1st Semester - Con Civ Crim questions Flashcards
In order to improve the safety of passenger train services on northeast corridor routes, Congress imposed a $25 tax on all tickets sold by passenger train services for travel throughout the United States.
As an exercise of Congress’s taxing power, is this tax constitutional?
Yes, because Congress may exercise its power to tax for any public purpose.
- As long as a tax has a reasonable relationship to revenue production, Congress may exercise its power to tax for any public purpose.
A private citizen filed a slander action against the president for remarks the president made during a presidential debate PRIOR to taking office. The president denied making the remarks and pled executive immunity.
Should the court Permit or Deny Case ?
Permit the case to go forward.
- A president does not enjoy immunity from an action for civil liability that stems from conduct BEFORE the president took office.
The president is subject to litigation in the same manner as any private citizen
A federal judge improperly granted a search warrant for the home of a woman she believed was dating her ex-husband. In doing so, the judge acted with malice and for the sole purpose of harassing the homeowner.
The homeowner brought a civil action in federal court against the judge personally for damages based on the violation of the homeowner’s Fourth Amendment rights. The judge had jurisdiction to issue the search warrant. The judge seeks dismissal on the grounds of immunity.
Should the court dismiss the case?
Yes Dismiss, because the judge had jurisdiction to issue the search warrant.
- A judge is ABSOLUTELY immune from civil liability for damages resulting from her judicial acts UNLESS it is clear that the judge did not have jurisdiction.
During legislative hearings on a new bill promoted by the President, a congressman made a defamatory statement about the President. That evening, the congressman appeared on a television news program, during which he repeated the defamatory statement.
In response, the President stated that the congressman was uninformed and possibly taking bribes, encouraging the rest of Congress to ignore the congressman’s comments and vote in favor of the bill.
If a civil suit for money damages is filed against either the President or congressman as a result of the statements, who may properly be held liable?
The Congressman only, because he exceeded his legislative immunity.
- Although members of Congress enjoy immunity for statements made in the regular course of the legislative process, the immunity will not protect statements made outside of Congress. Accordingly, the immunity will not extend to a “re-publication” of a defamatory statement, even if that statement was originally made in Congress.
On the other hand, the president enjoys absolute executive immunity to civil suits for money damages for actions while he is in office.
A tomato farmer developed a special variety of tomatoes. These tomatoes were higher in vitamins and nutrients than other tomatoes.
Other farmers outside of the state began growing similar tomatoes and selling them at a lower price. The out-of-state farmers have contracts to sell their tomatoes to discount markets in the state. Because of their lower cost, they are cutting into the sales of the special variety.
The state legislature enacted a law “to ensure the health of its citizens by protecting them from imitation and prosperity of the state’s local industry.” the law forbids the future sale of any tomatoes within the state that fail to meet the nutritional value of the state’s own / no other tomato meets this requirement.
Is the state’s law constitutional?
No, because the law discriminates against out-of-state commerce
- Dormant Commerce Clause = prohibits states from discriminating against out-of-state commerce, unduly burdening interstate commerce, or regulating extraterritorial activity.
A state law discriminates against out-of-state commerce if it protects a local interest at the expense of out-of-state competitors, and will be held unconstitutional unless the state can prove that a legitimate state interest is being served that cannot be served by non-discriminatory legislation.
Health is an important local interest but the state can probably protect that interest by less discriminatory means
State X recently enacted a statute that required any sushi-grade fish sold in State X to sushi restaurants to be sourced from a State X fishmonger located no further than 50 miles from any sushi restaurant located in State X.
The purpose was to ensure that fish that was typically consumed in a raw form in sushi restaurants maintained its quality and freshness during delivery.
A corporate fishmonger incorporated in State Y, which borders State X, has its sole place of business located 25 miles away from a group of sushi restaurants in State X that used to buy their fish from the fishmonger prior to the enactment of the statute. If the State Y fishmonger challenges the constitutionality of the statute, will Y prevail?
Yes, because the statute unduly burdens interstate commerce.
- The Dormant Commerce Clause limits the power of the states to legislate in ways that impact interstate commerce. If Congress has not enacted legislation in a particular area of interstate commerce, then the states are free to regulate.
- So Long as State action does NOT
(i) discriminate against out-of-state commerce,
(ii) unduly burden interstate commerce,
(iii) regulate extraterritorial (wholly out-of-state) activity.
Here, the statute discriminates against out-of-state fishmongers by requiring sushi restaurants in State X to purchase fish only from State X fishmongers w/in 50 miles.
- To Be upheld (if on its face or in practice, is discriminatory) then the state must establish an important local interest is being served and no other nondiscriminatory means are available to achieve that. - Here, the purpose of the regulation was to ensure that fish maintained its quality and freshness. It likely serves an important local interest. However, there are other nondiscriminatory means available. The State Y fishmonger is located 25 miles away from sushi restaurants located in State X. Thus, the purpose of the statute would be accomplished if Y delivered its fish to the State X restaurants.
