Con Law Flashcards
A telecommunications company applied for a permit to construct a tower on land that the company owned to host a wireless communications signal. The local zoning board denied the permit based on the existing zoning of that land. Prior to seeking a special use variance, the company filed suit in federal court seeking a declaratory judgment that the zoning board’s denial violated a federal law that prohibits a state or local government from effectively denying the provision of wireless services to the public. Of the following, which likely constitutes the local government’s best constitutional defense against this suit?
Answer choice B is correct. Under the ripeness doctrine, which is grounded in part on the “case or controversy“ requirement of Article III, Section 2, a federal court will not consider a claim before it has fully developed, as doing so would be premature, and any potential injury would be speculative. Here, because the company has failed to seek a special use variance, it is likely that court will find the company’s claim is premature.
After federally funded studies on the fiscal impact of mail delivery in the United States, Congress enacts the Postal Limitations Act, which attempts to decrease the amount of paper used in the mail delivery process by limiting advertisements mailed by grocery stores. The studies outlined three main conclusions. First, the paper used in grocery store advertisements destroys thousands of trees each year. Second, by limiting the amount of advertisements that are mailed each week, Congress would save millions of dollars, which would help to avoid the necessity of a bankruptcy filing by the U.S. Postal Service. Third, the studies indicate that advertisements by grocery stores were not only the most common type of unwanted mail in the country but also required substantially more paper than any other type of business. The Act limits grocery stores from sending advertisements via mail more than once per week, unless they decrease the amount of paper used to advertise to a specific, defined amount. The grocery stores are not limited in any other form of advertising, such as online advertising or advertising within the store. After one of the largest grocery stores in the country is banned from sending its daily advertisement and coupons, its representative sues in federal court to have the Act struck down. Do the limitations set forth in the Postal Limitations Act exceed Congressional authority?
Correct Answer: No, because Congress may impose reasonable restrictions on the use of mail. Rationale: Answer choice D is correct. Congress has the exclusive power “to establish post offices and post roads” under Article I, Section 8, Clause 7. Congress may impose reasonable restrictions on the use of the mail (such as prohibiting obscene or fraudulent material to be mailed), but the postal power may not be used to abridge any right guaranteed by the Constitution (e.g., the First Amendment). The Postal Limitations Act appears to regulate commercial speech, which is protected by the First Amendment. Restrictions on commercial speech are reviewed under a four-part test: i) The commercial speech must concern lawful activity and be neither false nor misleading (fraudulent speech or speech which proposes an illegal transaction may be prohibited); 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. In this context, narrowly tailored does not mean the least restrictive means available; rather, there must be a “reasonable fit” between the government’s ends and the means chosen to accomplish those ends. Here, the Congressional limitations pass the four-part test, as the government interest in avoiding bankruptcy and decreasing the impact on the environment is substantial. The Act is a reasonable fit between the government end and means.
An employer owed an employee $200 in unpaid wages. A law of the state in which the employer and the employee reside and in which the employee works provides that the courts of that state must decide claims for unpaid wages within 10 days of filing. After the employee filed a claim in state court pursuant to this law, the employer filed a voluntary bankruptcy petition in federal bankruptcy court. In the bankruptcy proceeding, the employer sought to stay further proceedings in the unpaid wages claim on the basis of a federal statute which provides that a person who files a federal bankruptcy petition receives an automatic stay of all proceedings against him or her in all federal and state courts. No other federal laws apply. In addition to the supremacy clause of Article VI, what is the most obvious constitutional basis for the imposition of a stay of the unpaid wages claim in the state court?
Congress’s power to provide for the general welfare. Correct Answer: Congress’s power to provide uniform rules of bankruptcy. Congress’s power to regulate the jurisdiction and procedures of the courts. You Selected: Congress’s power to regulate commerce among the states. Answer choice B is correct. Congress’s power to provide uniform rules of bankruptcy offers the most obvious constitutional basis for a federal statute requiring a stay of court proceedings against a person who has filed a federal bankruptcy petition. Answer choice A is incorrect. Congress’s power to provide for the general welfare authorizes only taxing and spending laws. Because the statute requiring the imposition of a stay of the unpaid wages claim concerns neither taxing nor spending, it is not authorized by the general welfare clause. Answer choice C is incorrect. The constitutional provisions that give Congress the power to regulate the jurisdiction and procedures of federal courts do not authorize Congress to regulate state courts. Answer choice D is incorrect. A federal statute providing for a stay of court proceedings against a person who has filed a federal bankruptcy petition is not authorized by the commerce clause, because it is not a regulation of the channels or instrumentalities of interstate commerce, nor does it regulate an economic or commercial activity.
