CON LAW Flashcards
What are the types of scrutiny applied in Free Exercise cases?
(1) lower scrutiny: if law is facially-neutral and generally applicable (law is generally upheld) and (2) strict scrutiny: if there is government intent to interfere OR another fundamental right is being infringed (e.g. right to control kiddos’ education)
How do you determine whether an Establishment Clause violation has occurred?
First, run the Lemon test: (1) was the primary purpose religious? (2) was the primary effect to inhibit religion, and (3) does the law pro most gov’t entanglement? Second, consider whether it just generally looks like the gov’t is endorsing a religion? Last, if it deals with a public display ask about its history and context (Van Orden)
A law restricting speech is content neutral. What’s the next question in your inquiry?
Is it made in a public forum (street, sidewalk, park) or a private forum (private residences, airports, jails, military basis)?
A law restricting speech is content neutral in a public forum. What level of scrutiny will be applied?
This is a form of intermediate scrutiny: ““Narrowly tailored to advance a significant interest.” Note that the law must also leave open alternative channels of communication.
A law restricting speech is content neutral in a private forum. What level of scrutiny will be applied?
Rational basis: does the law bear a rational relationship to a legitimate gov’t interest (almost impossible to fail)? Note that the law must also be viewpoint and subject matter neutral.
A law restricting speech is content specific. What’s the next question in your inquiry?
Does this law pertain to protected or unprotected speech?
A law restricting speech is content specific and pertains to unprotected speech. How does it pass constitutional muster?
Unprotected speech is not speech. It’s not afforded any legal protection whatsoever.
What are the types of unprotected speech?
Defamation, Fighting Words, Commercial Speech, Obscenity, Kiddie Porn, Inciting unlawfulness, Criminal Conduct
In a defamation case involving a public figure and public subject matter, what’s the standard?
Burden of proof is on the plaintiff to show (1) falsity of the statement and (2) malice by the D.
In a defamation case involving a private figure and public subject matter, what is the standard?
Burden of proof is on the plaintiff to show (1) falsity of the statement and (2) negligence by the defendant
In a defamation case involving a public figure and a private subject matter, what is the standard?
The burden of proof is on the defendant to show truth of the statement - almost presumptive defamation (falsity + negligence are all that is required). Damages presumed.
In a defamation case involving a private figure and private subject matter, what’s the standard?
Damages are presumed and the burden of proof is on D to show truth of the statements (only a few jurisdictions put burden of proof on P)
Anystate, USA passes a law requiring anyone who moves into the state be financially self-sufficient. What is the proper analysis to be used by the court?
a) any restrictions on travel are unconstitutional
b) the law must be rationally related to a legitimate gov’t interest
c) the law must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling gov’t interest
d) the law must be substantially related to an important gov’t interest
b) economic status is not a suspect or quasi-suspect class.
Procedural due process is not required when the state deprives a person of:
a) welfare benefits
b) public education
c) employment
d) the right to engage in gainful employment
c) because the right to engage in gainful employment is a protected liberty interest, and a and b are property interests
Which of the following is not an example of excessive gov’t entanglement in religion?
a) allowing a church to veto the issuance of liquor licenses
b) allowing a church to install a nativity scene in a city building
c) gov’t aid given solely to religious preschools
d) a law requiring businesses be closed on sundays
d) all the others ARE examples of excessive entanglement
To whom does the Contracts Clause apply?
The states, NOT THE FEDS!
Under the 1st Amendment, burning a voter registration card is likely:
a) unprotected, because it is not speech
b) protected
c) unprotected, because it is intentional destruction of an important gov’t document
d) unprotected, if the gov’t can show a rational basis for prohibiting their destruction
b) (this restriction would only be valid if necessary for a compelling gov’t interest)
A loyalty oath as a precondition for public employment is:
a) always unconstitutional
b) constitutional if it is an oath to oppose the violent overthrow of the gov’t
c) constitutional only if it does not involve religious language
d) always constitutional
b) to prevent overthrow or to uphold is constitutional - ALL OTHERS ARE NOT!
When can private actors be considered “state actors” for 14th Amendment purposes? (4)
PMSS - Public function, mutual contacts (like private contractor/living in a gov’t building), State court enforces a private agreement, State command/encouragement
Does the 1st Amendment have a state action requirement?
Yup!
