Constitutional Law Flashcards
ALA Quizzes, Kaplan Quizzes, Kaplan Qbank
Following a judicial determination that it had engaged in past discrimination, a state university agreed to hold 15% of the admissions spots in each department for minority students. A couple years later, a white female student applied to the state university’s comparative poetry program and was rejected. The student’s aptitude test scores and grade point average were above more than half of the minority students admitted into the program. The student subsequently brought suit against the university claiming that she was unlawfully discriminated against because of her race.
Should the court rule in favor of the student?
A No, because a state may consider race as a factor in admissions when it is attempting to aid disadvantaged minorities and penalizes no particular group.
B No, because the racial classification is designed to remedy past unlawful discrimination.
C Yes, because a classification solely by race, even to achieve a worthy purpose, is not necessary to satisfy a compelling state need, and therefore violates the Equal Protection Clause.
D Yes, because a state university may not use race as a criterion in making admissions decisions.
The correct answer is: No, because the racial classification is designed to remedy past unlawful discrimination.
Discussion of correct answer: While race or ethnic origin may be considered in admissions programs, minority set-asides are not constitutional when they are instituted in an attempt to remedy general societal injustice. However, racial quotas may be used to remedy past unlawful racial discrimination [University of California Regents v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978); Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003)]. Here, the state university has been found guilty of past discrimination, and instituted the affirmative action program under court order. As such, the set-aside here is legal, and the court should rule in favor of the university.
In a 2010 lawsuit, a state university was held to have unlawfully refused applicants into the engineering masters program on account of their race in the past. The university agreed to hold 20 places in each class for black students, pursuant to a consent decree entered that same year. In 2012, a white male student applied to the engineering masters program at a state university and was rejected. The student’s engineering aptitude test score and grade point average was above 15 of the 20 black students admitted.
If the student brings suit to require that he be admitted because the university has unlawfully discriminated against him because of his race, what would the court do?
A Grant relief, because a state may not use race as a criterion in making admissions decisions.
B Grant relief, because a classification solely by race, even to achieve a worthy purpose, is not necessary to satisfy a compelling state need, and therefore violates the Equal Protection Clause.
C Deny relief, because a state may consider race as a factor in admissions when it is attempting to aid disadvantaged minorities and penalizes no particular group.
D Deny relief, because the racial classification is designed to remedy past unlawful discrimination.
The correct answer is: Deny relief, because the racial classification is designed to remedy past unlawful discrimination.
Discussion of correct answer: Racial quotas may be used to remedy past unlawful racial discrimination. This case is different from University of California Regents v. Bakke [438 U.S. 265 (1978)], because the University of California had not been found guilty of past discrimination and was not under a court order to integrate, whereas the state university could be required to use the quota system because of its past discrimination.
A company was in the business of manufacturing bulletproof vests. The vast majority of the vests that it sold were sold to the federal government for use by the United States Army. The company implemented a rule mandating that all employees retire once they reached the age of 60. A longtime employee of the company who was 62 years old filed a lawsuit against the company alleging that the new rule violated his rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Which of the following arguments is the company’s best defense against the man’s lawsuit?
A The employee cannot meet his burden of showing that the rule bears no rational relationship to any legitimate government interest.
B The company can meet its burden to show that the rule is substantially related to an important government interest.
C The company can meet its burden to show that the rule is necessary to further a compelling government interest.
D The employee cannot demonstrate that the state action requirement has been met.
The correct answer is: The employee cannot demonstrate that the state action requirement has been met.
Discussion of correct answer: The Equal Protection Clause only applies to actions of the federal government and the states. The company, a private citizen, cannot violate the Equal Protection Clause, even though the company sells most of its products to the federal government. The company was not carrying on activities normally performed by the government nor was there significant state involvement in the company’s activities that would warrant application of the Equal Protection Clause to the company’s rule.
A city with a majority nonwhite population has historically had a nonwhite police commissioner. After a recent election, the new city mayor appointed the first white police commissioner in decades. Two months into the job, the new commissioner instated a “qualification exam” requirement for all current police officers and those seeking to become officers. The stated purpose of this exam was to “ensure that only the most qualified people are upholding the laws of this city and state.” Current officers who failed the exam would have their employment terminated, and new applicants would need to pass the exam before being considered to join the police academy. For those who failed the exam, an appeals process was also put in place, allowing the applicant to argue that they were qualified for the position despite failing the written exam.
In the wake of the new requirements, 80% of the nonwhite police officers failed the exam and were fired, while only 20% of the white officers failed. Of those who appealed, over 75% of white officers had their appeals granted, while only 10% of nonwhite officers had theirs granted. After six months, it was found that white applicants passed the test 68% of the time, while only 12% of nonwhite applicants passed. Half of the white applicants who appealed were admitted to the police academy, while no nonwhite applicant’s appeal was granted.
Is the city’s qualification exam requirement constitutional?
A No, because tests that disadvantage racial minorities receive strict scrutiny and are presumptively unconstitutional.
B No, because the test has a disparate impact on the success of racial minority candidates.
C Yes, because a state’s police powers includes the absolute right to prescribe qualifications for city police officers.
D Yes, because there is no evidence of intentional race discrimination in the administration of the test.
The correct answer is: Yes, because there is no evidence of intentional race discrimination in the administration of the test.
Discussion of correct answer: In Washington v. Davis [426 U.S. 229 (1976)], the Supreme Court held that race-neutral qualifications for state offices did not trigger heightened (i.e., intermediate or strict) scrutiny in the absence of evidence of a discriminatory purpose. In Davis and other cases, the Court has made clear that a disproportionate impact on distinct racial groups is insufficient to show intentional discrimination and trigger heightened scrutiny.
A state recently enacted a statute prohibiting all minors under the age of 18 from consuming any form of alcoholic beverage. The statute was passed due to concern regarding the deleterious effects of underage drinking. During legislative hearings, unassailable data was presented showing that the majority of automobile accidents involving teenage drivers involved those who were driving under the influence of alcohol. Furthermore, the legislature was alarmed by the testimony from leading psychologists and educators documenting a link between alcohol dependency and increased suicide rates among high school students. A local church filed suit challenging the constitutionality of the statute on free exercise grounds. The church contends that for the last 100 years, as part of its communion service, seven-year-olds who receive their first holy communion drink a sip of red wine. Which of the following correctly states the burden of persuasion?
a. The state has the burden of showing that the statute is necessary to further a compelling government interest.
b. The state has the burden of showing that the statute furthers a legitimate government interest.
c. The church has the burden of showing that the statute is not rationally related to a legitimate government interest.
d. The church has the burden of showing that the statute does not further a compelling government interest.
c. The church has the burden of showing that the statute is not rationally related to a legitimate government interest.
A state statute flatly bans the sale or distribution of contraceptive devices to minors. A national retailer of drugs and related items is charged with violating the statute.
Which of the following is the strongest constitutional argument the retailer could make to defend itself?
A The statute constitutes an undue burden on interstate commerce.
B The statute denies minors a fundamental right without due process.
C The statute denies the retailer a privilege or immunity of state citizenship.
D The statute violates the First Amendment right to freedom of religion because it regulates morals.
The correct answer is: The statute denies minors a fundamental right without due process.
Discussion of correct answer: The strongest argument is that the statute prohibiting the sale of contraceptives to minors would infringe upon the fundamental right to privacy protected by the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. The retailer would be able to assert those rights because it has third-party standing. Third-party standing allows a claimant to challenge government action that violates the constitutional rights of third parties when: (1) a “special relationship” exists between the claimant and the third party; and (2) it would be difficult, unlikely, or impossible for the third party to challenge the government action itself. Here, the relationship of seller-buyer (in this problem, the retailer and the minors) would be sufficient and it would be highly unlikely that minors would assert a cause of action in court to challenge this law. Moreover, the fundamental right challenge would be successful because the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down laws that prohibited minors from purchasing contraceptives.
A state requires aspiring applicants who wish to become officers in the state National Guard to take a “leadership exam” that consists of 100 multiple-choice questions. The questions measure literacy, knowledge of National Guard procedures, and judgment of possible courses of action in hypothetical combat and noncombat situations. The racial composition of the applicant pool for officer candidates is 54% white and 46% racial minorities. Historically, 60% of white applicants pass the exam, while only 25% of racial minority applicants do so. As a result of the exam requirement, the officer corps of the state National Guard is disproportionately composed of white officers compared to both the proportion of minority applicants and the proportion of racial minorities in the population of the state as a whole.
Is the state’s leadership exam requirement constitutional?
A Yes, because a state’s police powers includes the absolute right to prescribe qualifications for state officers, including members of its National Guard.
B Yes, because there is no evidence of intentional race discrimination in the administration of the test.
C No, because the test has a disparate impact on the success of racial minority candidates.
D No, because tests that disadvantage racial minorities receive strict scrutiny and are presumptively unconstitutional.
The correct answer is: Yes, because there is no evidence of intentional race discrimination in the administration of the test.
Discussion of correct answer: In Washington v. Davis [426 U.S. 229 (1976)], the Supreme Court held that race-neutral qualifications for state offices did not trigger heightened (i.e., intermediate or strict) scrutiny in the absence of evidence of a discriminatory purpose. In Davis and other cases, the Court has made clear that a disproportionate impact on distinct racial groups, standing alone, is insufficient to show intentional discrimination and trigger heightened scrutiny. Here, there is no evidence of intentional race discrimination other than the disproportionate impact, and so the exam requirement is constitutional.
