Court Opinion

ID: 9642985
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 18:14:27.812639+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:55.692133
License: Public Domain

ZAPPALA, Justice,
concurring.
While I agree with the result reached today by the majority, and the legal analysis regarding the three different types of classifications for purposes of determining whether a statute violates the Fourteenth Amendment, I must disagree with the majority’s application of this analysis to the facts. In particular, I disagree with the majority’s determination that an intermediate or “heightened scrutiny” standard of review is appropriate. I cannot agree that the notice requirement of the statute reaches the importance for which the “heightened scrutiny” review was developed. Neither does this case present a sensitive classification such as paternity or gender. Therefore, under the facts of this case, I would apply the rational basis test and hold that the notice requirement does not create an impermissible constitutional barrier.