Candice is 4 weeks preggers and wants an abortion. She lives on an island as part of the State of Tropicana, which criminalizes getting an abortion from anyone other than a licensed physician. There are no physicians on her island and it would cost $125 to get to the main land, which she cannot afford. She attacks the constitutionality of the statute and seeks assistance getting onto the mainland. Likely outcome?
a) criminal statute is a facially unconstitutional violation of due process rights
b) statute violates the contracts clause
c) not getting C to the mainland would violate DP and EPC
d) statute is a facially constitutional exercise of police power
D) is the best answer because states can regulate for health/safety. Cannot “unduly” limit access to an abortion but there is no due process right to getting one!
D was convicted of his 3rd rape offense in 1989 and sentenced to prison. In 1990, the state legislature passed a law authorizing the civil commitment of sex offenders. Upon his release in 1995, he was subjected to a proceeding for being a sexually violent predator (counsel was provided and a jury heard his case). He was civilly committed indefinitely. Upon his writ of habeas, the federal court will likely:
a) make him stay, because the state has a compelling interest in protecting the community
b) release him because of due process violation
c) release him for an ex post facto violation
d) release him for double jeopardy violation
A) - in a civil case, neither double jeopardy nor ex post facto apply. And he was granted due process!
City A passes a gun ordinance prohibiting private ownership of a long list of guns. What is the best characterization of the ordinance?
a) unconstitutional, violates 2nd Amendment
b) unconstitutional as a violation of Privileges of national citizenship
c) constitutional as an exercise of police power
d) constitutional under Sec. 5 of 14th Amendment
c). cities and states may regulate guns to protect the public. 2nd Amendment restricts the federal government, not the states!
Congress adopted a statute years ago providing financial aid for colleges. Recently it changed to add that colleges receiving federal aid need to offer that aid to students solely on the basis of need. What source of federal power authorizes the statute?
a) police power
b) power to enforce the EPC
c) power to tax and spend for general welfare
d) power to enforce P&I clause
c! Remember THERE IS NO FEDERAL POLICE POWER! And neither either power is brought up by these facts (says Rigos book)
State A passed a statute providing for the incarceration of any person with AIDS, regardless of whether that person has engaged in criminal activity, in a special state facility. The incarceration occurs after a full, adversarial trial results in a judicial determination that the person suffers from AIDS. The statute also provides for an attorney for indigent persons, and an appeal as a matter of right. The statute is:
a) Unconstitutional, denial of due process
b) unconstitutional, denial of right to trial by jury
c) constitutional, as a health and safety measure.
d) unconstitutional, denial of equal protection
a - this is a liberty interest and not the least restrictive means to serve the state’s interest
To whom does the 2nd Amendment apply?
The federal government - not the states!
What statement best describes an executive order made by the President banning certain exports, if he does so with Congressional authority?
a) Executive order is a constitutional exercise of the President’s inherent power to conduct foreign affairs
b) The executive order is constitutional because Congress has plenary power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and authorized the President to issue orders
c) Executive order is unconstitutional if it interferes with existing contracts under the contracts clause.
b) - Congress does have this plenary power and it CAN delegate to the Prez.
a) isn’t the best because the President’s foreign affairs powers are not inherent but largely delegated by Congress.
Congress passes a tax increasing the estate tax substantially. What is the likely result if the Court reviews the constitutionality of the tax?
a) Constitutional if the dominant intent was fiscal
b) constitutional, because Congress has the power to tax the estates of persons
c) Unconstitutional if the revenue does not outweigh the burden on the estate
a) Courts defer to Congress if the intent of the tax is to produce revenue.
If a state statute disproportionately protects the state and penalizes other states in regards to an entire industry, what kind of scrutiny is applied to the statute?
The statute is almost per se invalid unless (1) there are no other means to advance a legitimate state interest and/or (2) the state could be a market participant (e.g. a buyer and seller of goods) in the market and the DCC would not apply.
Congress passes a bonkers Amendment to the federal tax code. The amendment creates a hyper-specific tax deduction for twin brothers inheriting certain land while 38 and having brown hair. Earnest and Julio Gallon met all these bonkers requirements and inherit their dad’s wine company during the year that the deduction is in effect. John Crest, a competitor of the Gallons business, files a declaratory judgement in federal court to have the tax law declared unconstitutional. What is the likely outcome?
a) the court will declare the amendment an unconstitutional bill of attainder.
b) the court will declare the deduction unconstitutional as not rationally related to a legit. gov’t interest
c) the court will declare the deduction a constitutional exercise of the tax power
d) the court will not hear John’s case on the merits.
d) John has no standing, yo! Federal taxpayers generally do not have standing on those grounds alone.