A county decided to revamp its voting procedures in order to streamline the process. The county ordered new touch-screen voting machines, solicited more volunteers for election days, lengthened voting hours, made vote-by-mail available to all residents, and enacted various other rules to help make sure that election days ran more smoothly. One new rule required people to check in at the polls at the table labeled with their party affiliation: Republican, Democrat, or Other. A voter in that county objected to this modification of the manner in which elections were conducted. She was a Democrat who sent her child to a school in her neighborhood that was very heavily populated with Republicans. She served on the board of the parent-teacher organization at the school. The voter did not wish for her party affiliation to be public in case it might cause controversy for herself or her child.
Assuming proper standing, if the voter challenges the constitutionality of the rule requiring voters to line up according to party affiliation at the polls, what is the likely outcome?
A The rule will be invalidated, because it violates her right to privacy.
B The rule will be invalidated, because it violates her procedural due process rights.
C The rule will be upheld, because it passes strict scrutiny.
D The rule will be upheld, because it passes the rational basis test.
The correct answer is: The rule will be upheld, because it passes the rational basis test.
Discussion of correct answer: The court is likely to uphold this rule, because the county will only need to show a rational relationship between the rule and the county’s objective to streamline voting procedures. Strict scrutiny applies when the government restricts the right to vote, a right that has been held to be fundamental under the Constitution. However, rational basis scrutiny applies to reasonable restrictions based on things like age or duration of residency. Moreover, voter registration requirements and regulation of the time, place, and manner of casting ballots are valid so long as they do not impose an undue burden on the right to vote. Here, there is no restriction at all on the right to vote, other than the concern that others will know your party affiliation. Because the county made vote-by-mail an option for everyone and because voter registrations are public records anyway, it seems very unlikely that this rule will be held to violate the Constitution. There is no constitutionally protected privacy right as to party affiliation.
An investigative report by a major network news magazine revealed that fish and other seafood in fish markets around the country were improperly stored at high temperatures, and in unsanitary conditions, creating a serious public health hazard. In response to the report, the state legislature of Atlantis enacted regulations requiring all commercial fish markets in Atlantis, and all out-of-state markets doing business in Atlantis, to have their seafood inspected by the Atlantis Fisheries Division (AFD), a state agency. An AFD inspection sticker certifies the seafood as safe for sale in Atlantis. The inspection regulations provide that uncertified seafood is subject to seizure and destruction by the AFD.
Hook runs the biggest lobster market in the State of Marina. Forty percent of Hook’s yearly sales are in Atlantis. All of Hook’s seafood is inspected according to stringent standards set by Marina, but Atlantis has informed him that Marina certification cannot be substituted for Atlantis certification of any lobsters that cross state lines. In a suit by Hook to enjoin enforcement of the inspection regulations as to his lobster business, is Hook likely to prevail?
A. No, because the Atlantis state regulations have a rational relationship to the health and safety of Atlantis citizens.
B. No, because Atlantis has a legitimate state interest in protecting Atlantis citizens from unsafe food.
C. Yes, because the Atlantis state regulations interfere with Hook’s interstate business in lobsters.
D. Yes, because the Atlantis state regulations violate Hook’s equal protection rights.
C. Yes, because the Atlantis state regulations interfere with Hook’s interstate business in lobsters.
An animal rights activist group always fought developers when construction projects threatened wildlife in the area. Some members of the group became involved in a battle with a corporation that owned the largest ski resort in town. The corporation obtained permits to expand its operations by adding additional trails on the mountain and increasing the square footage of its ski lodge. Members of the group resisted all expansion efforts in the proper public forums, but when the corporation’s permits were approved, some of the more extreme members decided to take desperate action.
Fringe members flooded the unoccupied ski lodge by opening the gates of a local dam during the off-season. The dam water flooded the lodge, rendering it a total loss and causing millions of dollars in damages. Thereafter, the state legislature enacted a law restricting the rights of members of the group in several ways, one of which was excluding members of the group from holding elected office in the state. A senator justified the legislation on grounds that “terrorists have no place in our placid state.” A member of the group was in the middle of his campaign for mayor. The member did not participate in the flooding of the ski lodge.
If the member challenges the constitutionality of the exclusionary legislation in court, what is the likely outcome?
A The state will prevail, because the group is a subversive organization.
B The state will prevail, because it acted within its police power.
C The member will prevail, because the law is a bill of attainder.
D The member will prevail, because he did not engage in violence as a member of the group.
The correct answer is: The member will prevail, because the law is a bill of attainder.
Discussion of correct answer: A bill of attainder punishes named individuals or easily ascertainable members of a group without the benefit of judicial trial. In the Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 states: “No bill of attainder…shall be passed”; and Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 provides: “No state shall pass any Bill of Attainder.” These apply to states as well as the federal government. The state legislation in this question is a bill of attainder because it amounts to legislative punishment for membership in the animal rights activist group. Members of the group, such as the member in question, are prohibited from holding elective office without a judicial determination of their right to serve. The legislation is unconstitutional.
A statute regulating the practice of midwives in a state was passed at midnight at the end of the regular legislative session. There were few legislators in attendance at the time of the vote, because most of the work of the legislature had been done and most members had gone home for the holidays, although a quorum existed. The sponsor of the legislation finally succeeded in persuading a core group to vote for the bill, which included a provision that the founder of the midwives’ lobbying group would no longer be licensed under the state’s laws. The group’s founder was a practicing midwife who had lobbied successfully against health maintenance organizations and on behalf of a number of state laws guaranteeing patients the right to treatment in the area of pregnancy and childbirth. The bill’s sponsor saw the midwives’ successes as having driven up the cost of health care treatment throughout the state.
If the group challenges the revocation of the founder’s license in federal court, what is the most likely outcome?
A The state will prevail, because regulation of the group does not implicate interstate commerce.
B The state will prevail, because a license is a privilege that can be revoked without procedural due process.
C The lobbying group will prevail, because the revocation constitutes a bill of attainder.
D The lobbying group will prevail, because the revocation violates members’ right to work under the Privileges and Immunities Clause.
The correct answer is: The lobbying group will prevail, because the revocation constitutes a bill of attainder.
Discussion of correct answer: Sections 9 and 10 in Article I of the U.S. Constitution bar both federal and state legislatures from passing bills of attainder. A bill of attainder is a legislative act that inflicts punishment without a judicial trial upon named individuals or an easily ascertainable group for past conduct. The legislative act in this question named the person to be punished and revoked her license to practice midwifery in the state without giving her notice and a hearing. The revocation was unconstitutional, and the group should prevail.
A state provided for the free distribution of textbooks to all public and private school students, certified teachers, and offered vouchers and tuition grants for families wishing to send their children to private schools. One private school that offers elementary and secondary education in the state denies admission to all children of Canadian descent.
Two children whose family originated from Toronto, and who had lived in the state for several generations, were denied admission to the private school. The parents subsequently filed an action against the state challenging the distribution of vouchers and tuition grants to the school was unconstitutional.
Which of the following is the strongest argument in favor of finding the challenged public aid unconstitutional?
A Issuing tuition grants to this private school furthers segregation.
B It is unconstitutional for a state to provide aid to private schools.
C The Constitution forbids private, as well as public, bias in education.
D Tuition grants for private schools do not serve any legitimate educational function.
The correct answer is: Issuing tuition grants to this private school furthers segregation.
Discussion of correct answer: The Supreme Court has held that public aid given to private, segregated schools–including the free distribution of textbooks, exclusive use of public facilities, or the issuance of tuition grants–is unconstitutional [Norwood v. Harrison, 413 U.S. 455 (1973)]. The majority opinion stated that a state cannot give significant aid to schools that practice racial or other invidious discrimination.
A state abortion statute contains the following provisions applicable to all persons seeking an abortion: (1) any person seeking an abortion at a public hospital must meet with a counselor and review written information about the procedure at least one day before any procedure will be performed, (2) any person seeking an abortion who is ineligible for Medicaid funds and is otherwise uninsured must reimburse the hospital for the cost of the procedure, and (3) any person seeking an abortion at a public hospital must provide proof of residency in the state for a period not less than one month. The same statute contains the following provision applicable to minor persons seeking an abortion: Any minor person seeking an abortion must notify her parents prior to the procedure, absent court approval.
Which provision of the statute is most vulnerable to constitutional challenge?
(A) The provision requiring reimbursement for costs.
(B) The provision requiring proof of state residency
(C) The provision requiring a one-day waiting period before the procedure will be performed.
(D) The provision applying to a minor person seeking an abortion.
(B) The provision requiring proof of state residency
A city school board often permitted nonreligious organizations to conduct meetings at high school buildings after school hours. A local religious group submitted a request to use a public high school building to conduct a meeting one evening. The school board denied the request, claiming that allowing the religious group to use school property would violate the Establishment Clause. The religious group filed suit in state court asserting that the school board’s action violated the organization’s rights of equal protection and freedom of speech. In addition, the religious group argued that conducting a meeting in a school building after regular school hours did not violate the Establishment Clause inasmuch as other nonreligious organizations were granted access. Is the school board’s action in denying the religious group access to the public school building valid?
a. Yes, because allowing equal access to the school for religious speech would violate the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.
b. Yes, because allowing religious groups to use public school buildings fosters excessive entanglement between state and church.
c. No, because allowing nonreligious groups to use school premises after school hours while denying religious organizations equal access violates the First Amendment’s freedom of speech.
d. No, because allowing nonreligious groups to use school premises after school hours while denying religious organizations equal access violates equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.
c. No, because allowing nonreligious groups to use school premises after school hours while denying religious organizations equal access violates the First Amendment’s freedom of speech.
