answer base on the case with expalination

Polly loves to go snow skiing every winter. The only thing she doesn't like about skiing is that there are so many snowboarders on the slopes, and they make it dangerous for everyone else. On one trip up the ski lift, she discussed the problem with the person sitting next to her. The fellow skier agreed, saying, "These young people don't have fully developed brains until they are mid to late twenties. There ought to be a law limiting what they can do!" Polly happens to be a state legislator as well as a skier, and this comment got her thinking.

Polly did some research on brain development and found a blog post that supported what her ski-lift companion had said. Polly decided to introduce a new law for skiing to make it safer. The new law stated that set a minimum age for snowboarders on weekends, when the slopes were busiest. Because her blog post said male brains don't fully develop risk assessment capabilities until age 27, whereas female brains are fully developed at 24, she wrote the law to have different minimum ages for men and women. In explaining the need for the new law, Polly stated the above facts into the public record.

Polly's law passed the legislature and was signed by the governor.

Roger loves to go snowboarding every winter. He is 22 years old. He was very unhappy when he saw the new law. Roger goes to the law firm where you are working as an intern. The lawyer listens to Roger, then turns to you saying, "I wonder if this might be an equal protection violation. Give me a 300 word write-up evaluating Roger's case." Organize your explanation as follows:

1. Name the three categories of scrutiny that are used for evaluating and equal protection claim and identify the situation where each is used.
2. Which level of scrutiny applies to Roger's case and why? State what the rule is for this level of scrutiny (not just the name, but the rule itself).
3. What facts should be considered in light of the rule you identified in #2?
4. How is a judge likely to decide when considering Roger's claim. Include a summary of how the facts fit the rule in your answer