State B’s legislature passes a law saying if state elementary school teachers teach about G. Washington, then they also have to teach about Moses (from the Bible. Heard of him?). What is the likely result if the constitutionality of the law is challenged?
a) unconstitutional: violates the free exercise clause
b) constitutional, unless no secular purpose
c) Unconstitutional, because the teachers cannot be forced to teach an idea
d) constitutional if applied generally to both public and private schools.
b) this is the best answer because the allegation is that the state is trying to prefer one religion over the other (establishment clause problem). It appears to satisfy the Lemon test (secular, primary effect, no entanglement)… c) is wrong because this presents an establishment clause problem, not a free speech problem!
The ALCU files a suit in federal court to enjoin the FDA from conducting seizures of genetically modified crops. The FDA has been directed by Congress to “regulate” GMOs and has been given standards/directives. The FDA has the authority to pass a regulation but has not yet done so. What will the court likely do?
a) Dismiss, because the FDA has not passed a rule
b) abstain from ruling but retain jurisdiction over the case
c) enjoin the FDA from making an unconstitutional rule
d) dismiss because of the 11th Amendment
a) This case is not yet ripe: no imminent injury exists (the FDA could always pass a constitutional regulation). b) is incorrect because abstention relates to federal courts abstaining from state court prosecutions/issues of undecided state law
Congress passes a statute saying that no federal court, including the Supreme Court, shall have jurisdiction to decide any case involving the constitutionality of laws limiting the rights of children under 15 to obtain an abortion without parental consent. If properly challenges, the statute would be:
a) constitutional because of the plenary power of Congress to determine jurisdiction of the federal courts
b) Constitutional because a series of Supreme Court decisions have upheld the constitutionality of similar statutes
c) unconstitutional because Congress cannot regulate the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
d) Unconstitutional because Congress cannot preclude an entire class of cases from judicial review
d) The Supreme Court is the final interpreter of the constitution and Congress may not exclude an entire class of cases from all judicial review. *B) is incorrect because, despite Congress’s broad power to regulate fed court jurisdiction, it may not use it to effectively overrule a Supreme Court decision
In a case where one state is a party, is there mandatory original supreme court jurisdiction? Ignoring 11th Amendment issues (assume its been waived)…
No. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over controversies between two states. A one-state show would have concurrent jurisdiction in a federal district court.
If a state sues in parens patriae, what does that mean and is there still original supreme court jurisdiction?
Parens patriae means the state is suing on behalf of its citizens where there is a separate sovereign injury/interest. This derivative standing gets the state into federal court but NOT to original supreme court jurisdiction.
Which of the following cases is least likely to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction?
a) Washington v. Oregon, over which state breached its duty to prevent a forest fire
b) NY v. NJ, over which state owns part of an island
c) Texas v. U.S. regarding a state challenge to an executive order reducing federal funding to a highway
d) California v. U.S. regarding state citizens’ interest in continued diplomatic ties with Japan.
d) Here, California is asserting the rights of its citizens rather than a right of its own (parens patriae). Furthermore it’s probably a political question.
State M operates a power plant that uses river water for cooling. The power plant discharges the water back into the river at 10 degrees warmer than it was before. This has adversely affected the business of a downstream ice-cutting operator, North Pole, in State V. At North Pole’s urging, State V sues State M in the U.S. Supreme Court, alleging damage to its environment and seeking an injunction. The U.S. Supreme Court should:
a) dismiss the suit because it is barred by the 11th Amendment
b) hear the matter on the merits because valley is suing in its own right and jurisdiction is proper
c) dismiss the action because it does not have original jurisdiction
d) hear the matter on the merits because Valley is suing in parens patriae
a). this is REALLY a suit between North Pole (a business) and state M. N.P is barred by the 11th Amendment from suing the state in federal court. State V hasn’t alleged an injury in fact.