A state held an election in which there were many charges of voter fraud and vote manipulation. Concerned about voting fraud, the state legislature passed a bill providing that any resident of the state who wished to vote in a state election could not vote until he or she had lived within the state for at least one year. The governor of the state signed the bill into law. A group of new residents who wished to vote in a state election but were prohibited under the new law brought suit to enjoin the enforcement of the statute.
How should the court rule?
A In favor of the plaintiffs, because under the strict scrutiny analysis, a one-year residency requirement is unconstitutional.
B In favor of the plaintiffs, because under the rational basis analysis, a one-year residency requirement is unconstitutional.
C In favor of the state, because under a strict scrutiny analysis, the statute is necessary to further a compelling state interest, namely to prevent voter fraud.
D In favor of the state, because under a rational basis analysis, the statute is rationally related to a legitimate state interest, namely
The correct answer is: In favor of the plaintiffs, because under the strict scrutiny analysis, a one-year residency requirement is unconstitutional.
Discussion of correct answer: For purposes of voting, this state has instituted a durational residency requirement. Specifically, it requires voters to have lived in the state for at least one year. Because such durational residency requirements impact a fundamental right (as they prevent certain persons from voting for a period of time), they are analyzed under a strict scrutiny analysis. While there are exceptions, as a general matter, one-year residency requirements will not be upheld. More specifically, this durational residency requirement was promulgated because of concerns about voter fraud. However, the Supreme Court has determined that residency requirements are not necessary to address such concerns. For these reasons, the statute will be found unconstitutional.
A job applicant was a resident alien living in a northeastern state when she earned a graduate degree in education from a top-ranked university in her home state. The program in which she obtained her degree fulfilled all the requirements for state certification in elementary education. The applicant applied for teaching positions throughout the northeast. The job market was tight, and the applicant received few positive responses to her applications. The principal at a public school in her home state returned the applicant’s application with a brief letter indicating that she would not be considered for a position, per state regulation, because she was not a U.S. citizen. The applicant, believing that she was denied employment based on alienage, brought suit against the school.
What is the likely outcome of the applicant’s lawsuit?
(A) The applicant will prevail, because her equal protection rights have been violated.
(B) The applicant will prevail, because she is a member of a protected class.
(C) The applicant will not prevail, because public employment is not a right.
(D) The applicant will not prevail, because this discrimination is reasonable
(D) The applicant will not prevail, because this discrimination is reasonable
Most of the communities in Red State are racially segregated. The segregation is not a result of any governmental action; it just happens that people settled the state in this manner. One of the public school districts in the state covers an area where residents in the west are white and residents in the east are African-American. As a result, the schools are racially segregated. The school board decides to take action to desegregate the schools. The school board chooses some of the African-American students and assigns them to the school in the west, while moving some of the white students to the school in the east. Some of the parents of students who have been reassigned challenge the reassignment as unconstitutional. The school board maintains that its actions were appropriate to achieve racial desegregation.
Who will prevail?
A The parents, because a school district is not permitted to carry out actions designed for racial balancing to correct de facto segregation.
B The parents, because a school district cannot reassign students based on race to correct de facto segregation.
C The school district, because a school district may reassign students based on race in order to correct de jure segregation.
D The school district, because a school district may carry out voluntary racial balancing by taking action such as reassigning students, redrawing school zones, or building new schools.
The correct answer is: The parents, because a school district cannot reassign students based on race to correct de facto segregation.
Discussion of correct answer: As a general rule, affirmative action measures based on race must pass strict scrutiny. The U.S. Supreme Court has explicitly ruled that a school district may not assign individual students to schools based on race in order to achieve “voluntary integration” or “racial balancing,” when school segregation is caused by social factors (known as de facto segregation). Here, the facts indicate that the racial segregation in this school district is, in fact, de facto segregation; it was caused by social factors, such as the manner in which residents settled in the area. Therefore, the school board may not reassign students throughout the school district in order to achieve a “racial balance.”
Recent evidence reported in leading medical journals suggests that hearing loss affects 75% of citizens over the age of 70. A state legislature, concerned with increasing the quality of care to its senior citizens, passes a bill providing that only medical doctors with specialized training in audiology may prescribe and sell hearing aids. The law provides a “grandfather clause” however, exempting all currently registered vendors of hearing aids who have no medical training, as long as they remain in business. A doctor who operates a hearing clinic, brings suit challenging the “grandfather clause” exemption in the new statute.
Is the exemption in the law for all currently registered vendors of hearing aids constitutional?
A Yes, because the classification between existing and new vendors has a rational basis.
B Yes, because those who lawfully engage in an occupation have a fundamental right to continue to do so.
C No, because the statute denies the equal protection of the laws to those patients who purchase hearing aids from non-physicians.
D No, because the statute denies non-physicians desiring to enter this occupation the equal protection of the laws.
The correct answer is: Yes, because the classification between existing and new vendors has a rational basis.
Discussion of correct answer: Because the legislature’s purpose in enacting the statute was to upgrade medical care for the elderly, there is a rational basis for excluding new, non-physician hearing aid vendors.
Under pressure stemming from a recent accident in which an elderly man ran his car through an outdoor café, injuring several patrons, the state legislature revised its Motor Vehicle Code. Specifically, the legislature enacted a law requiring all citizens to renew their driver’s license every other year, rather than every four years. Additionally, the statute required persons over 65 to take both the written and the driving parts of the exam. A 67-year-old man had recently retired from his job as a city bus driver. He was thereafter informed that he needed to retake both parts of the driving test by the end of the year in order to maintain his license. He claims that he has been a bus driver for 40 years, and never had an accident. He now brings suit in federal district court challenging the state’s new legislation.
Which of the following is the most accurate statement?
(A) The statute is constitutional, because a state can put more stringent requirements on its employees, especially those involved in public safety.
(B) The state must show that the law is rationally related to a legitimate government interest.
(C) The man must show that the law is not rationally related to a legitimate government interest.
(D) The man must show that the law is not substantially related to an important government interest.
(C) The man must show that the law is not rationally related to a legitimate government interest.
After a highly destructive oil spill, a state passes a law providing substantial funds for environmental remediation. The law allows private contractors to bid for a subset of the funds. It further requires that 15% of all contracts awarded under the bidding process must be awarded to businesses which have greater than 40% of their ownership interests or stock held by racial minorities. The legislative history of the law is clear that its purpose was to promote diversity among government contract recipients and to encourage economic opportunity for minority-owned businesses. The provision has been challenged by a private environmental remediation firm government defense contractor that does not satisfy the 40% racial minority ownership requirement, and which believes it would have been awarded a contract in the absence of the provision. Is this statute constitutional?
A. Yes, because diversity is a compelling government interest.
B. Yes, because the statute remedies the effects of past discrimination.
C. No, because the provision is not tailored to advance an important government interest.
D. No, because the provision lacks a compelling government interest.
D. No, because the provision lacks a compelling government interest.
The head of a city’s Department of Public Works was a jovial and gregarious fellow. He enjoyed his job, and his workers loved working for him. Although the city hired its maintenance workers “at will,” the head of the Department of Public Works made it a point to let his workers know that once they were on the job for at least seven years, he would never fire them unless they erred so badly as to threaten his job.
When one of his workers reached the seven-year mark, the head of the Department would throw an after-work party at a local Veterans of Foreign Wars hall to honor the employee. At one of these parties, the guest of honor, an employee who had reached his seventh anniversary of employment with the Department, got a bit too drunk and started a fistfight with a co-worker. The next day, the head of the Department fired the employee, saying that he couldn’t bear to have disharmony in his department. The city manager denied the employee a hearing on the matter. The employee sued the city for reinstatement and back pay.
How should the court rule?
A In favor of the city, because the city’s maintenance workers were hired “at will.”
B In favor of the city, because the employee did not have a property interest in his job.
C In favor of the employee, because the refusal to give the employee a hearing violated his due process rights.
D In favor of the employee, because the injury to the employee’s reputation from being fired is a protected liberty interest.
The correct answer is: In favor of the employee, because the refusal to give the employee a hearing violated his due process rights.
Discussion of correct answer: Both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments protect against the deprivation of “life, liberty or property without the due process of the law.” People are entitled to procedural safeguards (i.e., some form of notice and hearing) when threatened with state deprivation of life, liberty, or property. In matters of public employment, there is a property interest if the employment is under a tenure system or there is a clear understanding, either expressed or implied, that the employee can be terminated only for cause [Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 (1972)]. In this question, the head of the Department of Public Works made it clear that he would not fire his employees without cause after they had been working for the department for seven years and even threw parties to celebrate the occasion. Therefore, the employee had a property interest in his job and was entitled to adequate process before being fired. The city manager’s refusal to give the employee a hearing violated the employee’s due process rights.
Due to a surge in the state’s illegal immigrant population, public elementary and secondary schools across the state faced severe overcrowding issues. The situation was compounded by a recent period of economic depression, and local districts struggled to find adequate resources to sustain their public school programs. In an attempt to discourage illegal immigrants from sending children to public schools, the state legislature revised its education laws to withhold from local school districts state funds for educating the children of illegal aliens. An immigration advocacy group subsequently filed a federal suit challenging the constitutionality of the new law.
Should the court rule in favor of upholding the law?
A Yes, because it is rationally related to a legitimate state interest.
B Yes, because illegal aliens are not protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
C No, because less restrictive alternative means are available.
D No, because it does not further a substantial state interest.
The correct answer is: No, because it does not further a substantial state interest.
