Constitutional Law & Civil Rights Flashcards

The federal government seeks an injunction barring a newspaper from publishing leaked classified historical documents about a war. Under New York Times Co. v. United States, the government:

Answer: Bears a heavy burden to justify any prior restraint, which it failed to meet

Prior restraints carry a heavy presumption against constitutional validity, and the government failed to overcome it in the Pentagon Papers case.

A public official sues a newspaper for defamation over a false statement about her official conduct. Under New York Times v. Sullivan, she must prove:

Answer: Actual malice: knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth

Public officials must prove actual malice by clear and convincing evidence to recover for defamation regarding official conduct.

A facially neutral police hiring test disproportionately excludes Black applicants. Under Washington v. Davis, an Equal Protection claim requires proof of:

Answer: Discriminatory intent or purpose

Washington v. Davis holds that disproportionate impact alone does not establish an Equal Protection violation without discriminatory purpose.

A government official sued for damages under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless:

Answer: The conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights a reasonable person would have known

Under Harlow v. Fitzgerald, qualified immunity shields officials unless they violated clearly established law that a reasonable official would have known.

Under City of Boerne v. Flores, legislation enacted under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment must:

Answer: Show congruence and proportionality between the injury and the remedy

Boerne requires Section 5 legislation to be congruent and proportional to the constitutional violation it remedies, not redefine the right.

Congress conditions all existing Medicaid funding on states expanding coverage to a new population. Under NFIB v. Sebelius, the condition is invalid because it:

Answer: Is so coercive that it amounts to a 'gun to the head'

The Court found the threatened loss of all existing Medicaid funds unconstitutionally coercive under the Spending Clause.

A federal statute requires local sheriffs to conduct background checks on handgun purchasers. Under Printz v. United States, the requirement:

Answer: Unconstitutionally commandeers state executive officers

Printz holds that Congress may not compel state executive officials to administer a federal regulatory program.