The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that a government classification which impinges on a fundamental right will be subjected to strict scrutiny and invalidated unless it is Necessary to promote a compelling state interest. Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 634 (1969) (emphasis in original).

The classification here involves the Superior Court Rules which enables litigants to proceed in civil actions with, and without, the aid of counsel. The fundamental interest is meaningful access to the courts which enables the litigant to vindicate First Amendment rights. As Justice Black stated: "there can be no equal justice where the kind of trial a [hu]man gets depends on the amount of money he [or she] has. " Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 19 (1956) (indigent criminal defendants cannot be denied right to an appeal based on their inability to purchase trial transcript).

While the Supreme Court has not yet held that access to courts by indigent pro se litigants is a fundamental right, student counsel -- and at least three judges -- believe that such a finding is constitutionally mandated. 6/

D. THE TRIAL COURT DISMISSED THE PRO SE COMPLAINT IN VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

The First Amendment prohibits the promulgation of laws which abridge...the "right of the people...to petition the

6/See Judge Swygert's article, Should Indigent Civil Litigants in the Federal Courts Have a Right to Counsel?, 39 Washington and Lee L.Rev. 1267, 1280 (1982) (hereinafter, Swygert). See also. Boddie v. Connecticut. supra 401 U.S. 371, (Douglas, J., concurring); Id, at 388 (Brennan, J., concurring). In Boddie, the majority disposed of the case on due process grounds without reaching the equal protection argument.