You can get a paper on a similar topic by ordering from us.

« Legal philosophers argue… about an ancient philosophical puzzle of almost no  practical importance that has nevertheless had a prominent place in seminars on legal theory: the puzzle of evil law.»
Ronald Dworkin  Justice for Hedgehogs (Harvard University Press 2013)  p 410
Critically assess this statement and evaluate its relevance both in terms of Dworkin’s own theory and the theories of his critics.
:::

With this question you just need to identify the crux of the debate
Should we not invalidate an evil law because it is evil, or because it is not law?
Crux: is law connected to morality?
So natural law (law should be moral) vs legal positivism (law is separate to morality)
Dworkin seems to say that the argument is pointless, since either way the law is invalid
Yet point is perhaps that this is only true if the evil nature of the law makes it non-lawful… so in denying the question Dworkin has adopted the natural law position
So you have the basic debate, and then higher-level articles that relate specifically to this aspect of the debate
So begin with a rapid summary of Dworkin’s position and link to the wider debate. Then hammer Dworkin, then hammer whoever responded to him first. Pick a recent article, not too niche, that fits with your opinion and argue that. Be bold and confident.
The point is that this is arcane legal argument, piled up by professors who make a career from long-winded, impenetrable debate.
Somewhere there is a real question as to how the law should guard our morality. The ultimate maxim of human morality is that we should treat others as we would ourselves want to be treated – to say otherwise is irrational and incoherent (Kant). Laws should be rational and coherent. So laws that fall short of this maxim are weak because they are irrational.
If you can argue that successfully, you unify the debate to the extent that morality is linked to rationality, and rationality to law. Truly immoral rules are irrational, and irrational rules should not be lawful. If your rule is not irrational according to the Golden Rule (ethic of reciprocity – the maxim I stated above) then it is not truly immoral
As an amoral basis for your rule, argue scientifically. Rational enquiry indicates that humans depend upon reciprocity – it is hard-wired from evolution. Evolution lays down the amoral, logical basis for reciprocal ethics. We do not need God, or moral argument, we have science – the summation of all human empirical enquiry.
Bring that back around and now we have a framework to simultaneously evaluate the lawfulness and morality of any law. The debate is unified