The town of A has enacted a zoning ordinance that restricts ll land in the town to single-family residences that can only be constructed on lots with certain specifications. An out-of-state developer who plans to build townhouses in town A has brought suit in federal court to enjoin the operation of the statute. Which is the WEAKEST argument for the city if it triads to obtain a dismissal before trial on the merits?
a) The case is moot
b) there is no case or controversy
c) the P lacks standing
d) the issues are not ripe
a) mootness is a case brought too late, but this is a case brought too early (which all of the other three answers get at)
Pursuant to a state enabling statute, the city of E enacted rent control via an ordinance affecting all residential buildings with 10+ dwelling units. as of the effective date of the ordinance, the maximum rent allowed was the rent period charged on that dwelling unit one year prior to the effective date of the statute. L had entered into a 2-year lease with T 6 months prior to the effective date at a rental rate higher than was charged one year prior to the effective date. If L challenges the constitutionality of the ordinance, his most effective argument will be that it:
a) impairs the obligation of contract
b) violates the DP clause because it is retroactive
c) violates the EPC because it treats large landlords differently than small
d) violates the DP clause because rent was controlled without giving him a hearing
a) this is the best answer because the ordinance impairs the obligation of T to L on a contract in existence on its effective date even though the state would merely need to show that it is a reasonable action furthering a legitimate interest. but the contracts clause argument is still a little better than EPC. *note that a hearing is not necessary under DP for generally applicable laws
To whom does the Contracts Clause apply, and what must it/they show in order to survive constitutional scrutiny?
The states, not the federal government. The state must only demonstrate that the law in question is a “reasonable action furthering a legitimate gov’t interest” even if it impairs contracts already in existence.
A lady goes on television and answers some detailed questions about her boobs. The FCC issues a letter of reprimand to the TV station and the station appeals. What is the strongest argument to uphold the FCC’s action?
a) the material present on the show was obscene and so not protected by the 1st Amendment
b) the pervasive nature of television makes it likely that a show scheduled at that hour will reach an immature audience who the gov’t has the right to protect
c) the airwaves are public property, so the gov’t may regulate broadcasts under the police power
d) the show was staged for the purpose of raising revenue and is therefore commercial speech and subject to reasonable regulation
b) the federal gov’t has broader discretion to regulate broadcast media and can regulate the use of the airwaves to protect kiddos. This is not so bad as to be obscene speech, there is no federal police power, and the speech was not commercial.
State A just enacted a statute that charges $5 per year for instate fishing licenses and $500 for out-of-state residents. P is a commercial salmon fisherman from state B who fishes in state A. If P challenges the statute under the P & I clause of Article IV, the Court would find:
a) the statute is constitutional because the state has a proprietary interest in the fish within its borders and therefore may discriminate against nonresidents
b) it was constitutional because no fundamental interest was infringed
c) it is unconstitutional discrimination against nonresidents because it does not bear a substantial relationship to the fact that there is a limited number of salmon
d) it is unconstitutional because a state may not deny an alien a livelihood unless that action is necessary to satisfy a compelling state need
c) the state must show a substantial relationship for discrimination against out-of-state residents under the P&I clause. *earning a living IS a fundamental interest, distinct from recreational fishing. however, the standard is not strict scrutiny for P&I analysis like stated in d)
The ACLU convinces a criminal defendant to appeal his conviction. Does it matter whether the ACLU would have standing?
No. Because it’s the defendant actually doing the litigating!
State G has an antiquated statute making it illegal to use contraceptives (passed the year that condoms were invented). But the state hasn’t prosecuted anyone under it in 80 years and condom sales are booming. Bill and Sally are married in state G. Bill wants to sue in federal court alleging that this contraceptive law is unconstitutional. What is the likely outcome?
a) Dismiss the case, as the outcome would have no practical legal effect
b) dismiss the case because Bill doesn’t have standing
c) Dismiss the case as a violation of the 11th Amendment
d) hear the case on its merits and find the law unconstitutional
a) it is moot,
State of I requires a license for those who engage in the trade of barbering. It grants licenses to those who (1) graduate from an in-state barber school, (2) reside in the state for 2 years, and (3) are U.S. citizens. The requirement that a license applicant have graduated from school in-state is likely:
a) Constitutional because barbering is a privilege not a right
b) Constitutional because the state does not know the quality of barber schools out of the state
c) unconstitutional because it is a violation of the P or I clause (14th Amendment)
d) unconstitutional as an undue burden on interstate commerce
d) - this is not the least restrictive means of accomplishing the state interest so it fails DCC scrutiny. (which is also why B is wrong) *remember the distinction between P&I and P or I