Con Law 2 Flashcards
- A state passes a law that prohibits the public display of religious symbols, arguing that the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of speech does not extend to the states. In a case challenging this law, the plaintiffs argue that the law infringes upon their fundamental rights. Which of the following best describes the legal reasoning the Mcdonald court would use to evaluate whether the 1st Amendment applies to the state law:
A. The court would assess if the freedom of speech is a fundamental right deeply rooted in American history and tradition, and if so, determine if it applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
B. The court would evaluate whether the state law aligns with modern standards of international human rights and norms, and if it does not, the freedom of speech may not be protected against state infringement.
C. The court would consider if the state law is a reasonable restriction in compliance with the state’s police powers.
D. The court would examine whether the freedom of speech is explicitly mentioned in state constitutions.
A. The court would assess if the freedom of speech is a fundamental right deeply rooted in American history and tradition, and if so, determine if it applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Women want to join a famous golf club that restricts its membership to men. This club is licensed by the state in which it is located to sell liquor and golf equipment. The state receives sales tax from the sale of these items as well as from the sale of food and other drinks. Several women sue the club under the Fourteenth Amendment for gender discrimination.
They will most likely:
A. Succeed, because the relationship between the state and the club is interdependent and symbiotic, thus converting the club’s private action into state action.
B. Succeed, because the state collects sales tax from the activities that it licenses.
C. Not succeed, because private clubs are permitted to discriminate.
D. Not succeed, because state regulation or state licensing will not suffice to transform private action into state action
D. Not succeed, because state regulation or state licensing will not suffice to transform private action into state action
. How has the incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the states impacted state sovereignty?
A. It has allowed states to independently interpret and apply the Bill of Rights within their jurisdictions, thus enhancing state sovereignty.
B. It has subjected state laws to federal constitutional standards, thereby limiting the autonomy states previously held.
C. It has clarified the distribution of powers between state and federal levels, which has prevented either entity from overreaching.
D. It has had minimal effect on state sovereignty because states typically possess similar protections within their own constitutions.
B. It has subjected state laws to federal constitutional standards, thereby limiting the autonomy states previously held.
- The state action doctrine requires that a violation of constitutional rights must involve some form of governmental or public action. How does this doctrine relate to federalism and state sovereignty?
A. It respects state sovereignty by ensuring that private conduct need not comply with constitutional norms unless it involves significant state involvement.
B. It undermines federalism by allowing federal courts to intervene in private disputes within states.
C. It weakens state sovereignty by preventing states from delegating governmental functions to private entities without constitutional oversight.
D. It supports federalism by imposing federal constitutional standards on all actions taken by state authorities.
A. It respects state sovereignty by ensuring that private conduct need not comply with constitutional norms unless it involves significant state involvement.
A privately-owned hotel advertised on billboards along several public highways that it would not rent to any members of a particular religious group and asked the religion of any potential guest during check-in. If a guest identified as a member of the prohibited religion, then the hotel would not give that guest a room. One night, the hotel did not give a man a room because he identified as a member of the prohibited religion. The man sued the hotel, arguing that the hotel’s policy violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The hotel did not dispute that its policy violated the Equal Protection Clause. However, the hotel argued that it was not subject to the restrictions in the Equal Protection Clause because it was a private business, not a state actor. Also, it noted that there were several other options for places to stay in the state that would accommodate members of the religious group.
Was the hotel’s policy a state action (that, therefore, was subject to the restrictions in the Equal Protection Clause)?
A. Yes, because the hotel advertised its restrictive policy along several public highways in the state.
B. Yes, because hotels are an integral part of interstate commerce.
C. No, because the hotel was privately owned.
D. No, because members of the religious group had several other options for places to stay in the state.
C. No, because the hotel was privately owned.
- A city passed a law that prohibited city residents from possessing handguns. At the same time, the law made bar owners who allowed guns on their property subject to civil damages from any patron who felt intimidated by seeing a gun on the property. If a bar patron sued under the city’s law, then the law said that the claim would be tried before a judge without a jury. A bar owner sued the city, arguing the new law violated his individual rights under the United States Constitution. Specifically, the bar owner claimed that the city’s law violated the bar owner’s Second Amendment’s right to bear arms and the Seventh Amendment’s right to a jury trial.
