quiz Flashcards
A state-run gang danger management program operates in twenty cities hiring employees to perform a number of functions all aimed at reducing adverse effects of gangs on communities. In all of these cities, the program employs licensed social workers to counsel gang members and otherwise work directly with gang members, who are almost exclusively male. Although the program employees women in many other position, it only employs male social workers.
A woman who has worked for ten years as a licensed social worker an exclusively male prison applies for a job with the program. The program refuses to hire her for the sole reason that she is a female. The woman brings suit against the administrator of the state program challenging, on constitutional grounds, the rejection of her application for employment.
Which of the following best states the burden of persuasion in this case?
The state must demonstrate that the employment policy is substantially related to an important governmental interest.
Sex discrimination is subject to intermediate scrutiny. In intermediate scrutiny, the burden is on the government to prove purpose and tailoring.
A recent national study indicated that the academic performance of elementary and secondary students in a state was the lowest in the nation. The study also showed that performance of students attending private elementary schools performed 10% lower that those in public schools. To remedy the poor performance the state legislature passed a comprehensive statute setting educational requirements for teachers and achievement standards for students. The statute imposed a new tax, with the proceeds dedicated to fund school improvement. Because of the private school differential, the statute further required all children of elementary school age to attend the schools operated by their respective local public school districts. The law is to take effect at the beginning of the next school year.
Parents of children enrolled in private elementary schools within the state have filed suit to challenge the constitutionality of this state law.
Should the court uphold the law?
No, because it is not necessary to further a compelling state interest.
The early Pierce case established that parents have a fundamental right to send their children to private school Because this law significantly burdens that fundamental right, strict scrutiny applies. The purpose of improving school performance may be compelling but there are other means rather than prohibiting parents from sending their children to private school.
A state law provides that a person who owes a debt that has been entered by a court as a legal judgment may not marry unless the person pays the debt or enters into a wage-garnishment or other approved payment plan with the court. A woman who was refused a marriage license pursuant to this law sued the appropriate state officials.
What standard should the court apply in reviewing the constitutionality of this law?
The state must show that the law is necessary to serve a compelling government interest.
Marriage is a fundamental right. This law imposes a significant burden because some people will not be able to pay so it will absolutely deny some people the right to marry. Because the law imposes a significant burden on a fundamental right, strict scrutiny applies.
A small town is located near the intersection of three major freeways, all of which take suburban commuters into the largest city in the state. Some savvy commuters have always bypassed gridlock on the freeways by taking shortcuts through residential neighborhoods in the town. The advent of traffic-avoidance apps on cell phones, however, has led to a tenfold increase in commuter traffic through the small town. Residents find they cannot pull out of their driveways during rush hours because of gridlock on their own streets. To address this problem, the city enacted an ordinance prohibiting vehicles without a “town resident sticker” from driving on town streets during designated “rush” hours in the morning and evening. The ordinance included an inseverable grandfather provision exempting from its prohibition the few commuters, designated by name, who had discovered the shortcuts and used them before the apps identified the routes widely.
Five commuters qualify for this exemption and three of them plan to retire and stop commuting within the next two years. A traffic app-user, who does not qualify for the exemption, filed suit in an appropriate federal district court to enjoin the enforcement of this ordinance on the ground that it denies the traffic app-user the equal protection of the laws.
In this case, the court will probably rule that the ordinance is
constitutional, because its validity is governed by the rational basis test, and the courts consistently defer to economic choices embodied in such legislation if they are even plausibly justifiable.
The ordinance draws a line between longtime commuters and new ones. The class is not suspect and commuting most efficiently is not a fundamental right. Rational basis scrutiny applies and the city should win.
A state statute permits a woman to have an abortion only if her physician determines that the abortion is necessary to protect the her life or health. If challenged on constitutional grounds in an appropriate court, this statute will probably be held
constitutional, because the state has made a rational policy choice to limit abortions to protect fetal life.
The Dobbs decision overruled Roe and Casey and held that there is no constitutional right to choose abortion prior to viability. Laws restricting abortion are constitutional if the reasonably relate to the legitimate purpose of protecting fetal life.