Discussion of correct answer: State laws discriminating against legal aliens are subject to strict scrutiny, and those discriminating against illegal aliens are subject to rational basis review. However, the Supreme Court has established a special in-between rule for the children of illegal aliens. In Plyler v. Doe, the Court held that a stringent version of the rational basis test applies to evaluate a state law interfering with the right of illegal alien children to free public education. Under this test, the measure being challenged will not be upheld unless it furthers some substantial goal of the state. Because this answer applies the Plyler standard correctly, it is the best choice.
A fitness instructor wanted to open a new gym in a city neighborhood known locally as “Fitnessville,” because of its many gyms, fitness studios, and juice bars. The man purchased an empty lot and submitted the appropriate plans to the city authorities for a building permit. The building inspector, backed by the city zoning and planning commission, denied the instructor’s application for a building permit, stating the following reasons in a written decision: (1) the local neighborhood could not sustain any further traffic entering and exiting the area; (2) the neighborhood already had 12 gyms of a similar nature, four of which would be on the same street and block as the proposed gym location; and (3) the location of the entrance to the planned gym was too close to a dangerous intersection. The fitness instructor requested an opportunity before the city zoning and planning commission to address each of these reasons for denying his building permit, but the city authorities replied that the decision was final. The fitness instructor then brought an appropriate action challenging the constitutionality of the city’s decision.
Which of the following provides the fitness instructor with the strongest argument?
A Procedural due process.
B The Contract Clause.
C The Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
D The Takings Clause.
The correct answer is: Procedural due process.
Discussion of correct answer: Under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, citizens are protected against the deprivation of life, liberty, or property without the due process of the law. Procedural due process guarantees notice and the right to be heard.
A state enacted a statute that provided scholarships to students who attained high academic achievement and were from families with low or modest incomes. A portion of the statute stated that no part of the scholarship funds could be used by a student to pursue a degree in theology. This portion of the statute was reflective of the state’s constitution, which provided that no public money could be used to fund religious worship or studies. The scholarship aid was available to be used at religiously affiliated colleges, so long as the college was nationally accredited and the scholarship recipient did not pursue a degree in theology. A student eligible for the scholarship wished to attend a religiously affiliated college in the state, to pursue a degree in theology. When informed that he could not receive the scholarship and pursue a degree in theology, the student sued the state to enjoin it from refusing to award the scholarship. How should the court rule?
a. In favor of the student, because under strict scrutiny analysis, the state had singled out religion for unfavorable treatment, and the state’s anti-establishment concerns were not compelling.
b. In favor of the student, because a person’s religious beliefs are protected, and a government may not punish an individual by denying benefits or imposing burdens based on religious belief.
c. In favor of the state, because although the state’s funding of theological studies would be permitted under the Establishment Clause, the Free Exercise Clause did not require the state to do so.
d. In favor of the state, because under strict scrutiny analysis, while the state had singled out religious study for unfavorable treatment, the state’s anti-establishment concerns were compelling.
c. In favor of the state, because although the state’s funding of theological studies would be permitted under the Establishment Clause, the Free Exercise Clause did not require the state to do so.
Recent evidence reported in leading medical journals suggests that hearing loss affects 75% of citizens over the age of 70. A state legislature, concerned with increasing the quality of care to its senior citizens, passes a bill providing that only medical doctors with specialized training in audiology may prescribe and sell hearing aids. The law provides a “grandfather clause” however, exempting all currently registered vendors of hearing aids who have no medical training, as long as they remain in business. A doctor who operates a hearing clinic, brings suit challenging the “grandfather clause” exemption in the new statute. Is the exemption in the law for all currently registered vendors of hearing aids constitutional?
A. Yes, because the classification between existing and new vendors has a rational basis.
B. Yes, because those who lawfully engage in an occupation have a fundamental right to continue to do so.
C. No, because the statute denies the equal protection of the laws to those patients who purchase hearing aids from non-physicians.
D. No, because the statute denies non-physicians desiring to enter this occupation the equal protection of the laws.
A. Yes, because the classification between existing and new vendors has a rational basis.
The U.S. Congress enacts legislation providing for the reclassification of certain federal civil service jobs involving the Justice Department and nuclear weapons facilities, as well as the FBI and CIA. The legislation states in pertinent part that “persons engaged in work involving the development, design, testing, implementation, or maintenance of cryptographic systems or computerized weapons guidance systems shall be U.S. citizens. Aliens, except aliens with permanent resident status, are excluded.”
Which of the following is the strongest argument in support of the constitutionality of the legislation?
(A) The exclusion of aliens is justified by the compelling government interest in protecting national security.
(B) The exclusion of aliens is rationally related to a legitimate government interest in national security.
(C) The exclusion of aliens does not violate the privileges and immunities of Article IV.
(D) The exclusion of aliens is within the plenary power of the U.S. Congress in this area.
(B) The exclusion of aliens is rationally related to a legitimate government interest in national security.
The Department of Public Employment is responsible for initial screening of everyone seeking civil service employment with the state government. All applicants are given a standardized test and then undergo an oral interview by a panel of Department of Employment officers. The final step in the screening process is an individual interview with a Department of Employment counselor. The counselor tallies the scores from the test, the panel interview, and his or her own evaluation, and compares the total to the statutorily prescribed score range for the position the applicant is seeking. If the applicant’s score is within the range, his or her application is forwarded as “approved” to the relevant state agency. Some counselors occasionally discuss with unsuccessful applicants the nature of their scores and the reasons why they fell short in particular areas. No statute, regulation, or departmental policy requires the counselors to inform the applicants of anything other than whether their application is or is not “approved.” The number of applicants receiving the post-interview discussion is relatively small compared with the total processed by the Department of Employment. An applicant for employment with the state was informed following his individual interview that his application would not be forwarded “approved” to the state agency with which he was seeking a position. His counselor refused to discuss with him anything about his score or why he did not attain a score sufficient to be “approved.”
If the applicant brings an action to compel the state to provide him with the information supplied to the applicants who do receive post-interview discussions, will he prevail?
A No, because he had no protectable property interest in being employed by the state.
B No, because the Tenth Amendment exempts state government employment from federal regulation.
C Yes, because the treatment of unsuccessful job applicants by the state violates the Equal Protection Clause.
D Yes, because the right to engage in gainful employment is a protected liberty interest within the operation of the Due Process Clause.
The correct answer is: No, because he had no protectable property interest in being employed by the state.
Discussion of correct answer: For constitutional law purposes, the Due Process Clauses limit government power to deprive a person of “liberty” or “property.” The definition of the interests protected is not capable of precise formulation, but the notion of “property” includes more than ownership of tangible things or commercial value. It also encompasses interests in statuses or relationships that have important economic value. Generally, however, due process can only be invoked to protect a property interest to which the individual is already entitled. When the person first applies for the economic benefit–such as public employment–a protected due process property interest is not involved. In this question, the applicant is seeking employment with the state. He, therefore, has no property interest in public employment protectable by the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause and will not be able to compel the state to afford him any due process procedures.
Congress recently enacted a statute prohibiting discrimination in the rental of residential property anywhere in the United States based on sexual orientation or preference by any person or entity, public or private. A landlord in State A has since refused to rent an apartment to two men who he suspects are gay.
If the men bring an action against the landlord challenging his actions, what constitutional provision would be most helpful for them in asserting their claim?
(A) The Thirteenth Amendment.
(B) The Commerce Clause.
(C) The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
(D) The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
(B) The Commerce Clause.
A county decided to revamp its voting procedures in order to streamline the process. The county ordered new touch-screen voting machines, solicited more volunteers for election days, lengthened voting hours, made vote-by-mail available to all residents, and enacted various other rules to help make sure that election days ran more smoothly. One new rule required people to check in at the polls at the table labeled with their party affiliation: Republican, Democrat, or Other. A voter in that county objected to this particular rule. She was a Democrat who sent her child to a school in her neighborhood that was very heavily populated with Republicans. She served on the board of the parent-teacher organization at the school. The voter did not wish for her party affiliation to be public in case it might cause controversy for herself or her child.
Assuming proper standing, if the voter challenges the constitutionality of the rule requiring voters to line up according to party affiliation at the polls, what is the likely outcome?
(A) The rule will be invalidated because it violates her right to privacy.
(B) The rule will be invalidated because it violates her procedural due process rights.
(C) The rule will be upheld because it passes strict scrutiny.
(D) The rule will be upheld because it passes the rational basis test.
(D) The rule will be upheld because it passes the rational basis test.
A particular state has funded abortions for low-income women as part of its state welfare program for the past 15 years. After a recent election cycle resulted in a shift in the makeup of the state’s legislature, the state removed the provision allowing for the public funding for abortions. The removal is slated to become effective one year from the date of the enactment of the provision’s repeal.
Is the removal of the provision constitutional?
A Yes, because the constitutional right to an abortion does not apply to the states, only to the federal government.
B Yes, because there is no constitutional right for low-income women to receive state-funded abortions.
C No, because the statute discriminates against low-income women on the basis of their poverty, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
D No, because the statute places an undue burden on a woman’s right to have an abortion.
The correct answer is: Yes, because there is no constitutional right for low-income women to receive state-funded abortions.
Discussion of correct answer: This is actually a correct statement of the law, even though at first glance it might seem too stark of a rejection of the right to an abortion as recognized in Roe v. Wade [410 U.S. 113 (1973)] and reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey [505 U.S. 833 (1992)]. Current law prohibits the government from placing an undue burden on a woman’s access to an abortion, but this rule does not require the government to pay for a woman’s abortion, even if she is unable to pay for it herself without aid from the state [Maher v. Roe, 432 U.S. 464 (1977)].