Which of the bar owner’s claims give the bar owner a potentially enforceable right against the city, if either?
A. Only the Second Amendment claim.
B. Only the Seventh Amendment claim.
C. Both the Second Amendment claim and the Seventh Amendment claim.
D. Neither claim.
A. Only the Second Amendment claim.
- Thirty property owners on a street signed and recorded a restrictive covenant. This restrictive covenant provided that no races other than whites and Caucasians were welcome to own any of the properties for the next 50 years. Thirty years later, a family who was not white or Caucasian bought a house on one of the restricted parcels of land without knowledge of the restrictive covenant. White property owners in the subdivision sued in state court to enforce the covenant. The family countered that the enforcement of the racially restrictive covenant was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. Neither party disputed that, if the Equal Protection Clause applied, then it invalidated the covenant. However, the property owners argued that, as private actors, the constitutional protections in the Equal Protection Clause did not apply to their actions.
May the family use the constitutional protections in the Equal Protection Clause to prevent the court from enforcing the covenant?
A. Yes, because judicial enforcement of a racially restrictive covenant is a state action.
B. Yes, because the covenant affects interstate commerce by limiting where people may live.
C. No, because the covenant was entered into by private actors.
D. No, because the covenant affects only private property rights.
A. Yes, because judicial enforcement of a racially restrictive covenant is a state action.
- A state law prohibited all post-viability abortions. State residents sometimes travelled to a neighboring state to obtain abortions. In response, the state enacted a new law prohibiting any state resident from traveling out of state to obtain a post-viability abortion. The state legislature indicated that the intent of the law was to protect women’s health and safety, because late-term abortions posed greater threats to women’s health than earlier-term abortions. However, the new law contained no exception permitting travel to another state to obtain an abortion if the pregnancy threatened the woman’s health or safety.
Is a court likely to find the new law constitutional?
A. Yes, because protecting women’s health and safety is a rational basis for restricting abortions.
B. Yes, because the law applies only to post-viability abortions.
C. No, because the law fails rational-basis review by failing to provide an exception for a woman’s health and safety when that is the purported basis for the law.
D. No, because the constitutional right to interstate travel prohibits states from preventing residents from traveling to other states to obtain abortions.
D. No, because the constitutional right to interstate travel prohibits states from preventing residents from traveling to other states to obtain abortions.
A state enacted a law banning abortions after the point that a fetal heartbeat could be detected, an event that typically occurs as early as six weeks’ gestation. The law provided an exception for when the pregnancy threatened the life or health of the mother.
What standard will a court use in evaluating the constitutionality of the law?
A. Whether the law imposes an undue burden on women seeking to have an abortion.
B. Whether the law is substantially related to the accomplishment of an important governmental interest.
C. Whether the law is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling governmental interest.
D. Whether the law is rationally related to achieving a legitimate governmental interest.
D. Whether the law is rationally related to achieving a legitimate governmental interest.
Under a state’s law, it was a crime for any individual or teacher in any private, religious, or public school to teach any subject to any primary-school student in any language other than English. Foreign languages could be taught as languages to students only after completion of the eighth grade. A teacher in a religious school in the state was convicted of violating the statute by teaching Spanish to a child in the second grade. The child’s parents were natives of Mexico and had requested that their child be given the opportunity to learn his parents’ birth language. The state responded that the state’s interest in having a unified citizenry that understands the primary language in the state, and the child’s interest in understanding the most commonly used language in the state, outweighed the parents’ rights to have their child receive Spanish instruction. The parents sued, arguing that the state’s law violated their rights under the Due Process Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Is it likely that the parents have a substantive-due-process right that is being violated by the state law?
A. No, because there is no fundamental right to learn a particular language expressly included in the Bill of Rights.
B. No, because the state law does not interfere with what the parents may teach their child in the privacy of their own home.
C. Yes, because this law interferes with how the parents want to raise their child and, therefore, violates the parents’ fundamental right to be free from any governmental interference in how they raise their child.
D. Yes, because this law applies to all schools in the state and, therefore, violates the parents’ fundamental right to have some control over the education of their child.
D. Yes, because this law applies to all schools in the state and, therefore, violates the parents’ fundamental right to have some control over the education of their child.