A state enacted a statute imposing a tax on all negotiable notes issued by banks, including national (i.e., federal) banks, not incorporated within the state. Would the statute be valid as applied to a national bank located in the state?
nswer choice C is correct. The federal government and its instrumentalities (such as a national bank chartered by the federal government) are immune from taxation by the states. States may, however, impose generally applicable indirect taxes so long as they do not unreasonably burden the federal government (e.g., state income taxes on federal employees). The tax here is not so indirect as to be permitted, especially as it would create a burden on the federal government, which would be forced to apply different taxes to notes issued in national banks across the country. Answer choice A is incorrect because the state has no such absolute authority. This answer is overly vague, and further, the exchange of bank notes would be considered commercial. Answer choice B is incorrect because even if the tax does not violate the dormant commerce clause, it could still possibly be invalidated if it was unconstitutional for other reasons (such as the national bank’s immunity from state taxation.) The commerce clause analysis would not be the end of the analysis. Answer choice D is incorrect because the tax is clearly a tax and not a regulation. Had it been a regulation, a different analysis would have applied. Regulation by the state would be even less likely to be permitted unless Congress had permitted the regulation or if the regulation was consistent with federal policy.
A state recently enacted a consumer protection statute preventing the in-state sale of avocados containing less than 8 percent oil to ensure that only mature avocados were marketed within the state. Pursuant to a federal law that permitted fruit growers in economically depressed areas to cooperatively fix marketing rules for the orderly and economically efficient marketing of fruit for the benefit of both the local and national economy, avocado growers in a neighboring state, an economically depressed area, determined the marketability of avocados based solely on the size and color of the avocado. In accordance with the federal law, the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture approved this marketability rule. A significant number of avocados in the economically depressed state that met the federally approved rule would be excluded from sale in the first state by that state’s consumer protection statute, although no growers from the economically depressed state have yet tried to sell their avocados in the first state. The cooperative formed by these growers to oversee the marketing rules filed an action in federal court against the officials in the first state, seeking to enjoin those officials from enforcing the statute. Which of the following arguments is the best argument for the officials in the first state?
Answer choice A is correct. The state statute is not expressly preempted by the federal rule. In addition, the state statute arguably is not impliedly preempted because there is no indication that the federal law intended for the marketing rules to occupy the field. In addition, the state statute does not directly conflict with the federally approved rule. It does not prevent the growers in the economically depressed state from complying with their marketing rule. Also, the state statute does not indirectly conflict with the federal law: the state statute does not deal with the same purpose, and the federally approved rule was adopted to improve economic conditions, while the state statute seeks to protect consumers from immature avocados. Although there could be an argument that the rule undercuts the economic stimulation purpose of the federal statute, the absence of preemption is the state official’s best argument. Note that if there has not been federal preemption in a given area, a state is free to set more stringent standards than those imposed by the federal government, as occurred here. Answer choice B is incorrect because the Eleventh Amendment does not apply to suits against state officials when the relief sought is an injunction rather than damages. Answer choice C is incorrect because an organization, such as the cooperative, has standing if it has suffered an injury and i) its members would have standing to sue in their own right; and ii) the interests at stake are germane to the organization’s purpose. Although no grower has yet suffered harm by being denied the right to sell avocados in the first state, the growers may seek an injunction to prevent the future injury from the enforcement of the marketing rule. Answer choice D is incorrect because Congress can regulate intrastate activity that has a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce. When that activity is economic, such as the marketing of avocados, the substantial economic effect is presumed.
During military drills that occurred during a severe storm, a military jet was forced to make an emergency landing. As there were no airports nearby, the jet was forced to land on a farmer’s property. The landing destroyed acres of growing crops, resulting in a substantial economic loss for the farmer. The landing destroyed not only the growing crops (which he intended to sell months later), but also the possibility of growing further crops for the rest of the season. However, the farmer will be able to plant crops the following spring as normal. The farmer filed suit under constitutional law principles on the basis that he is owed just compensation for the value he would have been able to receive months later when selling the crops. He has not yet filed any tort claim related to the destruction of his crops. Which of the following amounts would constitute the most likely amount to be received by the farmer based on the current suit?
