Blog

A man who belonged to an ancient religion whose rituals require the use of bald eagle feathers traveled to an area where bald eagles were known to roost. After searching the area, he found a fallen eagle feather and returned home. A few weeks later, the man showed the feather to an acquaintance, who happened to be a state park ranger, and explained how the feather was obtained. The ranger informed the man that a state anti-poaching law makes any possession of a bald eagle feather without a special permit a crime. The ranger then cited the man for possession of the feather and confiscated it. At the man’s trial for violating the state bald eagle feather possession statute, which of the following constitutional arguments is most appropriate for the prosecution to make?

During an anti-globalization protest in Washington, D.C., participants heard from a variety of speakers who denounced globalization in general and multinational corporations in particular. One speaker, David, pointed toward a McDonald’s across the street from the park in which the protest was being held, called for “regime change in McDonald-land,” and led the crowd in the following chant: “McDonald’s is for clowns. We oughta burn it down.” David then relinquished the microphone and left the stage without incident. The following week, the McDonald’s was put to the torch by unknown persons. David is charged with violating a local law against inciting someone to damage the property of others. He is convicted. On appeal, David argues that his speech was protected by the First Amendment. The appeals court should:

Concerned that the patchwork of state laws governing the issuance of drivers’ licenses and other forms of identification were a threat to national security, Congress passed a law requiring all U.S. citizens and resident aliens to obtain and carry with them at all times a national ID card, which must be produced when requested by state, local, or federal law enforcement personnel. A number of people vigorously objected to what they saw as “Big Brotherism” run amok; several began to burn their ID cards publicly, in protest. Federal law prohibits “forging, altering, or knowingly destroying or mutilating” one’s ID card. When Alex O’Brien is convicted of violating this provision by burning his card in a protest against “big government,” he appeals, claiming that the law is unconstitutional. Which of the following scenarios would be most helpful to his claim?

State O wants to open a pilot daycare program for preschool children and, to that end, it submitted the project for open bids as required by State O law. The lowest bid that met the criteria established by State O was submitted by a religious organization. The organization’s bid is low, in part, because the building in which the program would be housed is tax exempt under State O law under a religious institution exemption to property taxes. The organization agreed to operate under the conditions of the project contract, including the provision prohibiting the program from being used to espouse or promote any particular religious view. Studies have shown, however, that children in such situations tend to emulate their caregivers. State O decides to award the contract to the organization. A citizen of State O brings an action in a proper State O court seeking to set the award aside, claiming that it violates the United States Constitution. Is the citizen likely to prevail?

A state statute requires that all new automobiles sold in the state shall be equipped with a certain safety system to protect passengers in the event of a collision. An automobile company that wants to sell automobiles in the state files an action to enjoin enforcement of the statute, arguing that the statute deprives the auto company of its right to contract freely with customers under the Due Process Clause.What is the appropriate burden of proof?

The State of Security requires that people seeking a driver’s license must provide a government photo where the individual is not wearing anything that covers the face. Lucy is a member of the Church of Modesty, which forbids its members to appear in public or be photographed with their faces uncovered. She challenges the driver’s license photo requirement as an undue burden on her religious practice. She will probably not win. 

A city ordinance that gave churches veto power over the grant of liquor licenses for businesses within a quarter mile of the church was struck down by the state’s supreme court. In its decision, the court noted that even if the ordinance were not a violation of the federal Establishment Clause, it clearly violated a provision in the state constitution requiring the separation of church and state because it delegated governmental authority to the churches. The supreme court opinion also harshly criticized the city council for passing an ordinance that was clearly a violation of state law. To comply with the court’s decision and avoid future criticism, the city council adopted an ordinance prohibiting any cleric from sitting on any public board within the city. A cleric who is currently on a school board within the city brings a suit in federal district court to have the ordinance declared unconstitutional. How should the court rule?

To raise revenue, a city erected billboards on the sides of all government buildings and planned to sell the space for commercial advertising. A city ordinance provided that any advertiser could rent the space, provided the activity or product advertised was legal and had “nothing to do with politics” because the city sought to “avoid controversy.” The owner of a bookstore that specialized in political books sought to lease a billboard on a city building to place an ad. In addition to selling books, the owner conducted daily reading and study groups in the store on various political philosophies. The proposed ad implored onlookers to come to the bookstore to study communism at the store at 6 p.m. nightly. The ad was rejected by city officials. If the owner files an appropriate suit against the city in federal district court asserting violation of her First Amendment rights, is she likely to prevail?

Ken is a television host whose show “Ken’s Korner” is a popular political talk show. An outspoken, self-proclaimed “independent,” Ken prides himself on speaking truth to power regardless of who is in political power. The local newspaper runs a story claiming that, in reality, Ken is on the payroll of a number of trade groups who pay Ken to publicize their agenda, and that he receives weekly talking points from lobbyists that he works into every show. A furor erupted following the publication of the article. Ken’s viewership plummeted and his show was canceled. Later the newspaper conceded that the reporter who wrote the story exaggerated the ties that existed between Ken and lobbying groups, making it look like he was doing their bidding. Ken sues the publisher of the newspaper for libel, claiming both actual and punitive damages. Which of the following statements is true?

A State N law required all automobile drivers to carry liability insurance; however, because of the high number of auto accidents in the state, the cost of insurance became prohibitive. A study sponsored by the State N legislature showed that males under the age of 21 were four times more likely to get into automobile accidents than any other group, including females in the same age group. The study predicted that prohibiting males under the age of 21 from driving would result in a 15% reduction in all other persons’ automobile insurance rates. Ultimately, the legislature raised the minimum age for obtaining a driver’s license to age 21 for males. Females were still allowed to obtain licenses at age 16. An 18-year-old male living in State N when the limit was raised, and who worked as a pizza delivery driver, was fired from his job and replaced by a 17-year-old female.If the young man sues to have the law set aside and prevails, what is the most likely reason?