. A state enacts a law to address growing concerns about the accessibility of reproductive technologies. The law prohibits the use of in vitro fertilization (IVF) unless couples meet specific eligibility criteria: they must be married and have a combined annual income of at least $100,000. The state claims the law is intended to ensure that children born from IVF will be raised in financially stable households with two parents, which it argues is in the best interests of the child and public welfare.
A lower-income, unmarried couple unable to meet these requirements challenges the law, arguing it violates their constitutional rights.
What is the most appropriate standard of review, and what constitutional principle will most likely apply?
A. Rational basis review; the state has a legitimate interest in regulating medical procedures.
B. Strict scrutiny; the law discriminates on the basis of a suspect classification under the Equal Protection Clause.
C. Strict scrutiny; the law interferes with a fundamental right to make procreative choices.
D. Rational basis review; financial and marital status are not suspect classifications.
C. Strict scrutiny; the law interferes with a fundamental right to make procreative choices.
A state implements a new education funding formula that provides additional funds to schools based on academic performance metrics, including standardized test scores. Schools in affluent areas consistently receive more funding under the formula, while underperforming schools in low-income neighborhoods see their funding reduced. A group of parents from the underfunded schools files a lawsuit, arguing that the funding formula violates their children’s constitutional rights by perpetuating inequality in educational opportunity.
Which of the following is the most accurate constitutional analysis?
A. The funding formula will be struck down because it interferes with a fundamental right to education, requiring strict scrutiny.
B. The funding formula will likely survive rational basis review because education is not a fundamental right, and the formula applies equally across all districts.
C. The funding formula will be subject to intermediate scrutiny because it disproportionately impacts students in low-income areas.
D. The funding formula will be struck down because it violates substantive due process by depriving students of equal access to public education.
B. The funding formula will likely survive rational basis review because education is not a fundamental right, and the formula applies equally across all districts.
A state passes a comprehensive healthcare reform law that creates a universal healthcare program funded by state taxes. To prevent perceived abuse of the program by new residents, the law imposes a tiered system of eligibility:
- Individuals who have resided in the state for more than two years are immediately eligible for full benefits.
- Residents who have lived in the state for one to two years are eligible for partial benefits.
- New residents who have lived in the state for less than one year are required to wait until their first year of residency is complete before becoming eligible for any benefits.
The state justifies the law by arguing that it promotes fiscal responsibility and ensures fairness to long-term residents who have contributed to the program through taxes. A recently relocated individual who needs immediate healthcare services challenges the law, claiming it violates their constitutional rights.
Which of the following is the most appropriate constitutional standard of review, and what principle is likely to apply?
A. Rational basis review; the state has a legitimate interest in preserving fiscal responsibility and protecting long-term residents.
B. Strict scrutiny; the law infringes on the fundamental right to travel by penalizing new residents.
C. Intermediate scrutiny; the law discriminates against new residents and creates an unfair classification.
D. Rational basis review; healthcare benefits are not a constitutionally protected right, and new residents are not a suspect class.
B. Strict scrutiny; the law infringes on the fundamental right to travel by penalizing new residents.
- A city government had a written policy of awarding road construction contracts to private businesses through a points system. Each bidder was awarded a certain number of points based on a number of factors, including the contractor’s experience, price, and estimated date of completion of the project. A local contractor who had been unsuccessful in obtaining government contracts learned that the city had not been following its written policy. The government employee in charge of awarding contracts had selected businesses owned by friends and family members, regardless of the businesses’ points score. The local contractor would have been awarded several contracts had the city applied its points formula.
If the contractor sues the city for violating his rights under the Equal Protection Clause, is he likely to succeed?
A. No, because the actions of a government employee in violation of official government policy do not constitute state action.
B. No, because the city did not discriminate based upon a suspect classification.
C. Yes, because even though the law was fair on its face, the city applied it in a discriminatory manner.
D. Yes, because the contractor was denied equal protection of the law.
B. No, because the city did not discriminate based upon a suspect classification.
A city contained several school districts with boundaries drawn over 100 years ago, when the city was almost entirely white. As black families moved into the city over the years, the families tended to settle in the same neighborhoods. Today, more than 90 percent of the students in one district are black, while more than 90 percent of the students in the other districts are white. All students must attend schools in their district, resulting in schools that are either almost all white or almost all black. The parent of a black student sued the city, claiming that this situation amounted to de facto school segregation. The lawsuit sought to force the city to bus students between districts to achieve more racially diverse schools.