An independent municipal water-supply district serves a new residential community. The new community is racially, ethnically, and socioeconomically diverse, and the community has never engaged in any discrimination against members of minority groups. The five-member, elected governing board of the newly created water district contains two persons who are members of racial minority groups. At its first meeting, the governing board of the water district adopted a rule unqualifiedly setting aside 25% of all positions on the staff of the water district and 25% of all contracts to be awarded by the water district to members of racial minority groups. The purpose of the rule was “to help redress the historical discrimination against these groups in this country and to help them achieve economic parity with other groups in our society.” Assume that no federal statute applies. A suit by appropriate parties challenges the constitutionality of these set-asides. In this suit, the most appropriate ruling on the basis of applicable United States Supreme Court precedent would be that the set-asides are
unconstitutional, because they would deny other potential employees or potential contractors the equal protection of the laws.
This is a question about affirmative action. The rule is that affirmative action must meet strict scrutiny, and that remedying general past societal discrimination is not a compelling purpose. This question is based on the City of Richmond case.
A state has a comprehensive election code that regulates all aspects of elections, including voter qualifications. None of its provisions conflicts with federal statutes.
The state election code provides that all citizens of the state may vote in general elections for candidates and on initiatives. The code also provides that in special-purpose elections for directors of the several mosquito and vector control districts, only landowners within the district may vote, because they are the only ones directly affected by the outcome. Each vote is weighted according to the proportion of the holding of that individual in relation to the total affected property. The best argument in support of the statute and against the application of the “one man, one vote” principle in this situation is that the principle
does not apply, because the actions of such a district principally affect landowners.
The constitutional rule for most types of elections is the weight must be “one person, one vote.” The exception is votes in special districts with functions that particularly impact a discrete group of voters. A mosquito and vector control district is such a special district so the unequal weighting comports with the Constitution.
A number of high schools in a school district have a problem with fights in the hallways. The participants are both male and female. During several fights within the last year, combatants have ripped dangling earrings from the earlobes and noses of other combatants, causing a commotion and necessitating emergency room visits. To avoid further distraction and mutilation, a school board enacted a jewelry code that prohibited all public high school students from wearing earrings that are not simple studs. Because non-stud earrings are the fashion choice of most female students in the district, they no longer wore any earrings to school. On the other hand, male students regularly wore stud earrings on various parts of their bodies.
Female students sued to challenge the constitutionality of the jewelry code on the ground that it denied them the equal protection of the laws.
Should the court uphold the jewelry code?
Yes, because the jewelry code is rationally related to a legitimate state interest.
The court should uphold the jewelry code, because the code is rationally related to the state’s legitimate interests. The jewelry code should not trigger heightened judicial scrutiny, because the rule is neutral on its face and there are no facts to suggest that the purpose of the code is to discriminate against female students.
A state law provides that only U.S. citizens may serve as the elected District Attorney or as an attorney in any of the District Attorney’s Offices in the state. A woman who is a lawful resident person who is not a citizen and who has resided in the state for many years applied for the position of Assistant District Attorney. The woman had excellent qualifications and had worked as an attorney specializing in criminal law in a well regarded law firm in the state for eight years. She was denied the job solely because she is not a U.S. citizen.
The woman has filed an action for a declaratory judgment that the state law is unconstitutional. Who should prevail in this action?
The state, because a state may limit to U.S. citizens functions that are an integral part of the process of self-government.
The state should prevail, because the law excluding people who are not citizens from being state prosecutors is rationally related to the state’s legitimate interest in ensuring that only citizens perform functions that are central to self-government. Although strict scrutiny generally applies to state laws that discriminate against people who are not citizens, rational basis scrutiny is appropriate when people-who-are-not-citizens classifications restrict the right to participate in functions that are central to self-government, such as voting, running for office, or serving on a jury, and jobs that are integral to self-government, like being a state prosecutor. Note that ALL people-who-are-not-citizens classifications by the federal government are subject to rational basis scrutiny because of the explicitly granted power to Congress to regulate immigration.
Decades ago, a state ballot initiative amended the state constitution to limit dramatically the amount localities could collect in real estate taxes. For that reason, the majority of public school funding comes from the state. Half of that funding comes from a state-run lottery. Under current legislation, lottery funds are distributed equally on a per-student basis to school districts. Low income school districts have higher overall populations than high income districts. The revenue generated for the state from sales of lottery tickets in low income districts is ten times the revenue from high income districts. If lottery revenue were distributed to school districts according to the amount of sales in the district rather than on a per-student basis, low income districts would receive three times as much funding.
