Con Law MBE Flashcards
When is a Regulation a Taking?
(1) Is the regulation a taking under Loretto?
A government regulation is a taking when the government authorizes a permanent physical occupation of real/personal property
(2) Is the regulation a taking under Lucas?
The regulation is a taking when the regulation causes the loss of all economically beneficial/productive uses of the land, unless the regulation is justified by background principles of property law/nuisance law
(3) Is the regulation a taking under Nollan-Dolan?
The regulation is a taking if the government demands an something, such as 유치원, 수영장, in exchange of development, that lacks a nexus with a legitimate state interest or lacks proportionality to project’s impacts
Exaction – a requirement that the developer provides specified land, improvements, payments, or other benefits to the public to help offset the project’s impacts
(4) Is the regulation a taking under the Penn Central balancing test?
Here a court will look at 3 factors:
-The character of the governmental action involved in the regulation
If the government’s action is a physical action, rather than a “regulatory invasion,” then the action is almost certainly a taking
-The extent to which the regulation has interfered with the owner’s reasonable investment-backed expectations
-The regulation’s economic impact on the affected prop owner
A state law that restricted abortion was challenged in state court as a violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and as a violation of a similar due process provision of the state constitution. The case made its way to the state’s highest court, which ruled that the law violated the due process provisions of both the U.S. and the state constitutions.
If petitioned to do so, may the U.S. Supreme Court exercise jurisdiction to review the state court decision?
No, because the state court’s decision in this case rests on adequate and independent state law grounds.
The constitution of a state authorizes a five-member state reapportionment board to redraw state legislative districts every ten years. In the last state legislative reapportionment, the board, by a unanimous vote, divided the greater metropolitan area, composed of a large city and several contiguous townships, into three equally populated state legislative districts. The result of that districting was that 40% of the area’s total Black population resided in one of those districts, 45% of the area’s total Black population resided in the second of those districts, and 15% resided in the third district.
A registered voter, who is Black and is a resident of the city, brings suit in an appropriate court against the members of the state reapportionment board, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief that would require the boundary lines of the state legislative districts in the greater metropolitan area be redrawn. His only claim is that the current reapportionment violates the Fifteenth Amendment because it improperly dilutes the voting power of the Black residents who reside in that area.
If no federal statute is applicable, which of the following facts, if proven, would most strongly support the validity of the action of the state reapportionment board?
In drawing the current district lines, the reapportionment board precisely complied with state constitutional requirements that state legislative districts be compact and follow political subdivision boundaries to the maximum extent feasible.
Congress wishes to enact legislation prohibiting discrimination in the sale or rental of housing on the basis of the affectional preference or sexual preference or sexual orientation of the potential purchaser or renter. Congress wishes this statute to apply to all public and private vendors and lessors of residential property in this country, with a few narrowly drawn exceptions.
The most credible argument for congressional authority to enact such a statute would be based upon the
B. Commerce Clause of Article I, Section 8, because, in inseverable aggregates, the sale or rental of almost all housing in this country could reasonably be deemed to have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
he most credible basis for congressional authority to enact a statute prohibiting discrimination in the sale or rental of housing on the basis of sexual orientation, both public and private, is the Commerce Clause. The congressional commerce power is plenary and includes even purely intrastate activities, both public and private, that have an aggregate substantial effect on interstate commerce. The sale and rental of nearly all housing nationwide would likely be found to have a substantial effect on interstate commerce in the aggregate.