A city’s school board decided to redraw school zones and to assign students to different schools based on the students’ race in order to achieve greater racial integration in the city’s schools. Although the city’s schools had never been subject to any segregation laws, they were extremely segregated. A coalition of white parents whose children had been reassigned to predominantly black schools brought a constitutional challenge to the school board’s measures.
How is the court likely to rule?
A The school board may redraw school districts and assign students to schools based on the students’ race.
B The school board may redraw school districts but may not assign students to schools based on the students’ race.
C The school board may assign students to schools based on the students’ race but may not redraw school districts.
D The school board may neither redraw school districts nor assign students to schools based on the students’ race.
The correct answer is:The school board may redraw school districts but may not assign students to schools based on the students’ race.
Discussion of correct answer:In Parents Involved v. Seattle [551 U.S. 701 (2007)], the Supreme Court held that a school district may not assign students to schools based on race in order to achieve racial integration when school segregation is not caused by past or present government action. School districts are, however, permitted to implement “structural” changes such as redrawing school districts or building new schools in order to achieve racial integration.
State X has a statute, enacted in 1923, that makes criminal “the utterance in any public place of any blasphemy or sacrilege.“ There have been only a few recorded prosecutions under the 1923 statute. In a speech delivered on a public sidewalk in state X, a citizen complained about local politicians and referred to her city’s mayor as being “a goddamned idiot.” Based on that speech, she was arrested and charged with violating the 1923 statute’s proscriptions.
Which of the following constitutional defenses to this prosecution under the 1923 statute would be the LEAST likely to succeed?
a. This statute is vague and, therefore, violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
b. This statute is an establishment of religion and, therefore, violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
c. Application of this statute to the citizen denies her equal protection of the laws in violation of the FourteenthAmendment.
d. Application of this statute to the citizen denies her freedom of speech in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
c. Application of this statute to the citizen denies her equal protection of the laws in violation of the FourteenthAmendment.
A state university adhered to a strict academic policy of automatically expelling students whose cumulative GPAs fell below 1.9. Due to the stress of significant struggles within her personal life, a medical student attending the university received failing grades in all of her spring semester courses, bringing her cumulative GPA down to 1.89. Before the student was able to meet with professors and discuss her grades, she received a letter notifying her of expulsion from the university, effective immediately. Outraged by the school’s lack of accommodation, the student filed a cause of action against the university, claiming the expulsion violated her Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. In the suit, she requested the university afford her a hearing conducted by a panel of professors, where she could properly defend her right to continue attending the school.
Which of the following factors should not contribute to the court’s evaluation?
A The cost of reserving facilities for such hearings.
B The cost of expulsion on a student’s academic reputation.
C Whether GPA is an accurate gauge of achievement.
D Whether faculty members can take on additional duties.
The correct answer is: The cost of expulsion on a student’s academic reputation.
Discussion of correct answer: Where there is a deprivation of one’s life, liberty, or property interest (e.g., entitlement to public education), the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments require procedural due process. To determine what process is necessary, a court should consider: (1) the private interest affected by the action; (2) the risk of erroneous deprivation of this interest through the procedures used, and the probable value of other procedures; and (3) the government’s interest in streamlined procedures, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that other procedures would entail. Here, the cost of the student’s expulsion to her academic reputation does not fall under any of these categories. Additionally, the Supreme Court has held that injury to reputation is not a deprivation of an interest requiring procedural due process. Therefore, this is the best choice.
A 68-year-old man drove his car into a restaurant while attempting to leave the parking lot. A police investigation showed that the man confused the accelerator for the brake pedal, causing his car to jump the curb and break through a large window. No one was hurt in the accident. However, the man’s license was revoked pursuant to a state law requiring all drivers over the age of 65 who are involved in a serious accident to have their licenses
revoked until they take another driving test. The man is a retired doctor who now volunteers by driving to the homes of patients who are otherwise unable to receive medical treatment. The man was now unable to attend to these patients due to the revocation of his license. He brought suit against the state challenging the automatic revocation of his license without his first having an opportunity to present evidence on the accident at the restaurant.
How should the court rule?
(A) For the man, because a pre-termination hearing is required.
(B) For the man, because his Fourteenth Amendment rights have been violated.
(C) Against the man, because he is now retired.
(D) Against the man, because he received adequate due process.
(D) Against the man, because he received adequate due process.
Congress enacts a statute punishing “all stores of any kind for refusing service to African Americans solely because of their race.” Under which of the following constitutional provisions is the authority of Congress to pass such a statute most clearly and easily justifiable?
a. The Commerce Clause.
b. The General Welfare Clause of Article I, Section 8.
c. The Thirteenth Amendment.
d. The Fourteenth Amendment.
c. The Thirteenth Amendment.
A state redistricted its state representative districts. The redistricting had a greater effect in urban areas than in rural areas. Several Democratic activists who live in the affected area sued certain state officials in federal court to challenge the redistricting. They contended that the redistricting diluted, or even eliminated, two “safe” Democratic seats in the state legislature, while leaving “safe” Republican seats untouched. The state officials filed a motion to dismiss. How should the court rule?
a. Motion granted, because gerrymandering and redistricting on the basis of political party are not justiciable by federal courts.
b. Motion granted, because the plaintiffs lack standing.
c. Motion denied, because this is an appropriate subject for a federal court to give an advisory opinion.
d. Motion denied, because gerrymandering and redistricting on any basis is a justiciable question.
a. Motion granted, because gerrymandering and redistricting on the basis of political party are not justiciable by federal courts.
A state legislature, in an attempt to curb teen pregnancies, recently enacted a statute denying welfare assistance to parents for illegitimate children. A young woman was receiving welfare assistance after being awarded sole custody of her two children following her divorce several years earlier. She recently gave birth to a third child and applied for an increase in her welfare assistance as a result. However, her request was denied pursuant to the state law. The woman sued the state, claiming that the law was unconstitutional and violated the Equal Protection Clause.
Which of the following correctly states the burden of persuasion in this case?
A The woman has the burden of persuading the court that the statute is not necessary to further a compelling interest.
B The woman has the burden of persuading the court that the statute is not substantially related to achieve an important government interest.
C The state has the burden of persuading the court that the statute is substantially related to achieving an important government interest.
D The state has the burden of persuading the court that the statute is rationally related to a legitimate government interest.
The correct answer is: The state has the burden of persuading the court that the statute is substantially related to achieving an important government interest.
Discussion of correct answer: Intermediate scrutiny applies to government action using quasi-suspect classifications, such as gender and illegitimacy. Here, the statute treats legitimate and illegitimate children differently. As such, it will be subjected to the intermediate scrutiny standard. Under this standard, the burden is on the state to prove that the measure being challenged is substantially related to the achievement of an important government interest.
The state of Arizona experienced a rising trend in specialty car companies selling their automobiles directly to consumers–i.e., without going through the traditional franchised car lot. At the same time, franchised car dealers across the state began to suffer a decline in sales. In response to these dealers’ complaints of unfair competition, the Arizona state legislature enacted a new consumer protection regulation that effectively banned all direct sales of automobiles within the state. One direct-sale company, a maker of luxury electric cars, contended that the regulation created a protected market and refused to comply.
If this company challenges enforcement on substantive due process grounds, should the court uphold the regulation?
A No, if the company shows it lacks a rational connection to a legitimate government interest.
B No, if the company shows it lacks a substantial relation to an important government interest.
C Yes, if the state shows it is substantially related to a compelling government interest.
D Yes, if the state shows it is rationally related to a legitimate government interest.
The correct answer is: No, if the company shows it lacks a rational connection to a legitimate government interest.
Discussion of correct answer: Generally, the substantive due process doctrine is used to evaluate government regulations that affect fundamental rights of personhood. However, economic regulations may also be challenged as violative of substantive due process guarantees. The Supreme Court has held that challenges to economic regulations on substantive due process grounds are to be subjected to deferential rational basis scrutiny, with a challenger having the burden of proving that a regulation lacks a rational connection to a legitimate government interest. Here, the company is challenging enforcement of an economic regulation on substantive due process grounds. Therefore, it bears the burden of proof and must show that the regulation lacks a rational connection to a legitimate government interest.
A federal statute requires U.S. civil service employees to retire at age 75. However, that statute also requires federal district court clerks to retire at age 65. The plaintiff, a 65-year-old federal district court clerk, seeks a declaratory judgment that would forbid his mandatory retirement until age 75. What is the strongest argument that the plaintiff can make to invalidate the requirement that he retire at age 65?
A. The law denies him a privilege or immunity of national citizenship.
B. The law deprives him of a property right without just compensation.
C. The law is not within the scope of any of the enumerated powers of the U.S. Congress.
D. The law invidiously discriminates against him on the basis of age in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
D. The law invidiously discriminates against him on the basis of age in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
State Red enacted a statute prohibiting any motor vehicle traveling within the state to have window tinting or glass coating of any kind. The bill passed the state legislature at the urging of state and local law enforcement agencies who argued that tinted windows prevented them from observing interior car activity. Most citizens also supported the bill, especially after a state trooper was killed by an occupant in a window-tinted limousine. The trooper was unable to see that his assailant was armed and dangerous when he approached the vehicle for a speeding violation. A limousine company operates a limo service in a neighboring state. The limousine company has a fleet of 68 limos, all of which have tinted windows. Each year the limousine company makes thousands of trips into State Red to transport passengers to the international airport, situated ten miles from the state border, and other destinations. Because all its limousines are manufactured with tinted windows, the limousine company will incur a great expense to specially order limousines without tinting. The limousine company sues to challenge the constitutionality of the State Red statute. Which of the following is the limousine company’s most useful argument?
a. Because window tinting is permitted on vehicles in neighboring states, this law denies the limousine company the equal protection of laws whenever its limousines operate within the state.
b. Because this law burdens interstate commerce by prohibiting all vehicles with window tinting from entering the state, this law violates the commerce clause.
c. Because window tinting on vehicles is legal in the limousine company’s state, this law violates the contract clause by preventing the limousine company from fulfilling its obligation to transport passengers into the state.
d. Because interstate travel is a fundamental right that may not be burdened by state law, it violates the limousine company’s substantive due process rights by arbitrarily and unreasonably regulating economic activity.
b. Because this law burdens interstate commerce by prohibiting all vehicles with window tinting from entering the state, this law violates the commerce clause.