The school boards of five school districts, together with parents and schoolchildren in those districts, bring suit in federal court to enjoin the state from allocating the lottery funds from the state treasury on a per-student basis. They allege that the failure of the state to allocate the lottery funds according to the percentage of lottery revenue generated in the district violates the Fourteenth Amendment. The complaint does not allege that the allocation of the additional state funds based on the current statutory formula has resulted in a failure to provide minimally adequate education to any child.
Which of the following best describes the appropriate standard by which the court should review the constitutionality of the state statutory funding formula?
Plaintiffs must demonstrate that the funding allocation is not rationally related to any conceivable legitimate state interest.
There is no fundamental right to education, and wealth is not a suspect class. Because there is no fundamental right or suspect class at issue, the court will apply rational basis review, which would require the plaintiffs to demonstrate that the funding allocation formula is not rationally related to any conceivable legitimate state interest.
A toy manufacturer that has its headquarters and sole manufacturing plant in a single state has developed a “space-flight” toy that simulates weightlessness. The toy consists of a full-head helmet with audio and a 3D visor which, combined, transport the child “into space.” The toy is of high quality, is safe and durable, and has sold very well. Other toy manufacturers, located in other states across the nation, have developed similar toys that are lower in price. These toy manufacturers have contracts to sell their toys in retail outlets in all fifty states. Although these toys are safe and durable, they simulate space flight and weightlessness less realistically than the toys produced by the original manufacturer. Nevertheless, because of the price difference, sales of these toys have cut severely into the sales of the original space-flight toys.
Congress recently enacted a law “to protect the children of the nation from inferior simulations of space flight.” The law forbids the sale in interstate commerce of any toy that purports to simulate weightlessness or space flight and does not satisfy specified scientific criteria. The original toy satisfies all of these criteria; none of the toys of the competing manufacturers meet the requirements.
Is the law constitutional?
Yes, because protecting children from even minor product defects is a legitimate purpose and the means are rationally related to it.
The only claim the manufacturers would be under the Equal Protection Clause and would be that the line drawn by Congress does not even pass rational basis scrutiny. The Court is very deferential when reviewing this type of economic regulation. It does not appear to be wise, and it looks as if the one company got special treatment. Nevertheless, the Court is not likely to strike the line as unconstitutional.
A state statute prohibits the sale or distribution of any type of contraceptives to minors without a doctor’s prescription. A national drug store chain is charged with violating the statute. Which of the following is the strongest constitutional argument the drug store chain could make in defending itself against prosecution for violation of this statute?
The statute denies minors one of their fundamental rights without due process.
The denial of contraceptives presents a due process clause/fundamental rights issue.
A state requires that all hair stylists doing business in the state obtain a license and renew it yearly. The state will grant such licenses only to those who have completed an approved hair and color stylist program and are citizens of the United States.
The requirement that candidates for licenses must be citizens is
unconstitutional as a denial of equal protection.
State statutes that classify according to whether a person is a citizen must satisfy strict scrutiny unless they relate to core government functions, such as being a legislator or a juror. Here, there is no obvious compelling interest that supports the classification.
After a study showed the occupational dangers experienced by nail salon workers, a state legislature passed a statute imposing new, more rigorous safety requirements, requiring more frequent breaks, and limiting the hours of work for employees. As a result of the new state-imposed requirements, nail salons in the state have laid off a number of employees, and reduced the hours of those employed. The employees affected by the new law are 95% women. One woman who lost employment because of the cost of the new law to her employer filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the statute.
Is the statute constitutional?
Yes, because it is rationally related to a legitimate government objective.
The statute is neutral on its face. The disparate impact does not raise the level of scrutiny unless it shows a purpose to discriminate against women. No facts in the hypothetical support this, so rational basis scrutiny applies.
Several instances of children dying after being left in cars on hot days have happened within the last year in a state. In response, the state legislature passed a statute that provides for loss of parental custody for any person determined to have left a child under the age of 10 unattended in a car.
A woman left her child in a car for 5 minutes as she ran into a post office to drop letters in the slot. An observant passer-by reported the violation to the local police.
The state files suit under the statute to terminate the woman’s parental rights solely because of this incident. The woman defends only on the ground that the statute in question is unconstitutional as applied to her admitted conduct. In light of the nature of the rights involved, which of the following is the most probable burden of persuasion on this constitutional use?
