Blog

During extensive hearings, a state legislature determined that double tractor-trailer rigs—trucks consisting of a tractor (the motorized portion) towing two large, connected trailers—caused the roadway to deteriorate faster than other freight vehicles and autos because of their weight. Traffic safety experts also produced evidence showing that double tractor-trailer vehicles were involved in more accidents than other freight vehicles, primarily due to “jackknifing,” where the rear trailer loses traction and swerves violently, causing the entire vehicle to be upended. Consequently, the legislature passed a statute requiring the owners and users of double tractor-trailer vehicles to pay a user’s fee, in addition to normal vehicle licenses, of 10 cents per mile traveled over state highways and an annual registration fee of $5,000. The owner of 30 tractors in a neighboring state that almost exclusively pull double trailer rigs through the state imposing the fees determined that about 30% of the total mileage of all of the owner’s vehicles is accumulated in that state, and that there is no easy way to avoid traveling through that state to get to the delivery destinations in other states. The mileage fees and registration fees for 30 trucks in a year would be about 60% of the owner’s gross annual income. The owner brought suit in federal district court seeking a judicial declaration that the fees imposed by the state statute are unconstitutional. At trial, attorneys for the state produced evidence of highway destruction and safety hazards from the double tractor-trailer rigs as found by legislative committee hearings. The owner proved the relevant facts about his operations and the cost the statute would impose. If the court finds the tax unconstitutional, what is the most likely reason?

Which of the following suits would not fall within the United States Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction under Article III, Section 2?

A state statute was struck down by the supreme court of the state on the grounds that it was in conflict with the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution as well as the Equal Protection Clause of the state constitution. Does the United States Supreme Court have jurisdiction to hear an appeal of the state supreme court’s decision?

A federal statute makes it a crime to “take[] a motor vehicle that has been transported, shipped, or received in interstate or foreign commerce from the person or presence of another by force and violence or by intimidation,” with “the intent to cause death or serious bodily harm.” Jack is convicted of violating this statute, but, having heard about Lopez, appeals his conviction on the grounds that it exceeds Congress’s constitutional authority. Jack’s conviction should be:

The United States Surgeon General was cited for contempt for refusing to answer questions as part of a Senate investigation regarding an issue in the Food and Drug Administration. His contempt citation will be dismissed if he can show which of the following?

As an aide to a member of the Congress of the United States, you are expected to provide an analysis of the constitutionality of proposed legislation that your employer is called to vote on. A bill has been proposed that would create a mandatory price schedule for every motor vehicle sold in the United States. Which of the following should you tell your employer is the strongest constitutional basis for the proposed legislation?

A state statute provides: “Any merchant desiring to sell within this state any product or goods manufactured outside of the United States must (i) obtain a special license from the state for $50 and (ii) clearly mark the goods as to specify their country of origin.” The statute makes it a misdemeanor for any merchant to willfully sell goods without complying with these statutory requirements. Which of the following statements is correct regarding the constitutionality of the statute?

The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) requires enforcement of a “written provision in . . . a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract . . . shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable.” 9 U.S.C. § 2. Prior case law has interpreted “involving commerce” to mean “affecting commerce.” Jerry lives in a state with laws that disfavor arbitration clauses, and defaults on a loan to a state bank whose loan officer Jerry claims defrauded him. When the bank secures an order requiring arbitration, Jerry cries foul. Congress, he argues, has exceeded its commerce power in ordering intrastate disputes arbitrated, contrary to the declared public policy of the state. Which of the following argument(s) is/are helpful to the bank seeking enforcement?

Terrorists in a foreign country kidnapped a U.S. ambassador to that country. The terrorists threatened to kill her, unless the President secured the release of an identified person held in a state prison pursuant to a valid conviction by that state.The President responded by entering into an agreement with the foreign country which provided for the release of the U.S. ambassador on a specified date in return for the release of the identified person held in the state prison. The President then ordered the governor of the state to release the prisoner in question. The governor refused. No federal statutes are applicable.Which of the following is the strongest constitutional argument for the authority of the President to take action in these circumstances and require the governor to release the prisoner?

The President of the United States and the king of a foreign nation entered into a treaty agreeing that citizens of the foreign nation who reside in the United States would not be taxed by the United States and that United States citizens who reside in the foreign nation would not be taxed by it. The treaty was ratified by the United States Senate and the royal council of the foreign nation. One year after the treaty became effective, the foreign nation began to tax United States citizens within its borders. The President immediately declared the tax treaty to be void and ordered the Internal Revenue Service to tax citizens of the foreign nation living in the United States. Is the President’s action constitutional?