael presented a strong argument. In addition, Michael strengthened their case on a moral scale by giving an example of the extreme hypothetical case where a 41 year old would not be legally accountable under this specific law if they had sex with a 13 year old.

In contrast, the Superior Court of Sonoma County utilized precedent in their argument with the case Craig v. Boren. The verdict of this case was that classifications based on sex were legal and constitutional if they served a purpose. Sonoma County contended that the law was meant to protect teenage girls from pregnancy and, combined with this precedent, the laws concerning stationary rape were constitutional. Although, Sonoma County did not have much specific evidence and backing from the Constitution, which severely weakened their argument. Lastly, they did not have the moral backing of Michael’s case and the point was brought up that their are other more effective ways to prevent pregnancy, which again weakened Sonoma County’s case.

Clinton v. Jones This case put into question the constitutionality of Bill Clinton receiving executive immunity for a