The state has the burden of persuading the court that the application of this statute to the woman is necessary to accomplish a compelling state interest.
The statute imposes a substantial burden on the woman’s fundamental right to direct the upbringing of her child. In strict scrutiny and intermediate scrutiny, the burden is on the state to prove purpose and tailoring. In rational basis scrutiny, the burden in on the person challenging the government action to prove that the government has no legitimate purpose or that there is no rational relationship between the end and the means.
Crime statistics compiled by the U.S. Department of Justice demonstrate that during the last three years the defendants convicted of Medicare fraud in a particular district within a particular state have been exclusively individuals of one particular race. In response, the Department of Health and Human Services, the federal agency that administers the Medicare program, issued new rules imposing stringent new documentation requirements applicable only in the particular district and only on individuals of that race seeking to obtain reimbursement.
Which of the following provides the best ground for challenging the constitutionality of this statute?
The due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.
This requires you to recognize that the claim is race discrimination, but the equal protection guarantee appears in the Fourteenth Amendment, which only applies against states, but the equal protection principle applies against the federal government through the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
A woman is chief executive officer of a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting immigrant rights. The woman has participated in protests across the nation designed to call attention to changes in federal immigration laws and demand change. One protest took place in the parking lot of a large corporation. The protest was designed to call attention to the corporation’s recent actions identifying undocumented workers to federal immigration enforcement authorities. When police demanded that the woman desist from trespassing on the company’s property, she refused and was arrested. In the woman’s trial for trespass, the prosecution peremptorily excused all nonwhites from the jury, arguing to the court that even though the woman was white, minority groups would automatically support the woman because of her support for immigrant rights. If the woman is convicted of trespass by an all-white jury and appeals, claiming a violation of her constitutional rights, the court should
reverse the conviction, because racially based peremptory challenges violate equal protection of the law.
The facts of the question show that the prosecutor purposefully removed jurors because of their race. The Batson case held that this is unconstitutional, but even without knowing the case, you should reason that almost nothing is a compelling reason that justifies race discrimination.
A public university sets out in a student handbook the procedure for complaints that warrant student discipline. Where one student files a complaint against another, each student is assigned a faculty member as “counsel.” Three faculty members hear and render a decision on the complaint. The three faculty members are selected from a pool of fifteen faculty members named by the chancellor each year. The handbook directs that the chancellor appoint faculty members to ensure racial and gender diversity, and each year the chancellor has done so. After a complaint is filed, and before presentation of the case, faculty counsel for each party strike members of the pool, in alternation, until three faculty members remain on the panel.
A female student filed a complaint against another female student alleging internet bullying. The complainant’s appointed faculty counsel exercised all of her six strikes to eliminate all of the female faculty members in the pool. At the time the faculty counsel did so, she stated that she struck the six female faculty members solely because she believed women, as a group, would necessarily be biased against a woman who filed a complaint against another woman. Counsel for the defendant eliminated six males, all solely on grounds of specific bias or conflicts of interest. As a result, the panel was all male. When the panel ruled against the complainant on the merits of her case, she filed an action in an appropriate state court, challenging the panel selection process as a gender-based denial of equal protection of the laws. In this case, the court should hold that the panel selection process is
unconstitutional, because the gender classification used by the complainant’s counsel in this case does not satisfy the requirements of intermediate scrutiny.
This question requires you to know that gender-based preemptory challenges violate the Constitution, and that the level of scrutiny for gender discrimination is intermediate scrutiny.
A man was recently released from prison because evidence proved he did not commit the crime for which he was convicted. To bring attention to the widespread use of untrustworthy eye witness testimony to convict innocent people, the man entered the courthouse in which he was convicted and set fire to his pocket version of the U.S. Constitution. The fire was extinguished before it caused any other damage. The man was arrested and charged with violating a state law that prohibited igniting a fire in a public building. He claimed that his prosecution was unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
May the man constitutionally be convicted?
Yes, because the state law is narrowly drawn to further a substantial government interest in prohibiting the noncommunicative aspects of the act in question.
The burning of the Constitution is expressive conduct because the speaker intended to communicate a message and an audience was likely to understand he was doing so. Therefore, the O’Brien test or the content neutral test applies.
