FREE TX Bar Constitutional Law Questions and Answers
The United States Congress passed, and the President signed, a law called the “American Morality Leadership Act” which limits the amount of makeup that women or men can wear in public and precludes the wearing of short dresses. Men over 65 must wear only brown or grey attire, while those under 65 must wear button down dress shirts with neckties, except for when they are exercising or working physically.
The Act has other restrictions and specifications for dress and grooming mandates for men and women. A class action was filed to challenge the Act based on a constitutional attack. Which argument listed below more closely reflects the constitutional argument that is most likely to succeed in court?
The question revolves around the constitutionality of the “American Morality Leadership Act,” which imposes strict dress and grooming codes on the public. The most accurate constitutional argument against this Act is that it infringes on fundamental rights of the individual. Here’s why: 1. Fundamental Rights: The U.S. Constitution protects certain fundamental rights, such as freedom of expression and personal liberty. These rights extend to individual choices about personal appearance, including dress and grooming. 2. Governmental Regulation: When the government enacts a law that infringes on fundamental rights, it must pass strict scrutiny, which means the law must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. The Act in this question imposes arbitrary and extensive restrictions on personal appearance without a clear, compelling government interest, making it unlikely to withstand strict scrutiny. 3. Case Law: Courts have consistently recognized the right to personal expression through dress and grooming as part of the broader liberty interests protected by the Constitution. For instance, in cases like Williams v. Pryor and DeWeese v. Town of Palm Beach, courts struck down regulations that unnecessarily restricted personal appearance. The answer you selected correctly identifies the constitutional issue at play: the infringement on fundamental rights of the individual.
The state constitution in one state guaranteed the right to marry to same-sex and opposite-sex couples alike. A political group got a proposition on the ballot, and a majority of the people voted to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. The proposition did not affect any of the other rights that same-sex couples may have possessed from existing state law.
Persons affected sued the state government for unconstitutionally taking away the rights that they had and doing it for no legitimate purpose, in violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Will the court grant the requests of the lawsuit and declare the proposition void and reinstate the rights of same-sex couples to marry?
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ensures that no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. This clause has been interpreted to protect certain fundamental rights, including the right to marry. The Supreme Court, in (Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), held that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, same-sex couples may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. In this case, the proposition aimed to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. This action would strip a particular group of a fundamental right without a compelling state interest to justify such discrimination. The court would likely find this unconstitutional because it singles out a disfavored group for unequal treatment and takes away a fundamental right without adequate justification.
A pet store owner opened a store in a new town. She was not aware that the city council had recently passed a law prohibiting the sale of cats and dogs from a retail pet store. The statute had a provision that allowed the pet store to give space to a non-profit humane society to adopt animals from the pet store.
The owner sued the city in federal court, claiming a violation of due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court used the rational basis test to conclude that the statute served a legitimate state interest and was enforceable.
The pet store owner appealed the decision. Will the appellate court likely affirm the decision of the lower court?
Social and economic regulations, like the one in this question, are typically subject to what's known as "rational basis review." This standard is the most lenient form of judicial review. For a law to pass this test, it only needs to show that there's a reasonably conceivable set of facts that could demonstrate a rational relationship between the law and the government's legitimate goals. In this case, the city passed a law to prevent the sale of cats and dogs from retail pet stores, which likely aims to address issues such as the inhumane treatment of animals in "puppy mills" and overpopulation. These are considered legitimate government interests. So, the court concluded that the statute serves a legitimate state interest and is enforceable. The rational basis test doesn't require the law to be the best or most effective means of achieving the goal, just that it is a reasonable way to do so.
A small town police officer pulled over a driver for speeding. He believed that the driver was acting irritable and fidgety, but he had no articulable reason to think anything was wrong. He searched the car anyway and found two cartons of freshly canned peaches, which were owned by the driver's neighbor and reported stolen off of her porch 24 hours earlier.
Authorities charged him with theft under the state criminal code. His motion to suppress the evidence because of an unlawful search was denied.
On appeal, will the appellate court likely reverse the lower court decision denying the motion to suppress?
This scenario revolves around the Fourth Amendment, which protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. In the context of a traffic stop, officers need "reasonable suspicion" to pull someone over, similar to a Terry stop. However, the threshold for searching a vehicle is higher; it requires "probable cause." 1. Reasonable Suspicion vs. Probable Cause: While the officer had a valid reason (speeding) to stop the driver, he did not have probable cause to believe there was contraband or evidence of a crime in the vehicle. The driver's fidgety behavior alone doesn't meet the legal standard for probable cause. 2. Legal Precedents: Cases like United States v. Landaverde and Rodriguez v. United States highlight that probable cause to search a vehicle must be independently established from the reason for the traffic stop. Simply put, just because you can stop the car doesn’t mean you can search it without further justification. 3. Fourth Amendment Violation: Since the officer had no articulable reason or evidence suggesting the presence of illegal items, the search was unconstitutional. As a result, the evidence found (the stolen peaches) should be suppressed, meaning it cannot be used in court. By understanding these principles, you correctly identified that the search was unconstitutional due to the lack of probable cause.
The owner of a state-licensed massage parlor sued the state for arbitrarily canceling its license and prior business permits to conduct a massage parlor at a given location in the city. Due to allegations of illegal activities in other massage parlors not affiliated with this owner, the city canceled the owner's personal license and revoked the business permits. The only information provided was a general notice from the city declaring a new policy on massage parlors that had to be rapidly instituted for the welfare of the community.
She sued the city in federal court, claiming that her business had been taken without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment takings clause. She claimed a lack of procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court granted a motion to dismiss based on her not having a property interest that was affected, including in the license and permits. She appealed the decision.
Will the federal Court of Appeals affirm the lower court dismissal of her case?
This case raises issues under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Procedural due process requires that before the government deprives a person of life, liberty, or property, the individual must be given notice and an opportunity to be heard. In this case, the massage parlor owner claims that her business license and permits were revoked without sufficient procedural protections.
Under established case law, licenses and permits can constitute property interests if state law creates a legitimate claim of entitlement to them. Once such a property interest exists, the government cannot arbitrarily revoke it without due process, which typically includes notice and a hearing. The massage parlor owner had a property interest in her license and permits because they were previously granted by the state. By revoking them without any individualized process (such as a hearing or detailed notice), the government likely violated her procedural due process rights.
The court’s dismissal of her claim based on the notion that she did not have a property interest is likely incorrect because business licenses and permits are recognized as property interests under procedural due process law. Therefore, the Court of Appeals is likely to reverse the dismissal and allow her procedural due process claim to proceed.