Blog

As part of a comprehensive federal aid-to-education program, Congress included the following provisions as conditions for state receipt of federal funds: (1) Whenever textbooks are provided to students without charge, they must include no religious instruction and must be made available on the same terms to students in all public and private schools accredited by the state educational authority. (2) Salary supplements can be paid to teachers in public and private schools, up to 10% of existing salary schedules, where present compensation is less than the average salary for persons of comparable training and experience, provided that no such supplement is paid to any teacher who instructs in religious subjects. (3) Construction grants can be made toward the cost of physical plants at private colleges and universities, provided that no part of the grant is used for buildings in which instruction in religious subject matters is offered.  A federal taxpayer challenges the construction grants to church-operated private colleges and universities. The most likely result is that the construction grants will be:

The State of Ames requires that all uniformed police officers retire at age 50 in an effort to ensure their physical fitness and mental. The law does not apply to detectives or other plainclothes police officers. Phil sues, claiming that the law violates equal protection. He notes that many officers under 50 are neither physically fit nor mentally alert. He also argues that it is a violation to single out uniformed cops for this treatment while allowing detectives 50 years old and older to remain on the force. A reviewing court should:

The student body of a high school in Ames City has elected a student “chaplain” to the student council. The new student chaplain begins a practice of saying grace in the cafeteria before the lunch period. It is student-led, but faculty and staff have tolerated the practice, even participating by standing with the students and bowing their heads. A group of students and their parents object, claiming that the practice violates the Establishment Clause. The group files suit in federal court. The judge hearing the case will likely:

A state statute makes fraud for personal financial gain a crime. The defendant was convicted of violating this statute on three separate occasions. Following his most recent conviction, he professed to have undergone a religious conversion and proclaimed himself to be the divine minister of an alleged messiah who would shortly be making his appearance on earth. The defendant solicited cash donations from the public to support his efforts to spread the word of this messiah and his coming appearance on earth. Following complaints by several contributors who claimed he defrauded them, the defendant was again charged with fraud under this state statute. The charge was that the defendant “should have known that his representations were false and, therefore, that he made them solely to collect cash donations for his personal gain.” A witness for the prosecution in the defendant’s trial stated that the defendant had admitted that, at times, he had doubts about the existence of the messiah. The defendant was the only religious minister prosecuted for fraud under this state statute. The strongest constitutional defense that the defendant could assert would be that this prosecution:

A state that is subject to severe winters generally allows the use of studded tires between October 1 and March 31. However, the legislation allows counties to opt out and prohibit the use of studded tires year round, because studded tires tend to tear up pavement more than nonstudded tires, thus necessitating more frequent road repairs. No other state in the region allows use of studded snow tires at all. The state law contains one exception: it excludes “doctors” from any county ban on the use of snow tires because they might have to cross county lines in emergencies. After the passage of the legislation, only one county in the state invoked its right to ban the use of studded snow tires. A lawyer who lives in the state was angered that the legislature had given special privileges to doctors but not to lawyers. One January day, with studded tires on his car, he drove from his home county, which allowed use of studded tires, into the county that banned them. A sheriff’s officer noticed the lawyer’s studded tires and cited him. After being convicted and fined, the lawyer appealed. What is the lawyer’s best argument for getting the ban invalidated?

A person’s belief in secular humanism as a religion be protected by the First Amendment.

A state statute discriminating against men can violate equal protection.

Sunnyvale grants funds to organizations with playgrounds whose lights are powered exclusively through solar energy. Son Rise Church (SRC) installed solar panels for its playground and then applied for the grant. Sunnyvale denied SRC’s grant because its state’s constitution forbids the use of money in the public treasury to aid any church. SRC sues and argues the denial violated the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The court will find that the denial of the grant violated the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause.

A federal statute provides for subsidized health care benefits for all full-time college students who are also unemployed. The benefits terminate automatically if the recipient fails to enroll in college full-time in any two consecutive semesters or takes a job working more than 15 hours per week. A college student who had previously received the benefits was denied coverage when he reported that he had taken a full-time student teaching job his senior year, a requirement for his degree. The student did not receive health care benefits through his employer and was left with no coverage. The student filed suit in federal court to compel the government to continue providing him with the subsidized benefits while he finished his degree. He asserts, among other things, that there is no logical reason why he should be deprived of benefits when students in other fields who are not required to work as part of their degree program continue to receive them.Which of the following is the strongest ground for the government to defend the constitutionality of the federal statute in question?

Derby State University is a four-year public institution of higher education that features a robust and award-winning STEM curriculum.  Located in the Southern United States, the heritage of educational segregation – though no longer legal – still casts a long shadow, but DSU has bucked that cultural inertia. Derby employs an aggressive recruiting and diversity policy for its STEM program aimed at providing admission to those applicants whose applicant profiles had historically been foreclosed because of unlawful discrimination or social impediments.  In order to remediate for prior discrimination in admissions, the policy requires that admission percentages for historically disadvantaged groups (Black and Hispanic) meet or exceed the proportion that those particular groups comprise among today’s general population.  Asians and Jewish are classified as “white” under the policy. Today, DSU’s Freshmen STEM enrollment reflects 51% Black students, 34% Hispanic students, 12% white students, and 2% Asian/Pacific students and 1% Jewish students. Admission criteria under the policy includes high school GPA, SAT scores, the applicant’s family structure, and other “soft criteria” focusing on “social fitness” factors, including the applicant’s “DSU community fit,” personality factors (all applicants must take a Myers/Briggs assessment and an Enneagram assessment in addition to standardized college admission tests), the applicant’s social context and “lived experience,” including neighborhood and housing, elementary education, and other “life experience.” Three American men of Chinese ancestry, who applied to DSU’s STEM program, yet were rejected, have initiated civil litigation against DSU in federal court prior to the commencement of the Fall semester citing its admission policy. They seek injunctive relief and civil damages.   They contend that despite having attended objectively better prep schools and despite having objectively better GPAs and standardized test scores, particularly as geared toward STEM success, they were denied admission due to racial discrimination and racial stereotypes (“Asians are not social and are passive book worms”) based on the policy’s “soft criteria” which they contend were designed to and did in fact skew admissions against better qualified Asian applicants, all in violation of the 14th Amendment.  What is the likelihood of the Plaintiffs prevailing on equitable and civil damage claims predicated on violations arising under the 14th Amendment? Discuss fully, including any potential defenses available to the defendant, but there is no need to discuss potential common law pendent or ancillary claims or defenses.