A man became enraged when a collector from the Internal Revenue Service came to his door to follow up on a letter sent about unpaid taxes. He refused to see the collector and posted on his FaceBook page a detailed physical description of her, his complaints against her and her office, and threats to kill her should she try to visit him again. The man was arrested and prosecuted under a federal law providing that “any person who threatens violence against an employee of the U.S. government with the intent to cause that person to fear for his or her life or safety may be imprisoned for up to five years.” In defense, the man claimed that he did not intend to kill the collector, but only to scare her so that she would not try to visit him again.
Can the man constitutionally be convicted under this law?
Yes, because his communication was a threat by which he intended to make the collector fear for her safety.
“True threats” are a category of unprotected speech. This threat fits the definition established by the Supreme Court and so the government may prohibit it entirely.
As part of a focus on sexual discrimination and the status of women, a city council hear testimony during a recent meeting from nonprofit advocacy groups and individual residents complaining about music with strong and persistent anti-women lyrics blaring from cars at such a volume that drivers and passengers in other cars, and pedestrians walking on the sidewalks and waiting from crossing lights, could not avoid hearing them. The city counsel also received evidence showing a causal connection between socially accepted expression degrading woman and other groups and discrimination and harassment in the workplace. In response, the city council enacted an ordinance that prohibits broadcasting “in a way and at a volume that other can hear derogatory language directed at any racial, sexual or other group.” The ordinance states that it imposes this condition in order to promote equality and ensure that all individuals feel safe riding in cars and walking on public streets.
A car driver wants to play hip hop music that occasionally contains insulting language directed at women at a loud volume with the car windows rolled down, so he can feel the breeze. When the car driver is fined for violating the ordinance, does the car driver have a meritorious defense based on the United States Constitution?
Yes, under the First Amendment.
This is a government action that abridges speech. It is content-based, because it is aimed at “derogatory language” referencing groups. The city has compelling purposes, but the means of prohibiting the speech in an area that is a public forum - streets and sidewalks - is not narrowly tailored. It is overbroad, because some “derogatory” speech contains important ideas that people may want to hear. The city has alternate means, such as more speech to combat derogatory messages and laws against conduct in the workplace that discriminates.
An employee in the human resources department of a large city agency was responsible for posting job notices, screening applicants, and overseeing the hiring process for new employees in the agency. Her work in this respect had always been satisfactory.
The employee is active in an organization that advocates on behalf of the homeless. Recently, she participated in an all-night “sleep-in” at a city park to publicize the plight of the homeless and advocate for changes in city policy. The mayor learned of the employee’s participation and fired the employee solely because of her participation in the protest indicated that he was “disloyal” to the mayor. The city’s charter provides that “all employees of the city work at the pleasure of the mayor.”
Is the mayor’s action constitutional?
No, because the mayor’s action violates the employee’s right to freedom of expression and association.
The mayor’s action is unconstitutional, because it violates the employee’s right to freedom of expression and association protected by the First Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the government may not fire an employee because of the employee’s political views or affiliations unless certain political views or affiliations are required for the effective performance of the employee’s job. The political views or affiliations of a clerical employee of a staff employee at a city agency are not relevant to the employee’s job, and thus the employee may not be fired because of them.
A small religious group has as one of its sincerely held religious beliefs a duty to “light a fire” in the hearts of others who do not yet belong to the religious group and hold its beliefs. Members of the group primarily fulfill this duty by going door-to-door or speaking with passersby on the sidewalks, attempting to persuade them to adopt the group’s religious beliefs. Recently, the group gathered to create a more dramatic display. In the middle of the main city park, the group built and lit a large bonfire and circled it chanting, “Light a Fire! Believe! Believe!” The fire was well contained within a brick boundary built by the members during the night. Nevertheless, in the course of the display, the members of the group were arrested and charged under a city ordinance that makes it a misdemeanor to light a fire on any public property without a permit. On appeal, a conviction of the members probably will be
sustained on the grounds that sincere religious belief is not an adequate defense on these facts.
Heightened scrutiny applies to laws that burden free exercise only if they target religion. This law is neutral. Religion is not a good defense.
To promote access to oil drilled on the outskirts of the nation, the United States government recently issued a permit for a private oil company to construct a pipeline on federal land, running through four states. One tract of federal land, just below a mountain, contains a burial ground regarded as sacred by a group of Native Americans.