Twenty years ago, a federal district court found that a city school district, - violated the Constitution;
- desegregation order.
- white flight // At the time integration efforts began, the city school district was 70 percent white. The city school district is now only 25 percent white.
- attract white students back into the district schools, and to limit any further movement of white students from the district,
the court orders the city to build magnet schools.
For which of the following purposes is this order unconstitutional?
Because discrimination must be INTENTIONAL in order to violate the Constitution, only intentional (de jure) segregation in schools violates the Equal Protection Clause.
A court cannot impose a REMEDY that involves multiple school districts unless there is evidence of intentional segregation in each district.
- If no such evidence, can only remedy constitutional violations (i.e., race discrimination) that occurred within a particular school district.
- can issue orders that aim to KEEP white students in the district schools or ATTRACT from private schools within the district
- the court cannot seek to attract white students from surrounding suburbs into the district WITHOUT evidence of discrimination in the suburbs.
Religion, she was required to burn holy oil
- she needed to conduct this ritual at work before her lunch break.
- she insisted on burning the oil in her cubicle. In addition, fire did not pose a danger.
- A state fire statute prohibits any open fires in public buildings because they present a fire hazard.
- Claiming that it violates her right to the free exercise of religion.( Assuming no relevant federal or state statute is applicable)
Should the court rule that the state statute violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment?
Neutral state laws of general applicability that have the incidental effect of interfering with one’s ability to engage in religious practices are subject only to the rational basis test.
** A law passes the rational basis test if it is rationally related to a legitimate state interest **
State statute prohibiting fires in public buildings is a neutral, generally applicable statute that is rationally related to the legitimate state interest of preventing fires because they pose a great safety risk.
- Unlikely to succeed in her action.
- Large contributions by special interest groups to politicians’ campaigns and recent state constitutional referendums have undermined the state’s democratic process.
- To reduce corruption and the imbalance in the presentation of arguments posed by excessive contributions,
- State law limiting corporate and institutional donors’ contributions to candidates and
—ballot measures– to $500.
Is the state law constitutional?
Statutes limiting campaign contributions are subject to
** Intermediate scrutiny: they must be “closely drawn” to correspond with a sufficiently important interest.
MAY limit contributions to individual Candidates , but NOT to ballot measures.
This law is limiting contributions to ballot measures and is therefore unconstitutional
Congress enacted legislation providing for funding to secular and religiously affiliated colleges
- The legislation does NOT require that each county apply standard guidelines NOR does it provide any suggested guidelines other than a statement that “all counties should track funding and compile guidelines in the event of a federal audit.”
A large grant to a religiously affiliated college that employs a substantial number of residents. The grant contract, signed by representatives from both the county and the college, states as follows: “All grant monies must be used in compliance with county regulations.
Is the county’s award of the grant constitutional?
Governmental financial assistance to religious institutions is permitted if the aid is SECULAR in nature, used only for secular purposes, and, when the aid is distributed among secular and religious institutions, the distribution criteria must be religiously NEUTRAL
– to both / and not religious = OK
COMMERCIAL SPEECH
State law prohibited all outdoor advertisement of cigars within 1,000 feet of a school.
- intended to combat cigar use by minors, which legislators believed was a pressing problem.
To receive federal funding for state substance abuse programs, a state must prohibit the sale of tobacco products to minors.
- the state prohibition on outdoor advertisement encompasses ads that are neither untruthful nor misleading.
*** the law is not narrowly tailored to protect students while also permitting legal advertisement of cigars to adults because in certain cities, the law prevents outdoor advertising of cigars in almost all areas of the city. **
Is the court likely to strike down the law?
Restrictions on commercial speech = subject to
- Intermediate scrutiny and a four-part test:
(i) it must concern lawful activity and be neither false nor misleading;
(ii) the asserted government interest must be substantial;
(iii) the regulation must directly advance the asserted interest; and
(iv) the regulation must be narrowly tailored to serve that interest.
- Intermediate scrutiny and a four-part test:
- the health of minors constitutes a compelling interest, the law is not narrowly tailored to serve that interest.
- law constitutes an unconstitutional restriction on commercial speech.
1st Amend - Speech
i. Public Forum
Traditional or Designated
a) NO- Viewpoint b) No Content Based c) Strict Scrutiny
- If Neutral : Time place manner = Intermediate = ok
a) Content Neutral
b) Narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest
c) Ample alternate channels of communication
11th amendment abrogation by congress for states to pay money damages
Anything after 11th like civil rights
1) Can Abrogate under 5th and 14th amend and make states pay money for some suit
2) Must be clear and explicitly allowed
3) What was source of power ? Art 1 or Amendments
Justiciability - Standing to Sue
1) Injury in fact
2) Causal relationship between the injury and challenged conduct
3) Redressability
a) Not as a citizen except against establishment of religion
b) Entity can sue if members effected and are injured
Justiciability - Ripeness
1) Policy announced but no Action = Not Ripe
2) Reasonable threat of prosecution = ripe