nswer choice D is correct. A taking is almost always found in the following situations: (i) When there is an actual appropriation or destruction of property, or the government permanently physically invades the property; and (ii) when there is a permanent, total loss of economic value in the land. Note that a decrease in economic value, a temporary denial of economic use, utility rate regulation, and zoning ordinances do not necessarily result in a taking, unless the above rules are met. Further note that even if there is destruction or actual occupation of private property, a taking is less likely to be found in emergency situations. Here, while the damage is severe for the season, it does not permanently destroy the land: only a temporary denial of economic use occurs. Also, because the jet was forced to land due to an emergency, a taking would be even less likely to be found. Answer choice A is incorrect because the action would not constitute a taking, and the man would not be eligible to receive any compensation. Answer choice B is incorrect because not only did the landing not represent a taking, but if it was a taking, he would be only entitled to the fair market value of the crops at the time of the taking. Answer choice C is incorrect because regardless of the value of the land at the time of the taking, the landing did not constitute a taking. Further, although the crops were not yet ready for sale, there was some economic value attributable to the crops.
A number of psychotherapists routinely send mailings to victims of car accidents informing the victims of the possibility of developing post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as the result of the accidents, and offering psychotherapy services. Although PTSD is a possible result of a car accident, it is not common. Many accident victims in a particular state who received the mailings complained that the mailings were disturbing and were an invasion of their privacy. These victims also reported that as a result of the mailings, their regard for psychotherapists and for psychotherapy as a form of treatment had diminished. In response, the state enacted a law prohibiting any licensed psychotherapist from sending mailings that raised the concern of PTSD to any car accident victim in the state until 30 days after the accident. The state justified the law as an effort to address the victims’ complaints as well as to protect the reputation of psychotherapy as a form of treatment. Is this law constitutional?
Correct Answer: Yes, because the law protects the privacy of accident victims and the public regard for psychotherapy without being substantially more restrictive than necessary. Answer choice D is correct. The law is constitutional, because it satisfies the First Amendment standards for government restrictions on commercial speech. The mailings contain commercial speech, because they advertise services provided by the psychotherapists. A restriction on commercial speech is subject to a form of intermediate judicial scrutiny, requiring the government to show that the restriction directly advances an important or substantial government interest and that the restriction is not substantially more extensive than necessary to protect that interest. The law here satisfies that standard; the 30-day waiting period for the psychotherapists’ mailings narrowly serves the government’s substantial interests in protecting both the privacy of accident victims and the public regard for psychotherapy. Answer choice A is incorrect. It is true that the law singles out one type of message for prohibition while allowing other types. Such content-based restrictions on speech typically are subjected to strict judicial scrutiny and are invalidated. This law, however, is subject to a less exacting form of judicial scrutiny because it restricts commercial speech. Answer choice B is incorrect. The fact that the mailings provide information to consumers entitles the mailings to First Amendment protection. However, because the mailings advertise the services of psychotherapists, they contain commercial speech and therefore are entitled to less constitutional protection than other forms of speech. Answer choice C is incorrect. Misleading commercial speech is not protected by the First Amendment, and governments therefore are free to restrict such speech. The mailings in this case are not misleading, however, because the facts state that “PTSD is a possible result” of car accidents.
A professional football association implemented a policy requiring football teams that were part of the association to interview black candidates for any open high-level coaching positions, although no quota was established or preference given to black applicants. The purpose of the policy was to attempt to remedy a history of discrimination in the association wherein black applicants were less likely to be hired and more likely to be fired than their white counterparts. As a result of this policy, more black coaches were hired. Due to the success of the policy, and because other professional sports teams also had a history of discrimination in hiring black coaches, Congress enacted a statute requiring all professional sports teams to implement a similar policy. A professional baseball team has challenged the constitutionality of the statute as an equal protection violation. Is the statute constitutional?
Answer choice A is correct. Correct Answer: No, because the statute is attempting to remedy general societal discrimination. Although there is no federal equal protection clause, the Supreme Court has held that the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause includes the rights guaranteed by the Equal Protection Clause, thereby making discrimination by the federal government subject to review under the same standards as discrimination by the states. The Equal Protection Clause provides that states are generally prohibited from passing legislation that treats similarly situated persons differently. Programs that favor racial or ethnic minorities are subject to strict scrutiny. For a governmental affirmative action program based on race to survive, the relevant governmental entity (here, Congress) must show more than a history of societal discrimination. The government must itself be guilty of specific past discrimination against the group it is seeking to favor, and the remedy must be narrowly tailored to end that discrimination and eliminate its effects. In other words, the elimination of past discrimination in a particular governmental institution is a compelling state interest; attempting to remedy general societal injustice through affirmative action is not. Here, there is no evidence presented to show that a particular governmental institution is guilty of specific past discrimination. Rather, it is the professional sports teams that have engaged in past discrimination. The statute enacted by Congress is thus attempting to remedy a general social injustice through affirmative action, instead of specific governmental conduct. Therefore, the statute is unconstitutional.