An architect purchased a 5-acre undeveloped residential lot, with plans to erect his dream home there. Four months later, the state legislature enacted a law aimed at protecting an indigenous bird species from being dislocated from its native nesting grounds. As part of this law, many parcels of land across the state, including the architect’s, were subject to a prohibition on the erection of permanent structures. Thereafter, the architect filed a cause of action challenging the construction ban, on the grounds that the law violated the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Which of the following is the architect’s strongest argument?
A The law causes a direct appropriation of the land.
B The law lacks a logical nexus to government objectives.
C The law does not substantially advance legitimate state interests.
D The law effectuates a total taking by the government.
The correct answer is: The law effectuates a total taking by the government.
Discussion of correct answer: Pursuant to the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment (applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment), private property may not be taken for public use without just compensation. The Supreme Court has held that the Takings Clause applies to land-use regulations that deny owners of all reasonable, economically beneficial uses of their land. Such deprivation constitutes a “total taking” triggering the just compensation requirement. Here, the construction ban deprived the architect from all economically beneficial use of his residential lot. Because the architect has suffered a taking, this answer is the best choice.
A state university offers a merit scholarship to those high school students who scored above a certain score on their SATs. Resident aliens are not eligible for this scholarship. A student is a legal resident of the state, but is not a citizen of the United States. He has been denied this scholarship solely because of his alien status.
If the student should challenge the constitutionality of his exclusion from the program, will he win?
A Yes, because the action of the state violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV of the Constitution.
B Yes, because there is not sufficient justification to discriminate against aliens as a class.
C No, because aliens are not per se a discreet and insular minority; therefore, a classification excluding them is valid.
D No, because the exclusion is rationally related to legitimate state purposes.
The correct answer is: Yes, because there is not sufficient justification to discriminate against aliens as a class.
Discussion of correct answer: The state may discriminate against aliens only in specific matters relating to the governmental process, such as the denial of a right to run for elective office or to hold a position as a police officer or probation officer or a public school teacher. In all other cases, a state’s attempt to discriminate against persons based on alienage will be subject to the strict scrutiny test because alienage is a suspect classification. There is no compelling justification for denying the student the same educational opportunities offered to other residents of the state.
In the wake of a recent presidential election mishap that garnered national media coverage, a state revamped its voting procedures in an attempt to streamline the process. Among the many changes the state instituted were vote-by-mail, same-day voter registration, and the requirement that voters check in (or register) at the table labeled with their party affiliation. One couple in the state, who were very active within their local community, were registered Republicans in a heavily Democratic district. The couple did not wish for their party affiliation to be made public, fearing repercussions. The couple challenged the constitutionality of the rule requiring voters to check in or register according to party affiliation.
Assuming proper standing, should the court invalidate the rule?
A No, because it passes strict scrutiny.
B No, because it passes the rational basis test.
C Yes, because it violates their procedural due process rights.
D Yes, because it violates their right to privacy.
The correct answer is: No, because it passes the rational basis test.
Discussion of correct answer: The court is likely to uphold this rule, because the state will only need to show a rational relationship between the rule and the objective to streamline voting procedures. Strict scrutiny applies when the government restricts the right to vote, a right that has been held to be fundamental under the Constitution. However, rational basis scrutiny applies to reasonable restrictions based on things like age or duration of residency. Moreover, voter registration requirements and regulation of the time, place, and manner of casting ballots are valid so long as they do not impose an undue burden on the right to vote. Here, there is no restriction at all on the right to vote, other than the concern that others will know your party affiliation. Because the state made vote-by-mail an option for everyone and because voter registrations are public records anyway, it seems very unlikely that this rule will be held to violate the Constitution. There is no constitutionally protected privacy right as to party affiliation.
The state legislature enacted a statute requiring permanent removal from parental custody of any child born to a mother currently receiving state welfare payments. A young mother recently lost her job and had been receiving state welfare assistance. She now has given birth to her second child and the state brought an action under the statute to terminate her custody rights solely because she was receiving the state welfare payments. Her defense is based on the ground that the statute is unconstitutional as applied.
Which is the most probable burden of persuasion on this constitutional issue?
A The state has the burden of persuading the court that the application of the statute to the mother is necessary to vindicate a compelling government interest.
B The state has the burden to persuade the court that the application of the statute to the mother is rationally related to a legitimate government interest.
C The mother has the burden of persuading the court that the application of the statute to her conduct is not necessary to vindicate an important state interest.
D The mother has the burden of persuading the court that the application of the statute to her conduct is not rationally related to a legitimate state interest.
The correct answer is: The state has the burden of persuading the court that the application of the statute to the mother is necessary to vindicate a compelling government interest.
Discussion of correct answer: When a fundamental right is infringed, the government has the burden of showing that the infringement is necessary to advance a compelling government interest. Here, the mother is threatened with the denial of custody of her child because of her receipt of welfare payments. The Supreme Court has recognized a fundamental right to live with the members of your own family [Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977)]. When the government infringes on a fundamental right, it has the burden to show that its action is necessary to achieve a compelling government interest. This choice correctly states this rule.
A new law enacted by a state legislature required every couple applying for a license to be married in the state to attend a series of six weekly seminars before the wedding. The seminars, run by psychologists and relationship counselors, covered topics like communication and conflict resolution between spouses. If a plaintiff challenges the constitutionality of the statute, will the plaintiff have the burden of persuasion?
A. Yes, because there is a strong presumption that elected state legislators acted properly.
B. Yes, because the Tenth Amendment authorizes states to determine the conditions on which they issue marriage licenses.
C. No, because the statute has a substantial impact on the fundamental right to marry.
D. No, because there is a substantial impact on the discrete and insular class of young adults, who are the ones most likely to be burdened by this requirement.
C. No, because the statute has a substantial impact on the fundamental right to marry.
A student lives in a rural county and attends the county high school, where he is an outstanding student. The school district in which the high school is located has been rated “poor” by the state Department of Education because its programs are underfunded and the achievement test scores of its students are well below the state average. The student, a sophomore, has already taken all the advanced courses in science, mathematics, and English. The student would like to attend a public high school in a wealthy suburb, because the school offers college-level science and math courses and has the best public school academics in the state. The state funds programs at the schools in proportion to their respective population, on a per pupil basis. The student’s grandmother offers to let him stay with her temporarily during the week in her small home in the wealthy suburb so that he can attend the high school there. The student attends the school for two weeks, until it is discovered that his parents live in the next county, and he is told not to return to class.
If the student sues the state in federal court for the right to attend the suburban high school, assuming proper standing, what is the likely outcome?
(A) The student will prevail, because his equal protection rights are violated by the education he is receiving at the rural county high school.
(B) The student will prevail, because his right to travel is violated by his dismissal from the suburban school.
(C) The state will prevail, because there is a rational basis for the state’s allocation of funds for public education based on residency
(D) The state will prevail, because the state’s action passes the strict scrutiny test.
(C) The state will prevail, because there is a rational basis for the state’s allocation of funds for public education based on residency
A state legislature passed a bill that prohibited doctors from performing a dilation and curettage upon female patients who had entered their second trimester of pregnancy. Dilation and curettage is a common gynecological procedure in which a sharp instrument is used to remove tissue from inside the uterus. It is rarely used for surgical abortion performed in the first 12 weeks (or first trimester) of a pregnancy, but more commonly used in second trimester abortions. The governor of the state signed the bill into law. Several women and doctors sued to enjoin the enforcement of this statute.
Assuming proper standing, how should the court rule?
A In favor of the state, because a state can regulate the abortion procedure during the second trimester in ways that are reasonably related to the woman’s health.
B In favor of the state, because a state may regulate and even proscribe abortion except where it is necessary to preserve the woman’s life or health.
C In favor of the plaintiffs, because a dilation and curettage is not necessarily reasonably related to the woman’s health, so the state may not regulate abortion in this way during the second trimester.
D In favor of the plaintiffs, because the statute places substantial obstacles in the way of a woman’s right of access to abortion before a fetus attains viability.
The correct answer is: In favor of the plaintiffs, because the statute places substantial obstacles in the way of a woman’s right of access to abortion before a fetus attains viability.
Discussion of correct answer: Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey [505 U.S. 833 (1992)] largely reshaped the law of abortion that stood for many years under Roe v. Wade [410 U.S. 113 (1973)]. The Casey holding modified the trimester approach of Roe and instead adopted an undue burden standard. A woman has a protected privacy interest in choosing to have an abortion before viability (in the first two trimesters). With regard to pregnancy subsequent to viability, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed Roe in concluding that the “State may regulate, and even proscribe abortion except where it is necessary for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.” Here, as the effect of the law would be to place a substantial obstacle in the way of a pre-viability abortion, it is unconstitutional.
