Constitutional Law MBE Practice Test 2017

Question 1

A church located in a western state was a branch of a church originating in a South American country. It received a large shipment from its home church of a special hallucinogenic tea that is used in the church’s sacramental religious services. The federal government seized the shipment, preventing the religious use of the tea. The church filed for an injunction requesting permission to import the tea for religious purposes and to prohibit any federal prosecutions. The government presented no evidence as to the dangers of the tea or reasons to outlaw it other than an analysis of its ingredients contained a natural chemical compound that was listed as a Schedule I prohibited substance. What is the most likely decision of the federal district court to the petition of the church?

Accepted Answer

The injunction will be granted because the government did not prove a compelling government interest in interfering with this particular religious practice.

Answer

Under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the federal government must demonstrate a compelling government interest and use the least restrictive means when a federal law substantially burdens a person's exercise of religion. Since the government provided no evidence of danger or specific reasons to outlaw the tea beyond its Schedule I classification, it failed to meet the compelling interest test required to justify interfering with the church's religious practice.

Question 2

A grower based in one state grew and marketed corn nationwide. The U.S. Congress passed a law attempting to stabilize the price of corn by limiting the volume of corn produced by growers to a specified volume per each cubic acre, on a semi-annual basis. The Department of Agriculture fined the grower for exceeding the production volume. He only intended to use the excess for feeding his livestock and domestic purposes, but he was ordered to destroy it. The grower brought an action claiming that his substantive due process rights had been illegally interfered with. He asked for an injunction and reparations. What would be the most likely decision of the court?

Accepted Answer

No relief was granted because Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce, and even though he used the excess corn internally, it reduced the feed that he had to buy, thus having an effect on interstate commerce.

Answer

This scenario is analogous to *Wickard v. Filburn*, where the Supreme Court held that Congress's Commerce Clause power extends to regulating purely intrastate activities if, in the aggregate, they substantially affect interstate commerce. Even though the grower used the excess corn for personal livestock, this reduced his demand for purchased feed, thereby impacting the overall interstate market for corn and feed, thus falling within Congress's regulatory authority.

Question 3

A regional planning commission ordered a temporary cessation of all construction in a large planned residential development in order to formulate a comprehensive land-use plan, and to study the environmental impact on a large natural lake adjoining the property. After some 24 months the moratorium still existed, and real estate developers sued, alleging that the moratorium constituted a taking of their property without due compensation in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. A lower federal court held a hearing, heard evidence, and ruled that the delay under these facts was not unreasonable and no taking occurred. How would the federal court of appeals most likely decide the issue?

Accepted Answer

The temporary cessation was not the same as a total restriction on further development and didn’t ultimately deprive the owners of all economic uses of their property.

Answer

A temporary moratorium on development, especially for planning purposes, is generally not considered a compensable taking under the Fifth Amendment if it is reasonable in duration and does not permanently deprive the owner of all economically viable use of their land. The court's finding that the 24-month delay was not unreasonable supports the conclusion that the developers were not ultimately deprived of all economic uses, distinguishing it from a permanent taking.

Question 4

A city park accepted a limited number of privately funded and donated monuments. One of them was a monument displaying the Ten Commandments, which the Kiwanis International donated in a campaign against juvenile delinquency 50 years ago. A non-denominational church organization recently demanded that the city provide space in the park for the church to erect a monument giving the seven precepts of the church. The city rejected the request, and the church sued the city requesting injunctive action to compel the city to provide space for its religious display. The church argued that the city was in violation of the religious establishment clause of the First Amendment by allowing the Ten Commandments. The church said that the monument was an establishment of religion and that all religions should be allowed to display equally or none should be allowed. Based on modern precedent, what will the court decide?

Accepted Answer

The city can accept a monument that also has historical, non-sectarian interest without violating the establishment clause and without having to accept other monuments.

Answer

Simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the Establishment Clause. Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U. S. 677, 690 (2005) There is a sufficiently secular message of the Ten Commandments. They have undeniable historical meaning in the American heritage. A non-religious organization donated it for non-religious purposes, and it went unchallenged for 50 years. A reasonable observer, mindful of the history, purpose, and context, would not conclude that this passive monument conveyed the message that the State was seeking to endorse religion, even though it also had to be recognized that the Ten Commandments had religious significance. Id. at 545 U. S. 682-683. See also Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U. S. 819, 845-846 (1995) (warning against the "risk [of] fostering a pervasive bias or hostility to religion, which could undermine the very neutrality the Establishment Clause requires").

Question 5

A developer purchased two lots of ocean front property. He intended to build two single-family high-end homes like adjacent homes built in the surrounding areas. Two years later, the state passed a beachfront protection statute that prohibited the developer from building on his lots. The developer filed a claim in state court demanding compensation for a taking of his property under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments because the state denied all economic uses of the property. The trial court agreed that the property was now economically useless, and awarded compensation to the developer. However, on appeal the supreme court of the state reversed. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari. Did the U.S. Supreme Court grant the developer’s plea for compensation based on an unconstitutional taking of his property by the state?

Accepted Answer

Yes, compensation is payable for a taking of property where a statute or regulation takes away all economic use of the land.

Answer

The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that private property shall not “be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Lingle v. Chevron USA Inc., 544 U.S. 528, 536-37. When the owner of real property has been called upon to sacrifice all economically beneficial uses in the name of the common good, that is, to leave his property economically idle, he has suffered a taking for which reasonable compensation must be paid. See Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1019, 1027 (1992).

Multistate Bar Exam Practice Test

Multistate Bar Exam Practice Test

Constitutional Law MBE Practice Test 2017