An organization against drunk driving sought permission from the owner of a mall to pass out leaflets in favor of tougher drunk driving laws in front of a liquor store. The mall owner denied the organization permission. The organization, filing an action in an appropriate court, sought an injunction permitting the organization to pass out its leaflets in accord with its free speech rights. The state’s highest court, interpreting the state constitution, permits the exercise of free speech rights on private property that is regularly held open to the public. Of the following reasons, which is the best argument for granting the injunction?
Correct Answer: The leafleting was permitted by the state constitution. Answer choice C is correct. Although, for the reasons discussed below, the First Amendment to the United State Constitution does not require the mall owner to permit leafleting in this instance, the state constitution as interpreted by the state’s highest court does. A state may expand, but cannot contract, individual rights, such as free speech, granted by the United States Constitution. Answer choice A is incorrect because, although leafleting is a form of speech that enjoys First Amendment protection, such protection does not extend to leafleting on private property, even private property that is open to the public such as a mall. Answer choice B is incorrect because the fact that the purpose for leafleting has a logical relationship to the location where the leafleting is to be conducted does not trigger First Amendment protection of the leafleting, where that location is private property. Answer choice D is incorrect because, as noted with respect to answer choice A, the opening of private property to the public does not convert it into a public or limited public forum at which leafleting must be permitted despite the objection of the owner of the property.
Concerned with protecting the use of federal funds from the deleterious effects of bribery, Congress enacted a statute criminalizing the acceptance of a bribe by a state or local official where the state or local government received at least $10,000 in federal funds. A county government, in exchange for its agreement to permit the housing of federal prisoners in the county’s jail, received a payment of federal funds for each prisoner. The total amount received by the county government for housing federal prisoners exceeded $100,000 annually. A federal prisoner housed in the county jail agreed to transfer title to a pickup truck to a prison guard in exchange for the guard permitting the prisoner to receive illegal conjugal visits. The prison guard was charged with violating the statute. Is the application of the statute to the guard’s taking title to the prisoner’s truck constitutional?
Answer choice C is correct. Congress may enact legislation that is necessary and proper to execute its spending power. Here the criminalization of the taking of bribes by an official of an entity that receives substantial federal funds is necessary and proper to ensure that such funds are properly spent. Such funds are provided to the state and local governments pursuant to the Spending Clause. Answer choice A is incorrect because the Constitution does not require that the bribe directly relates to the federal funds. The preferential treatment given the prisoner was a threat to the integrity and proper operation of the federal program, and hence justified imposition of criminal sanctions on the guard. Answer choice B is incorrect because the congressional authority for this criminal statute was based on the Spending Clause, not the Commerce Clause. While the Commerce Clause requires a link to interstate commerce, the Spending Clause permits Congress to act for the general welfare. Answer choice D is incorrect because Congress, unlike state legislatures, does not possess a general police power.
Many state agricultural agencies conduct random discretionary inspections of meat processing facilities in their states. Relying only on its authority under the Commerce Clause, Congress passed a statute forbidding any state agricultural agency from considering whether a meat processing facility is licensed as “organic” when deciding when and where to conduct these inspections. The statute also provided that if a facility believed that the state agricultural agency was not following this statute in good faith, the facility could sue the state agency in federal court for damages. An organic meat processing facility in State A, believing that the State A agricultural agency conducted more random inspections of its facility than of non-organic facilities in the state, brought an action against the agency in federal court for damages. State A moved to dismiss the suit on the ground that it was immune under the Eleventh Amendment. Should the court dismiss the action on these grounds?
- The Congress can only abrogate 11th amendment using the 13, 14, or 15th amendment not just using their Article I powers like the Commerce Clause
- Correct Answer: Yes, because Congress cannot abrogate state immunity by exercising its Article I powers
- Answer choice D is correct. Although each of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments contains a provision that authorizes Congress to pass “appropriate legislation” to enforce the civil rights guaranteed by those amendments against the states, Congress cannot abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity by exercising its Article I powers. Because this statute was based on the Commerce Clause of Article I, Section 8, Congress cannot constitutionally abrogate the state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity. Answer choice A is incorrect because it is an incorrect statement of law. The Eleventh Amendment applies to states and state agencies. Answer choice B is incorrect because Congress does not have unlimited authority to authorize private actions for damages against a state. Congress cannot abrogate state immunity when exercising its Article I powers. Answer choice C is incorrect because it states only one exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity. If Congress had created this cause of action under the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, or Fifteenth Amendment, the state’s lack of consent would not have preserved its sovereign immunity.