The group has filed suit in federal district court against the U.S. government to force cancellation of the permit, claiming solely that the permit violates its First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion. The U.S. government has conceded that the group’s religious beliefs are sincere and that construction of the pipeline will adversely affect the group’s religious practices.
What must the group show to prevail on its First Amendment claim?
The permit issued by the government is aimed at suppressing the religious practices of the group.
The grant of the permit is neutral on its face. Despite the impact on the religious practice, rational basis scrutiny will apply unless the group can show that the government targeted them because of their religion, in which case strict scrutiny would apply.
A state statute imposes a generally applicable sales tax on all purchases of alcohol for consumption. The statute contains an exemption for “wine, or other alcohol used as part of the usual ceremonies performed by a recognized religious institution.”
A nonprofit organization regularly serves and sometimes sells alcohol at its public events to raise money for its issue advocacy. The organization paid the sales tax under protest. The organization then, in federal district court, brought a challenge to the constitutionality of the statute and requested damages for the sales taxes paid. It contended that the exemption restricted to wine used as part of religious ceremonies violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. Assume that the organization has proper standing.
In this case, the court will probably rule that
the exemption from the state sales tax law violates the Establishment Clause of the First and Fourteenth Amendments by granting preferential state support to recognized religious faiths for practicing their religion.
This fact pattern mirrors the Bullock case in which a targeted benefit to religious publications violated the Establishment Clause because it had a primary effect of advancing religion. Note this is not like an exemption from a generally applicable law to accommodate religious beliefs, like an exemption from employment discrimination laws for “ministers” of religious institutions.
A city council held a meeting at which it heard from residents that billboards that used to be located on the outskirts now abutted newly built subdivisions. These billboards, it was told, distracted drivers, detracted from the aesthetics of the upscale neighborhoods, and lowered home prices. In response, the city council enacted an ordinance requiring any “sign or visual display” visible on any street within the city limits have a total outside perimeter measurement of less than eight feet.
A nonprofit advocacy group dedicated to protecting endangered wildlife wanted to hang a six-foot-long banner on an office building across from the headquarters of a company to encourage it to invest more funds to avoid marine pollution. The group filed suit to challenge the constitutionality of the sign ordinance as applied to the display of its banner.
Which of the following would be the most useful argument for the group?
The ordinance is not narrowly tailored to an important government interest, nor does it leave open alternative channels of communication.
Although an advocacy group that wants to engage in political speech is affected, the rule is content neutral so intermediate scrutiny applies.
A public high school has a tradition of inviting a local religious leaders to deliver an interdenominational prayer at its graduation ceremony in the school auditorium. The school principal chooses the religious leader each year from a different religion or religious denomination each year. None of the students or attendees at the graduation ceremony are required to pray as the religious leader delivers the prayer.
Is this practice by the high school constitutional?
No, because it is an unconstitutional establishment of religion.
Officially sponsored prayer at important public school events like commencement and football games violates the Establishment Clause.
Taxi service is provided in a particular city only by private companies. Although a city agency sets safety standards, it does not regulate their rates. A taxi company charges higher rates for routes that terminate in several neighborhoods. The residents of the neighborhoods are primarily minorities whereas residents of the other neighborhoods are primarily white. The taxi company explains the higher rate as necessary because very few people engage taxi service from those neighborhoods, so taxi drivers must return to other neighborhoods empty.
The customer is a resident of one of the neighborhoods that trigger the higher rate. The customer sues the taxi company, alleging that the differential in taxi rates unconstitutionally denies her the equal protection of the law.
Will the plaintiff’s suit succeed?
No, because the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the law is not applicable to the actions of the taxi company.
Taxi companies are private actors so the Constitution does not limit their behavior.
A generally applicable state statute requires that all children attend school until the age of 16. Another state statute prohibits schools from registering a student until the parent produces appropriate documentation proving that the child has received a series of vaccinations set out in the statute, and subject to update and change. The purpose of this law is to protect against the spread of infectious disease by ensuring a high enough vaccination rate to create “herd immunity,” which, when it exists, makes dangerous outbreaks far less likely. In the 75 years since the enactment of the vaccination requirement, the statute has been consistently enforced.
