[brief] The New Jersey Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection is independent and robust.  Recognizing that “the original states, including New Jersey, and their Constitutions preceded the formation of the federal government and its Constitution,” the New Jersey Supreme Court has long held that our Constitution affords independent protection to New Jersey residents.  Right to Choose, 91 N.J. at 299.  Because the New Jersey Constitution stands as an independent charter of rights, it can offer protections above the floor set by the United States Constitution.  Id. at 300 (“Thus, in appropriate cases, the individual states may accord greater respect than the federal government to certain fundamental rights. ”); Sojourner A. v. N.J. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 177 N.J. 318, 325 (2003) (“‘[T]here may be circumstances in which the [New Jersey] Constitution provides greater protections’ than does the Federal Constitution .  . . .”) (alteration in original) (citation omitted).  In protecting individual rights to marry, raise children, seek an abortion, terminate life support, or make other kinds of deeply personal decisions, the New Jersey Supreme Court has relied on Article I, Paragraph 1, of the State Constitution.  Planned Parenthood of Cent. N.J. v. Farmer, 165 N.J. 609, 618 (2000) (collecting cases); Lewis v. Harris, 188 N.J. 415, 442 (2006).  This provision guarantees to “[a]ll persons” the “natural and unalienable rights” of “enjoying and defending life and liberty” and “pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness. ”  N.J. Const. art. I, ¶ 1.  Although the provision “nowhere expressly states that every person shall be entitled to the equal protection of the laws, we have construed the expansive language of Article I, Paragraph 1 to embrace that fundamental guarantee. ”  Lewis, 188 N.J. at 442; see also Greenberg v. Kimmelman, 99 N.J. 552, 568 (1985) (explaining that Article 1, Paragraph 1 “protect[s] . . . against the unequal treatment of those who should be treated alike. ”); Sojourner A., 177 N.J. at 332 (same).  Departing from the rigid equal protection tiers that apply in federal analysis, the New Jersey Supreme Court has adopted a more flexible balancing test that “weigh[s] the governmental interest in the statutory classification against the interests of the affected class. ”  Planned Parenthood v. Farmer, 165 N.J. at 630.  The Court considers three factors: “the nature of the right at stake, the extent to which the challenged statutory scheme restricts that right, and the public need for the statutory restriction. ”  Lewis, 188 N.J. at 443 (citations omitted).  The more personal the right, the more the scales tip toward the individual and the greater the burden on the State to justify its action.  Ibid.  “Unless the public need justifies statutorily limiting the exercise of a claimed right, the State’s action is deemed arbitrary. ”  Id. at 443–44 (citing Robinson v. Cahill, 62 N.J. 473, 491–92 (1973)).  Here, the students have a deeply personal right to express and live in accordance with their gender identity.  Mandatory parental notification, without adequate regard for the needs and life circumstances of the individual student, can compromise their safety and impair their education.