Midterm 1 Rules of Law

Question 1

The Rational Basis Test

Answer 1

• All government action subject to judicial review for constitutionality must, as a minimum standard, meet the requirements of the Rational Basis Test:
• All government action must at least be rationally related to a legitimate government interest.
• Government action subject to the Rational Basis Test is presumed to be constitutional; the burden of proof is on the challenger - the person or entity challenging the government action’s constitutionality.
• Application of this rule of law determines whether the government action is constitutional or unconstitutional.

Question 2

Strict Scrutiny

Answer 2

• Government action which intrudes on specific constitutional rights, such as those enumerated within the Bill of Rights, or which denies equal protection on the basis of race, ethnicity or religion, is subject to judicial review for constitutionality using Strict Scrutiny where such
• Government action must be narrowly tailored to meet a compelling government interest.
• Once a party or entity demonstrates that government action requires Strict Scrutiny, the government action subject to Strict Scrutiny is presumed unconstitutional and the burden of proof is on the government to demonstrate that the action is constitutional.
• Application of this rule of law determines whether the government action is constitutional or unconstitutional.

Question 3

Intermediate Scrutiny

Answer 3

• Government action which denies equal protection on the basis of gender* is subject to judicial review for constitutionality under Intermediate Scrutiny where such
• Government action must be substantially related to an important government interest.
• Once a party or entity demonstrates that government action requires Intermediate Scrutiny, the government action subject to Intermediate Scrutiny is presumed unconstitutional and the burden of proof is on the government to demonstrate that the action is constitutional.
• Application of this rule of law determines whether the government action is constitutional or unconstitutional.

Question 4

The Miranda Rule

Answer 4

• Pursuant to the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, a government agent who interrogates a person who is in custody (i.e. not “free to leave”) must provide warnings of the following rights:
o a) You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law;
o b) You have the right to an attorney and to have an attorney present during any questioning; and
o c) If you cannot afford an attorney, you have the right to be appointed an attorney at public expense.
• Any statements obtained in violation of the Miranda Rule are subject to the exclusionary rule and may not be offered as proof of guilt in a criminal proceeding.
• Application of this rule of law determines whether or not statements made by a person are admitted or excluded as evidence in a criminal proceeding.

Question 5

The Due Process Rule

Answer 5

• Pursuant to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, persons affected by a government action have a right to notice (notification) of their opportunity for a hearing about the action which must be conducted before an unbiased tribunal.
• Application of this rule of law determines whether the government action is stayed until a hearing can be had or whether the tribunal must be changed due to bias or conflict of interest.

Question 6

The Rule of Statutory Interpretation

Answer 6

• When, for ambiguity or vagueness, courts must interpret the meaning or applicability of a legislative enactment (e.g., a statute, ordinance, or regulation), the courts will interpret the enactment by
o 1. Giving deference to the reasonable interpretation of the enactment by government agencies specifically charged with administering it;
o 2. Applying the plain meaning of the words used to construct the enactment - if the words used are plain and clear, no further interpretation is required; and
o 3. Determining the legislative intent behind the enactment and applying it as closely as possible according to that intent.
• Application of this rule of law determines whether the legislative enactment applies to a person, entity or a particular set of facts or circumstances.

Question 7

State Regulation of Interstate Commerce Rule

Answer 7

• Has to do with Article I, Section 8, of the United States Constitution
• States: where regulation has not been preempted by Federal law, the States may regulate interstate commerce provided. One of these has to apply:
o 1. There is no direct conflict between the State regulation and any Federal regulation; and
o 2. The State regulation does not unduly burden interstate commerce; or

o 3. The State regulation does not discriminate in order to favor local commerce.
• Application of this rule of law determines whether the State regulation is constitutional or unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause.

Question 8

State Long-Arm Jurisdiction Rule

Answer 8

Pursuant to the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, a State may exercise jurisdiction over nonresidents provided
1. The nonresident has minimum contacts with the State:
a. If there is only casual contact with the State, then jurisdiction over the
nonresident is limited to the circumstances of the casual contact; or
b. If the contact with the State is systematic and continuous, then general jurisdiction over the nonresident for matters both related and unrelated to the contact may be had.
And,
2. Regardless of minimum contact, the exercise of State jurisdiction over the nonresident shall not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
Application of this rule of law determines whether or not a State’s courts may exercise jurisdiction over a nonresident person or legal entity; if jurisdiction is not established over the nonresident, a State’s courts may not render legally binding judgments against the person or legal entity.

Question 9

The Substantial Evidence Rule

Answer 9

Courts, including Federal courts and Washington State courts, will not grant a motion for directed verdict where there is a question of evidence for a jury to resolve, provided that the evidence constitutes substantial evidence; substantial evidence means evidence that would persuade a fair-minded person of the truth of the matter asserted.
A minority of States’ courts apply the scintilla rule to a jury’s consideration of questions of evidence and a motion for directed verdict will not be granted where there is even the slightest amount of relevant evidence for a jury’s consideration.
Application of this rule of law determines whether or not a court will grant a motion for directed verdict following a jury’s determination of the facts and a rendering of their verdict.