For several decades, the vaccination statute allowed parents to opt out of the requirement by filing a statement certifying their religious or conscientious objections to having their child vaccinated. After several dangerous outbreaks, the state legislature eliminated these exemptions, retaining only an exemption if a doctor certifies that vaccination would endanger the health of the child.
A husband and wife are sincere practicing members of a religion that maintains that it is essential for a person’s body to remain pure and without any invasive procedures, which includes vaccination. When their local public school refused to register their son with documentation certifying that he had been vaccinated, the couple filed an action in state court challenging the constitutionality of the state statute, and seeking an injunction requiring the school to admit him. In this action, the couple claimed only that the application of this statute to them would violate their right to the free exercise of religion as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Assume that no federal statutes are applicable.
As applied to the couple’s case, the court should rule that the state’s vaccination statute is
constitutional, because it is a generally applicable statute and is rationally related to a legitimate state purpose.
This is a generally applicable law, not targeted at these people because of their religion, so rational basis review applies. It is permissible for a state to revoke an exemption so long as it does not do so to disadvantage people because of their religious beliefs.
A woman who had signed a nondisclosure agreement that prevented her from speaking publicly about harassment she had experienced in her workplace decided to break the contract and speak out after the supervisor who had harassed her was revealed to have engaged in the same type of harassment again. On a weekday from 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. she directed her speech through an electronic bullhorn from the sidewalk on which she stood into the outpatient medical clinic at which the supervisor still worked.
A local ordinance prohibits using amplification devices within 200 feet of medical facilities during hours when patients are present.
If the woman is prosecuted under the ordinance, which of the following best describes the proper burden of proof?
The city would have to prove that it had an important purpose for enacting this statute and that the means by which the ordinance satisfied that interest were narrowly tailored.
The rule abridges speech, but it is content neutral so intermediate scrutiny applies. In intermediate scrutiny, the government bears the initial burden of proving purpose and tailoring.
A number of drug companies purchase lists from retail pharmacies of indicating the names of doctors and the drugs they prescribe. The drug companies use these lists to target advertising for new drugs to doctors and promote the sale of their products. Studies show that this type of targeted advertising is highly effective, and that doctors who receive targeted advertising are two times more likely to prescribe products sold by the advertisers.
Drug prices have risen dramatically in a particular state. The state legislature heard testimony indicating that targeted advertising by drug companies was a significant cause of the price increase. In response, the state enacted a law prohibiting any drug seller from sending mailings targeted at doctors because of their pattern of prior prescriptions. The state justified the law as an effort to benefit the public by lowering drug prices and to protect the reputation of drug companies and doctors.
A drug company has brought a lawsuit challenging application of the new law to it. What is the drug company’s best argument that the new law violates the Constitution?
The targeted advertising prohibition does not directly advance the state’s interests and is more extensive than necessary.
Advertisements fall into the category of commercial speech. The level of scrutiny is the Central Hudson intermediate scrutiny test. The government must show a substantial interest, that the restriction directly advances it, and that it is not more extensive than necessary to protect that interest. This law states two interests that qualify as important. The problem for the state will be prongs 3 & 4 of the the Central Hudson test. A court will likely not view advertising as a “direct” cause of higher prices (the drug companies are making the decision to charge higher prices, not the doctors who are viewing the truthful speech) and there are likely other means to serve the interest rather than suppressing truthful speech (e.g., regulating drug prices directly). The Court has tightened the Central Hudson test so that it is very difficult for a government to justify suppressing truthful speech because it may persuade consumers (or prescribing doctors) to make decisions that are bad for the public.
A newly-enacted state criminal statute provides, in its entirety, “No person shall utter to another person in a public place any annoying, disturbing or unwelcome language.” The defendant followed an elderly woman for three blocks down a public street, yelling in her ear offensive four-letter words. The woman repeatedly asked the defendant to leave her alone, but he refused.
In the subsequent prosecution of the defendant, the first under this statute, the defendant
cannot be convicted, because, though his speech here may be punished by the state, the state may not do so under this statute.
This statute is overbroad, as in Terminiello. A proper fighting words or harassment statute could criminalize his conduct.
A city council passed an ordinance for the purpose of protecting the morals of its population. The ordinance imposes a $1 tax on any the sale of any “publication” within the city limits that depicts actual or simulated human sexual intercourse. The ordinance defines “publication” as any written, oral, or visual work displayed for profit to an audience.