A state maintained its departments, including its Fish and Game Department, through tax revenues collected primarily from its residents. The department required all recreational deer hunters (i.e., those who hunt purely for sport) to obtain a deer hunting license. The license fee was $25 a year for state residents and $150 a year for out-of-state residents. An out-of-state resident wanted to go deer hunting for sport. He objected to paying a license fee that was six times the fee paid by in-state residents. He sued in an appropriate federal court. Will the court hold that the licensing fee scheme for recreational deer hunting is unconstitutional?
Correct Answer: No, because the scheme is constitutionally valid under Article IV’s Privileges and Immunities Clause, as recreational deer hunting is not a fundamental right, and a state may charge its residents a lower fee because their taxes support the Fish and Game Department.
Rationale:
Answer choice D is correct.
Article IV’s Privileges and Immunities Clause protects citizens of one state from discrimination by another state in their exercise of fundamental rights.
Prevents economic discrimination against out of staters. If a state has a resource that its rationing via higher fees this is constitutional. But if the state is regulating a persons right to make money then its unconstitutional.
The Article IV Privileges and Immunities Clause prohibits a state from discriminating against nonresidents with respect to the exercise of a fundamental right or engagement in an essential activity, such as earning a living, unless there is substantial justification for the discrimination.
Here, the state can charge higher licensing fees for out-of-state residents because recreational deer hunting is not a fundamental right, and the differential treatment is fair because state residents’ taxes help to fund the state’s Fish and Game Department. For this reason, answer choice B is incorrect. Answer choice A is incorrect because, since out-of-state deer hunters are not a suspect classification, the Equal Protection Clause merely requires that the state action satisfy the rational basis standard, which it does. Answer choice C is incorrect because the Dormant Commerce Clause applies only when a state discriminates against an out-of-state commercial actor, whereas here the out-of-state resident wishes to hunt for noncommercial, recreational purposes.
In the Labor Management Relations Act, Congress expressly authorized the president to seize plants to avert a labor shutdown if the president determined that a shutdown would threaten national security. In response to a threatened national strike by America’s steel workers, the president ordered the government to seize and operate steel mills to ensure steel production that the president deemed vital to the War on Terrorism and hence to national security. Subsequent to the order, Congress did not explicitly approve or disapprove of the president’s action. One of the companies affected by the president’s order filed a suit in an appropriate federal court claiming that the order violated the Constitution. What is the most likely ruling?
Correct Answer: The president had Article II power to take this action
Answer choice C is correct. Presidential power under Article II is greatest when the president acts pursuant to Congressional authorization. Here, Congress expressly authorized the president to seize plants to prevent a shutdown that would threaten national security. Answer choice A is incorrect because, although the delegation of legislative power to the executive is subject to the requirement that the exercise of such power must be subject to a specific, intelligible standard, the Supreme Court has so loosely interpreted this requirement that almost any standard has satisfied this requirement. Answer choice B is incorrect because the President generally can take domestic action to protect national security where Congress has authorized him to do so. Answer choice D is incorrect because where (as here) Congress has broadly authorized the President to take an action (seizing domestic plants) if he determines that national security is at stake, the action is valid and does not need any later congressional approval.
Congress has enacted many laws regulating navigation generally, but not regarding the specific subject of water pollution by ships sailing on navigable bodies of water. A state enacted a law prohibiting any ship from discharging specified pollutants, including oil, into the navigable waterways of the state. Violation of the law was punishable by fines based on the amount of the discharge. The law is necessary to the important state interest of preventing pollution; there are no reasonable alternatives available. In addition, the benefits of the law to the state outweigh the burdens it imposes on interstate commerce. A ship owner from another state is fined pursuant to this law for discharging oil into a waterway in the state. Will the ship owner’s challenge to the state law as unconstitutional be successful?
Correct Answer: No, because the law does not discriminate against interstate commerce and does not impose an undue burden on interstate commerce.
Answer choice D is correct. The Dormant Commerce Clause requires that a state law not discriminate against out-of-state commerce and not constitute an undue burden on interstate commerce. The law in question satisfies these two requirements. Answer choice A is incorrect because although Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce, if Congress has not acted with respect to a particular aspect of interstate commerce, a state may regulate that aspect. Answer choice B is incorrect because the law imposes a fine, not a tax. Even if the fine were construed to constitute a tax, it is not assessed on the value of property, and therefore is not an ad valorem tax. Answer choice C is incorrect because, since the law does not discriminate against out-of-state commerce, it is irrelevant that the law satisfies the exception that permits discriminatory laws if they are necessary to an important state interest.