Is the lawsuit likely to succeed?
A. No, because the school districts were not created with discriminatory intent.
B. No, because the schools are not completely segregated, as each district contains at least some white and some black students.
C. Yes, because the schools are de facto segregated.
D. Yes, because there is a discriminatory impact, even if there is not discriminatory intent.
A. No, because the school districts were not created with discriminatory intent.
A state university sought to implement a race-based affirmative-action program. Until the 1950s, the university had been segregated and had admitted no minority students. Currently, 20 percent of high school students in the state are minorities, but only 5 percent of the students in the university’s most recent freshman class were minorities. The school prepared a report outlining this history of discrimination and current underrepresentation. The report contained evidence that having a diverse campus benefited all students’ educational experience and prepared them for future employment. Taking this evidence into account, the university enacted an ongoing affirmative-action program that required the university’s admissions office to treat an applicant’s race as a positive factor in its assessment of the strength of the applicant’s application and to consider the racial composition of the proposed incoming class of students in making admissions decisions.
How would a court likely rule on the constitutionality of the university’s program?
A. Uphold the program using strict scrutiny.
B. Uphold the program using intermediate scrutiny.
C. Strike down the program using strict scrutiny.
D. Strike down the program using intermediate scrutiny.
C. Strike down the program using strict scrutiny.
A city’s fire department had a requirement that all new firefighters must be able to lift and carry 200 pounds over their shoulders for a distance of 100 feet. A woman wished to become a firefighter but was unable to meet the lifting requirement. The woman sued the city, claiming that the requirement had the effect of discriminating on the basis of gender. The woman produced evidence showing that far fewer women than men could meet the requirement, even if physically fit. The city argued that the requirement was an important job qualification, because firefighters frequently had to rescue unconscious individuals by carrying them out of burning buildings. There was no evidence that the regulation was made with a discriminatory intent.
Is a court likely to find the fire department’s lifting requirement constitutional?
A. Yes, applying rational basis review.
B. Yes, applying intermediate scrutiny.
C. No, applying rational basis review.
D. No, applying intermediate scrutiny.
A. Yes, applying rational basis review.
An African-American woman and a White man were validly married in a Oregon pursuant to that state’s laws. The couple later moved to Nebraska which banned interracial marriages. The couple was indicted for violating Nebraska’s law and plead guilty. Later, the couple decided to sue Nebraska in federal court, arguing that the state law violated their rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
What does Nebraska have to show for the state’s interracial ban to be constitutional?
A. The ban is substantially related to an important government interest.
B. The ban is necessary to achieve a compelling government interest.
C. The ban is reasonably related to a legitimate state interest.
D. The ban covers an issue traditionally left to the states under the Tenth Amendment.
B. The ban is necessary to achieve a compelling government interest.
A state provided for a public school system based primarily on property tax revenues from the various districts. School districts that had a property tax base below a certain threshold received supplemental funds from the state that were derived from state lottery revenues. The school districts receiving the supplemental funds served a predominantly Hispanic population as compared to the school districts funded only from property tax revenues.
To help balance its budget this year, the state legislature passed a statute terminating the supplemental funds program and earmarking the lottery revenues for deficit reduction. A group of parents of Hispanic schoolchildren in one of the school districts formerly receiving supplemental funds filed suit in federal court, alleging that the state’s action in terminating the funding violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Which of the following best describes the appropriate standard by which the court should review the constitutionality of the state action? state’s interracial ban to be constitutional?
A. Because the state statute results in discrimination against a suspect classification, the state will have to demonstrate that the statute is necessary to vindicate a compelling state interest.
B. Because the right to education burdened by the statute is not a fundamental right, the parents will have to demonstrate that the statute is not substantially related to an important state interest.
C. Because no suspect classification or fundamental right is improperly burdened in this case, the parents will have to demonstrate that the statute is not rationally related to any legitimate state interest.
D. Because the state statute is not discriminatory in intent, the state will have to demonstrate only that the statute is rationally related to a legitimate state interest.
C. Because no suspect classification or fundamental right is improperly burdened in this case, the parents will have to demonstrate that the statute is not rationally related to any legitimate state interest.