Which of the following is the strongest argument against the constitutionality of this federal act?
The act imposes a tax solely on the basis of the content of speech without adequate justification and, therefore, it is prohibited by the freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment.
This is a tax based on the content of speech (the films). Just because the films show sex does not mean they are obscene under the three-part Miller test. A compelling interest is required and means narrowly tailored to achieve it. There is no indication that the state can meet this burden.
A city council has become concerned about many allegations of Internet bullying by teenagers against another in the past several years. In response, the city council enacted an ordinance stating that “no teenager within this city may post on the Internet any derogatory statements or depictions about another teenager within this city or directed to another teenager within this city.”
Is the new law constitutional?
No, because it is not narrowly tailored to further a compelling government interest.
The rule violates the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment. The rule targets speech based on its content, because it prohibits “derogatory” statements about certain types of people. Because the statute is a content-based restriction on speech, it is subject to strict judicial scrutiny. Speech restrictions rarely survive strict scrutiny; the government must prove that the restriction is necessary to further a compelling government interest. The law does not mirror the category of fighting words. Even though the government’s interest in preventing bullying is compelling, the city council could use other means to prevent it, including education (more speech).
A state statute provides that individuals may deduct up to $5,000 per year from their state income tax for “school-related expenses.” The expenses include tuition, books, and other study aids. Because public school students do not pay tuition or for books, almost all of the individuals claiming the tax deductions send their children to private schools. In the state, most of the private schools are owned and operated by a religious institution. In the last five years, on average, 90% of the tax deductions have been claimed by individuals to pay for expenses at private religious schools.
Is the state statute constitutional?
Yes, because the deduction is generally available for public or private school expenses.
The aid is “neutral,” meaning nothing in the statute directs it to be spent for religious purposes. The impact (religious schools receive most of the money) does not matter to the constitutional analysis.
A city ordinance prohibits individuals from carrying signs, speaking though bullhorns, or otherwise engaging in organized political activity on the sidewalks within 500 feet of medical facilities that perform abortions, unless the political activity relates to abortion. The city counsel prohibited most organized political activity in close proximity to the clinics for the purpose of protected women from potentially disturbing speech during the time they undergo a medical procedure. The city counsel adopted this exception after hearing testimony from groups on both sides of the abortion issue indicating that engaging in political activity in close proximity to the clinic was an important part of sending their messages.
A group that wants to picket in front of a clinic that performs abortions to protest unfair employment practices challenges the ordinance as unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
Will the group’s challenge likely prevail?
Yes, because the ordinance is a content-based regulation of speech.
The ordinance is a content-based because it allows one type of speech and prohibits others. The city will not be able to meet strict scrutiny.
A study commissioned by a state shows that a certain type of ink widely used by copy shops is highly toxic to marine animals. The ink enters groundwater and waterways through used cartridges discarded into landfills. To remedy the problem, the state legislature passed a new statute that imposes a fifty cent tax on all cartridges filled with ink of the toxic variety. The statute directs that the money be collected into a fund and distributed as a rebate to copy shops that switch to nontoxic ink cartridges.
Is the tax constitutional as applied to the copy shop?
Yes, because the state has the power to impose general taxes even if they incidentally burden speech.
States have the power to tax. The potential federal constitutional restraint here is the free speech guarantee. This tax raises the prices of copies, which are speech, but the tax targets ink, not speech.
Congress held hearings after which it determined that autonomous vehicle technology was advancing so rapidly that states were not able to keep up with appropriate regulations to advance the industry as well as protect public safety. After the hearings, Congress passed the National Autonomous Vehicle Facilitation and Safety Act to provide a uniform national set of rules for the new industry. Congress and the President were concerned that inconsistent lower court rulings with respect to the constitutionality, interpretation, and application of the statute might adversely affect or delay its enforcement and, thereby, jeopardize the advancement of the industry and protection of public safety. As a result, they included a provision in the statute providing that all legal challenges concerning those matters were to be initiated only by filing suit directly in the United States Supreme Court. The provision authorizing direct review of the constitutionality, interpretation, or application of this statute only in the United States Supreme Court is
unconstitutional, because it is inconsistent with the specification in Article III of the original jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court.
Explanation: This question applies Marbury v. Madison. Congress cannot expand the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