In an effort to work towards change in his community, an alien ran for a position on the local city council. The man’s name was not included on the ballot because of a statute which prohibits aliens from holding positions on the city council. The man challenged the statute as violating the Equal Protection Clause. The city claimed the statute was justified because city council members influence community members’ views toward government. The case went to the Supreme Court to determine whether the statute was constitutional. How should the Supreme Court rule?
A. The statute is constitutional, because the city council performs a function of the government.
B. The statute is constitutional, because aliens do not have constitutional rights.
C. The statute is unconstitutional, because the statute does not pass intermediate scrutiny.
D. The statute is unconstitutional, because the law furthers no compelling state interest.
A. The statute is constitutional, because the city council performs a function of the government.
In the latest of a long series of government corruption scandals, a state employee was convicted in federal court of taking kickbacks in exchange for influencing government contract decisions. The employee was sentenced to time served plus probation, fined heavily, and given a significant amount of community service. The employee resigned from his position in the government and began to collect his pension, for which he had fully qualified after spending several decades in government service.
The media began to lash out against the state government for what it viewed as lax punishment by a corrupt government. In response, the state legislature passed, and the governor signed into law, a bill which stripped former government employees of any retirement or other benefits or payments of any kind from the state if the employee was convicted of bribery or corruption, declaring that such a conviction amounted to breach of the government official’s employment contract.
As a result of the new law, the state employee was notified that the state was immediately discontinuing pension benefit payments to him on account of his conviction. The state employee then properly filed a lawsuit challenging the termination of his retirement benefits on the grounds that the new law was unconstitutional.
Which of the following is the best argument the state could make in favor of the law’s constitutionality?
A The notification that the state employee received was sufficient notice to satisfy due process for the discontinuation of pension benefits.
B Deprivation of pension benefits is not cruel and unusual punishment.
C It is implicit that one of the conditions of the state’s contract of employment with a government official is that he shall not take kickbacks or otherwise engage in bribery.
D The state employee was afforded an opportunity to express his views about the new legislation at public hearings prior to the enactment of the statute.
The correct answer is: It is implicit that one of the conditions of the state’s contract of employment with a government official is that he shall not take kickbacks or otherwise engage in bribery.
Discussion of correct answer: This question requires a two-step analysis to select the best alternative. First, you must determine the constitutional issue involved. Second, you must apply the appropriate constitutional principle to the question asked–i.e., the state’s best argument against a constitutional challenge to the forfeiture statute. This answer choice is correct because the argument concerning a condition of employment contract with a government official affects the Contract Clause of the Constitution. The state employee could validly challenge the constitutionality of the statute, alleging unconstitutional impairment of the obligation to contract. The pension forfeiture statute would be violative of the Contract Clause because under the circumstances, the state employee has satisfied the conditions of retirement eligibility (he was fully qualified for his pension, as stated in the facts). His retirement pay has ripened into a full contractual obligation and has become a vested right. Therefore, the pension forfeiture statute would be an unconstitutional impairment of his vested right to receive retirement benefits (his pension).
A fast-food ethnic restaurant chain wanted to construct a restaurant on Route 44, a business-zoned, secondary road running through the town. It purchased a buildable lot with sufficient frontage and submitted engineering and architectural plans to the appropriate town authorities. The building inspector, backed by the town planning board, denied the restaurant chain’s application for a building permit, stating the following reasons in a written decision: (1) Route 44 cannot sustain any further traffic entering and exiting businesses on the road; (2) Route 44 currently has 17 fast-food restaurants, five of which are in the immediate vicinity of the chain’s planned location; and (3) the location of the entrance to the planned chain eatery is too close to a dangerous intersection. In a letter to the town planning board members and building inspector, the fast-food chain requested an opportunity to address each of the stated reasons for the denial of the building permit, but the town authorities responded that the decision was final. The chain then sought a declaratory judgment of its right to address the permit denial.
If the chain obtains declaratory relief, what provision would provide the strongest argument?
A Substantive due process.
B Equal protection.
C The Takings Clause.
D The Fourteenth Amendment.
The correct answer is: The Fourteenth Amendment.
Discussion of correct answer: The fact pattern’s last sentence explicitly tells us that the chain seeks declaratory judgment of “its right to address the permit denial.” The fact pattern’s penultimate sentence makes clear that the chain wants an opportunity to be heard, but that the town authorities have refused that request. Thus, the chain’s lawsuit implicates a right protected by procedural due process. Moreover, because the chain is challenging the refusal of a local government–and not the federal government–the Fourteenth Amendment (and its Due Process Clause) is the applicable provision.
A state required aspiring applicants who wished to become managers in any state agency to take a “management potential” exam that consisted of 200 multiple-choice questions in six hours. The questions measured literacy, knowledge of state procedures, and judgment of possible courses of action in hypothetical management situations such as employee relations and interviewing. The racial composition of the applicant pool for management candidates was 54% Hispanic and 46% other racial minorities. Historically, 65% of Hispanic applicants passed the exam, while only 20% of all other racial minority applicants passed the exam. Caucasians, who constituted 11% of the population in the state, were deemed a racial minority under state law. As a result of the exam requirement, the management of all state agencies was disproportionately composed of Hispanic females, compared to both the proportion of other minority applicants and the proportion of non-Hispanic minorities in the population of the state as a whole. A group of non-Hispanic racial minorities challenged the exam requirement as unconstitutional.
Is the state’s “management potential” exam requirement constitutional?
A Yes, because there is no evidence of intentional race discrimination in the administration of the exam.
B Yes, because a state police power includes the right to prescribe qualifications for state employees, including members of its agency’s management.
C No, because the “management potential” exam disadvantages some racial minorities and does not meet the requirements of strict scrutiny.
D No, because the test has a disparate impact on the success of racial minority candidates.
The correct answer is: Yes, because there is no evidence of intentional race discrimination in the administration of the exam.
Discussion of correct answer: In Washington v. Davis [426 U.S. 229 (1976)], the Supreme Court held that race-neutral qualifications for state offices did not trigger heightened (i.e., intermediate or strict) scrutiny in the absence of evidence of a discriminatory purpose. In Davis and other cases, the Court has made clear that a disproportionate impact on distinct racial groups, standing alone, is insufficient to show intentional discrimination and trigger heightened scrutiny. Here, there is no evidence of intentional race discrimination other than the disproportionate impact, and so the exam requirement is constitutional.
A state resident could purchase a license solely for hunting elk for $9.00. A nonresident, in order to hunt elk, was required to purchase a combination license at a cost of $225.00; this entitled him to take one elk, one deer, and one black bear. A nonresident, however, could obtain a license restricted to deer for $51.00. A resident was not required to buy any combination of licenses, but if he did, the cost to him of all the privileges granted by the nonresident combination license was $30.00.
Due to its successful management program for elk, the state has not been compelled to limit the overall number of hunters by means of drawings or lotteries, as have other states. Elk are not hunted commercially in the state. Nonresident hunters seek the animal for its trophy value; the trophy is the distinctive set of antlers. Whereas the interest of resident hunters more often may be in the meat, among nonresident hunters, big-game hunting is clearly a sport in the state.
Two residents of another state bring suit against the state. They assert in their complaint that the disparities between residents and nonresidents in the state hunting license system is unconstitutional.
How should the court rule on the state’s hunting license system?
A The license system is constitutional, because it is within the police power of a state to regulate a recreational, noncommercial activity.
B The license system is constitutional, because there is a compelling state interest.
C The license system is unconstitutional, because it violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Section 2.
D The license system is unconstitutional, because it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The correct answer is: The license system is constitutional, because it is within the police power of a state to regulate a recreational, noncommercial activity.
Discussion of correct answer: In Baldwin v. Montana Fish and Game Commission [436 U.S. 371 (1977)], the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Montana elk-hunting licensing scheme, as applied to nonresidents, was not a fundamental right under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Section 2. Furthermore, the Court majority found no discrimination in the distinctions drawn between residents and nonresidents under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court concluded that protection of the wildlife of a state is peculiarly within the police power of the state. The court also noted that the elk-hunting licensing scheme did not violate petitioners’ “privileges and immunities” because hunting (on the part of non-Montana residents) was primarily a recreational endeavor. Choice (B) is incorrect. The reference to “compelling state interest” suggests that the court will apply strict scrutiny, but this is doubtful under Baldwin. Choice (C) is incorrect for the reasons stated in the discussion of choice (A), above. Finally, choice (D) is incorrect. The Equal Protection Clause provides heightened protections for groups whose legal classifications are suspect (e.g., classifications based on race, ethnicity, nationality, and religion) and for groups whose legal classifications are quasi-suspect (e.g., gender and illegitimacy). The residents may have been the subject of discrimination by the state, but they are not members of a suspect or quasi-suspect class. Only rational review will be applied, which the state probably will pass with ease.
A state seeking to lower the rate of divorce as well as the expenditures relating to state-supported welfare programs for children of young parents, enacted a statute requiring that all people under the age of 22 wishing to obtain marriage licenses had to submit to six hours of pre-nuptial counseling and further requiring that a magistrate interview the couple and sign off on the license application before the application could be issued. A young couple whose application for a license was denied filed suit seeking to declare the statute unconstitutional on the grounds that it restricts a fundamental right.
Which of the following factors regarding the statute is a court least likely to consider in determining whether the statute is constitutional?
A The state determined that the cost and time involved with adjudicating domestic cases involving people who married prior to turning 22 to be so great that it threatened to completely disrupt the state’s domestic court system.
B The state will require all citizens under the age of 22 who wish to obtain a marriage a license to submit to the requirements, regardless of race, gender, or sexual preference.
