Blog

A state statute requires the permanent removal from parental custody of any child who has suffered “child abuse.” That term is defined to include “corporal punishment of any sort.” A father gently spanks his six-year-old son on the buttocks whenever he believes that spanking is necessary to discipline him. Such a spanking has never physically harmed the child. The state files suit under the statute to terminate the father’s parental rights solely because of these spankings. The father defends only on the ground that the statute in question is unconstitutional as applied to his 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 issue? 

Bart, a student at Ames High School, encounters Ken, his biology teacher, at the local KrustyBurger restaurant one day after school has been dismissed. Bart makes an obscene gesture at Ken, whom he does not like; Ken sees Bart do this. At school the next day, Bart is called to the principal’s office and suspended for “inappropriate, disrespectful, and vulgar conduct toward school personnel,” which is forbidden by the Ames High School code of conduct. If, after Bart files a lawsuit challenging his suspension, a judge rules for him, and orders his suspension lifted and his record cleared, it would likely be because:

A housing development contained one-, two-, and three-bedroom units. All units were suitable for occupancy, and the developers of the project filed the appropriate documents, including a Declaration of Restrictions that limited ownership and occupancy of the units to families or to groups of unrelated adults of not more than three in number. Each deed to the individual units also contained the restriction.One of the two-bedroom units was purchased by a woman and her boyfriend. They immediately moved into the unit with another unmarried couple who were friends of theirs. Other unit owners brought suit against the woman and her boyfriend to enjoin the occupancy by the other couple.If the other unit owners prevail, what will likely be the reason?

To encourage the growth of its population, a state established a program that awards $1,000 to the parents of each child born within the state, provided that at the time of the child’s birth the mother and father are U.S. citizens.A husband and wife are aliens who are permanent residents of the United States and have resided in the state for three years. When their first child was born two months ago, the husband and wife applied for and were denied the $1,000 award by state officials on the sole ground that they are not U.S. citizens. The husband and wife filed suit in federal court, contending that their exclusion from the award program is unconstitutional. No federal statute addresses this question.In this case, the court should hold that the exclusion of aliens from the state award program is:

Marcia is an employee of the State Department of Child Welfare. She is part of a bargaining unit that has voted to be represented by a union. The union negotiates with the state concerning the workers’ wages and terms and conditions of employment, and it also engages in political activity supportive of policies that it considers to be in the interest of workers. Marcia disagrees with the union’s political stances, so she does not wish to join the union. May she be forced to join the union or contribute union dues as a condition of employment?

A state statute prohibits any retailer of books, magazines, pictures, or posters from “publicly displaying or selling to any person any material that may be harmful to minors because of the violent or sexually explicit nature of its pictorial content.” Violation of this statute is a misdemeanor. An adult bookstore displayed publicly and sold magazines containing violent and sexually explicit pictures. The owner of the store is being prosecuted under the state statute for these actions.In defending against this prosecution in a state trial court, the best defense for the owner is that the statute violates the:

As part of a protest against continued American military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, Stark Young staged a play in which the main character, played by Young, was a vampire who wore a U.S. Army uniform and preyed on innocent young women who represented various countries in which the Army was conducting military operations. Young was convicted under a federal statute that prohibited the use of uniforms or insignia of the United States armed forces in plays, movies, or on television in any manner that “tended to discredit” the military or its members. The statute is likely to be found:

A state enacts the Young Adult Marriage Counseling Act, which provides that, before any persons less than 30 years of age may be issued a marriage license, they must receive at least five hours of marriage counseling from a state-licensed social worker. This counseling is designed to ensure that applicants for marriage licenses know their legal rights and duties in relation to marriage and parenthood, understand the “true nature” of the marriage relationship, and understand the procedures for obtaining divorces.  In a case in which the constitutionality of the Young Adult Marriage Counseling Act is in issue, the burden of persuasion will probably be on the: 

DeKalb County, Georgia, has an ordinance prohibiting the display of “lewd” bumper stickers. “Lewd” is defined by the ordinance as “obscene or profane words or images likely to give offense, or to cause shock or alarm to the viewer or reader.” Mary Martin was issued a ticket for violation of that order by a county sheriff for a bumper sticker on her car that read, “Shit Happens.” She challenges the constitutionality of the ordinance. The judge should:

Based on recommendations of a state commission studying the effect of pornographic films on violent criminal activity, a state adopted legislation banning films intended for commercial distribution that appealed as a whole to the prurient interest in sex of the average person in the community, portrayed sex in a patently offensive way to citizens of the state, and which a reasonable person in the United States would find had no serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. In ruling on a constitutional challenge to the legislation from a film distributor in the state who was convicted of distributing films in violation of the legislation, will the federal court likely find the legislation to be constitutional?