Appellate Brief (FINAL) - Alejandro Tamez

No. 01-76322 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES THE STATE OF OLYMPUS Petitioner - Appellant v. MINDY VO Respondent - Appellee On Appeal from the Olympus 13 th Circuit Court of Appeals BRIEF FOR APPELLES Attorney for Appellees Alejandro Tamez Texas Bar No. 000000000 Rodriguez & Hernandez, LLP 901 Oak Street Arlington, Texas 76010 Tel: (469) 274-4319 Fax: (469) 274-4320 axt7848@mavs.uta.edu Request for Oral Argument: Appellee, Mindy Vo, request that this court grant oral argument in this case. This appeal raises a critical First and Ninth Amendment issue relating to a constitutional guarantee of the right to privacy that includes a right to use contraception, as well as freely practicing religion in tandem with contraception use. 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... iv STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION .............................................................................................. 1 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES ................................................................................................... 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ...................................................................................................... 3 STATEMENT OF THE FACTS .................................................................................................... 4 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS .......................................................................................... 5 ARGUMENTS AND AUTHOIRITES ......................................................................................... 6 I. THE RESPONDENT WAS NOT AFFORDED A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY WHICH INCLUDES A RIGHT TO CONTRACEPTIVES ..................... 7 A. There is a constitutional basis for a right to privacy, as backed by Griswold, Eisenstadt and Glucksberg .................................................................................... 8 B. The penumbras embedded in Griswold and Eisenstadt work to affirm the Respondent’s case ................................................................................................. 9 C. The Ninth Amendment is substantial support in the long-standing tradition of access to contraceptives in America ..................................................................... 10 D. The Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ensures that the Respondent’s access to contraceptives is not impeded by government law without due process ........................................................................................................... 11 II. THE RESPONDENT IS PROTECTED UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO FREELY PRACTICE RELIGION ............................................................................. 13 A. The REAP WHAT YOU SOW ACT (RWYSA) burdens the Respondent’s religious exercise .................................................................................................. 14 B. The case of Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith is relevant to RWYSA ................................................................................ 16 C. The framework of Smith v. Employment Division does not justify RWPSA ........ 18 CONCLUSION AND PRAYER ................................................................................................... 20 2

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ............................................................................................. 21 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ...................................................................................................... 22 3

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES U.S. SUPREME COURT COURT CASES Reynolds v. United States , 98 U.S. 145 (1878) ................................................................................. Sherbert v. Verner , 374 U.S. 398 (1963) ........................................................................................... Wisconsin v. Yoder , 406 U.S. 205 (1972) .......................................................................................... Employment Division v. Smith , 494 U.S. 872 (1990) ........................................................................ Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah , 508 U.S. 520 (1993) ............................ Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 593 U.S. ___, 141 S. Ct. 1868 (2021) ............................................. Tandon v. Newsom, 593 U.S. ____, 141 S. Ct. 1294 (2021) ............................................................ Kennedy v. Bremerton School District , 597 U.S. ___, 142 S. Ct. 2407 (2022) ................................ Carson v. Makin, 596 U.S. ___, 142 S. Ct. 1987 (2022) ................................................................... Griswold v. Connecticut , 381 U.S. 479 (1965) ................................................................................. Eisenstadt v. Baird , 405 U.S. 438 (1972) ......................................................................................... Washington v. Glucksberg , 521 U.S. 702 (1997) .............................................................................. Lawrence v. Texas , 539 U.S. 55 (2003) ............................................................................................ Obergefell v. Hodges , 576 U.S. 644 (2015) ..................................................................................... Dobbs v Jackson Health Organization , 597 U.S. ___, 142 S. Ct. 2228 (2022) ............................... 4

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL CASES United States v. One Package, 86 F. 2d 737 (2d Cir. 1936) ............................................................. U.S. DISTRICT COURT CASES Roberson v Rochester Folding Box Co ., ( New York Court of Appeals) 171 N.Y. 538 (1902) ....... Deanda v. Becerra , No. 2:20-CV-092-Z, slip op. (N.D. Tex. Dec. 8, 2022) ................................... LEGAL JOURNAL ARTICLE Brandeis and Warren, The Right to Privacy, 4 H ARVARD L. R EV . 193 (Dec. 15, 1890) ............... 5