C That state intended the law only to apply to citizens under the age of 22 due to the fact that citizens over the age of 22 have a significantly lower rate of divorce and of having children dependent on welfare programs than the rest of the population.
D The state undertook an exhaustive study to determine that the six hours of counseling and interview with the magistrate was the minimum amount of time and resources necessary to create any significant impact on divorce rates among those who marry at a young age.
The correct answer is: The state will require all citizens under the age of 22 who wish to obtain a marriage a license to submit to the requirements, regardless of race, gender, or sexual preference.
Discussion of correct answer: The right to marry is a fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution, and thus laws that restrict that right will be subject to strict scrutiny. To pass strict scrutiny, a law must be justified by a compelling government interest, be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest, and be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. The fact that the requirements will apply to all citizens under the age of 22 does not factor into the strict scrutiny test.
An environmental activist group vehemently opposed the planned expansion of an oil pipeline that would take it through a wildlife preserve. Despite long periods of protests and media coverage, the oil company was nevertheless granted all of the necessary state and federal permits and permissions to go ahead. Deciding that nonviolent protests were not enough, a splinter faction of the environmentalist group decided to take a more hands-on approach. Late one night when nobody was present, the faction detonated blasting caps on a nearby mountain that caused a small avalanche above the oil company’s supply cache. The falling rocks destroyed material and machinery and blocked necessary roads into and out of the wildlife preserve, costing the oil company millions of dollars and months of delay while it had to clear and rebuild many roads.
Thereafter, the state legislature enacted a law restricting the rights of members of the environmentalist group in several ways, one of which was excluding members of the group from holding elected office in the state or working for a government agency or contractor. A representative justified the legislation on the grounds that “ours is a peaceful state, and these verminous scum clearly have no place here.” Several members of the group who did not participate in the blasting were soon informed that they would no longer be allowed to remain in elected positions, including a city council member and a county school board official.
If the members challenges the constitutionality of the legislation in court, what is the likely outcome?
A The members will prevail, because the law is a bill of attainder.
B The members will prevail, because they did not engage in violence as a member of the group.
C The state will prevail, because it acted within its police power.
D. The state will prevail, because the group is a subversive organization.
The correct answer is: The members will prevail, because the law is a bill of attainder.
Discussion of correct answer: A bill of attainder punishes named individuals or easily ascertainable members of a group without the benefit of judicial trial. Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution states: “No bill of attainder…shall be passed”; and Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 provides: “No state shall pass any Bill of Attainder.” These apply to states as well as the federal government. The state legislation in this question is a bill of attainder because it amounts to legislative punishment for membership in the environmental activist group. Members of the group, such as those in question, are prohibited from holding elective office or being employed by the government or government contractors without a judicial determination of their right to serve. The legislation is therefore unconstitutional.
A state owned vast tracts of woodlands containing highly desirable lumber, and provided licenses to businesses to exploit these resources, with various regulations in place to ensure that a certain percentage of them would be preserved and the woodlands would not be completely depleted. State building codes required that a minimum of 10% of the lumber used by construction companies be the highly desirable, locally sourced lumber, and in-state commercial enterprises could obtain a license from the state to cut timber up to a set amount for an annual fee of $7,500. Out-of-state commercial enterprises, which made up only about small fraction of the lumber industry in the state, could obtain a license for an annual fee of $20,000, but were permitted to remove 10% more lumber than in-state businesses, a difference which enabled those nonresident enterprises to make a profit greater than the difference in license costs. The schemes were adopted after research showed that they would keep the level of exploitation at or below the rate of regrowth without requiring the state to resort to a lottery system for available licenses, which would have been administratively costly and burdensome.
A nonresident commercial enterprise sued the state claiming that the disparities in the licensing and regulatory scheme were unconstitutional.
How should the court rule on the state’s resource management system?
A The license system is constitutional, because it is within the police power of a state to regulate and preserve state-owned natural resources.
B The license system is constitutional, because there is a compelling state interest.
C The license system is unconstitutional, because it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
D The license system is unconstitutional, because it violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Section 2.
The correct answer is: The license system is constitutional, because it is within the police power of a state to regulate and preserve state-owned natural resources.
Discussion of correct answer: In Baldwin v. Montana Fish and Game Commission [436 U.S. 371 (1977)], the U.S. Supreme Court held that the protection of the wildlife of a state is peculiarly within the police power of the state. Furthermore, the Court later held that discrimination against nonresidents will be given special consideration if its purpose is the preservation of natural, state-owned resources [Sporhase v. Nebraska, 458 U.S. 941 (1982)]. Because the purpose of the disparate licensing schemes was to allow the limited exploitation of natural resources, these schemes will likely be found constitutional.
The state has a statute that prohibits “all speech making, picketing, and public gatherings of every sort in front of the main entryway to any government building during high traffic periods while the government building is being used for official government business.” Which of the following possible plaintiffs would be most likely to be able to obtain an adjudication on the merits in a federal court on the validity of this statute?
a. A state taxpayer in the highest tax bracket.
b. A school administrator who intends to make a campaign speech at the administration building entryway during a prohibited time.
c. A legislator who voted against the statute because he thought it unconstitutional.
d. An organization whose purpose was “to seek judicial invalidation of unconstitutional laws.”
b. A school administrator who intends to make a campaign speech at the administration building entryway during a prohibited time.
A state recently passed a bill implementing additional security measures at public buildings. The bill provided that anyone entering a public building must (1) present a picture identification and (2) have all possessions screened by a metal detection device. Anyone not presenting a valid picture identification would be denied admittance to the public building. After the bill went into effect, it became apparent that a disproportionate number of racial and ethnic minority members were adversely affected by the measure because they were unable to furnish a valid form of identification. A plaintiff who is Native American was denied admittance at the state capitol building because he didn’t have a valid picture identification. The plaintiff, who had an appointment to see the governor to discuss Native American rights, was humiliated and embarrassed by the incident.
If the plaintiff brings suit challenging the constitutionality of the state law, which of the following correctly states the burden of persuasion?
(A) The initial burden is on the plaintiff to show a discriminatory purpose, and, if proven, the burden shifts to the state to show the measure is rationally related to a legitimate state interest.
(B) The initial burden is on the plaintiff to show a discriminatory purpose, and, if proven, the burden shifts to the state to show the measure furthers a compelling state interest
(C) Since the law discriminates against members of racial and ethnic minorities, the state has the burden to show that it furthers a compelling governmental interest.
(D) Since the law is designed to protect institutional safety and public welfare, the state has the burden to show that it is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest.
(B) The initial burden is on the plaintiff to show a discriminatory purpose, and, if proven, the burden shifts to the state to show the measure furthers a compelling state interest
In 1907, the State amends its criminal code to provide that upon conviction for any felony or misdemeanor involving “moral turpitude,” the penalties shall include forfeiture of the right to vote. The bill was introduced by its sponsor as an “attempt to protect the security and dignity of the White Man’s Government”; the bulk of the legislative history is to a similar effect. The law remains in effect today. Contemporary data indicates that those disenfranchised under the law are disproportionately poor and members of racial minority groups: relatively poor citizens of the State (those with incomes below 200 percent of the poverty level) are four times more likely to be disenfranchised under the law than those who are not poor, and African-American citizens of the State are three times more likely to be disenfranchised under the law than white citizens. A class of individuals disenfranchised under the law argues that it violates the Constitution.
Which of the following is their strongest argument against the law?
A The law irrationally discriminates among similarly situated classes of offenders.
B The law discriminates against poor citizens, and is not narrowly tailored to the achievement of compelling governmental interests.
C The law manifests an original intent to discriminate based on race and the contemporary effects of such discrimination, and as such, is presumptively unconstitutional.
D The law violates the Nineteenth Amendment.
The correct answer is: The law manifests an original intent to discriminate based on race and the contemporary effects of such discrimination, and as such, is presumptively unconstitutional.
Discussion of correct answer: This answer choice is correct, as past evidence of discriminatory intent, coupled with current evidence of discriminatory impact, may be enough to prove purposeful discrimination. As a test tip, the motivation of the law maker is always important. Clear evidence of racial discriminatory intent in the legislative record will make the law unconstitutional.
After driving his car up a curb and hitting a streetlight, an accident for which he was found to have been at fault after a trial, a 70-year-old retiree had his driver’s license automatically revoked pursuant to a state law requiring all drivers over the age of 65 who are involved in a serious accident to have their licenses revoked until they complete a safety course and pass another driving test. The retiree was a handyman who now volunteered by going to the homes of people who could not afford to hire someone to make various repairs. The man was now unable to help these indigent people due to the revocation of his license. He brought suit against the state challenging the automatic revocation of his license without his first having an opportunity to present evidence on the accident to the state’s department of motor vehicles.
How should the court rule?
A Against the retiree, because he is now retired.
B Against the retiree, because he received adequate due process.
C For the retiree, because a pre-termination hearing was required before his license could be revoked.
D For the retiree, because his Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated.
The correct answer is: Against the retiree, because he received adequate due process.
Discussion of correct answer: The deprivation of a driver’s license is a property interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment [Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535 (1971)]. However, the Supreme Court has found that there is a substantial public interest in administrative efficiency which would be impeded by the availability of a pre-termination hearing in every case. Especially when there is an opportunity for the validity of the plaintiff’s fault to be determined in a prior setting, the automatic suspension or revocation of a driver’s license does not violate a plaintiff’s procedural due process rights when weighed against the important public interest in safety on the roads and highways, and the prompt removal of a safety hazard [Dixon v. Love, 431 U.S. 105 (1977)]. As such, the man’s procedural due process rights were not violated in this case.
