#help I am still struggling to understand the immutable trait example for some reason. I just don't get why the reverse is not true.
It makes more sense to me to say,
"IF they make a showing that the characteristic defining the class is an immutable trait, THEN the plaintiffs qualify as a suspect class for the purpose of equal protection analysis."
Can someone please break this down if they were also confused but found a way to understand it better?
3
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
You've discovered a premium feature!
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
#help I am still struggling to understand the immutable trait example for some reason. I just don't get why the reverse is not true.
It makes more sense to me to say,
"IF they make a showing that the characteristic defining the class is an immutable trait, THEN the plaintiffs qualify as a suspect class for the purpose of equal protection analysis."
Can someone please break this down if they were also confused but found a way to understand it better?