MD Bar Constitutional Rights and Liberties 2 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: A city ordinance bans all leafleting in the downtown business district to reduce litter. A political activist is cited for handing out campaign flyers. Is the ordinance constitutional?
- Yes, because litter prevention is a legitimate government interest
- Yes, because the ban is content-neutral and applies to everyone equally
- No, because a complete ban on leafleting in a public forum is not narrowly tailored to the litter interest (Correct answer)
- No, because political speech may never be regulated in any manner
Correct answer: No, because a complete ban on leafleting in a public forum is not narrowly tailored to the litter interest
Under Schneider v. State, a total ban on leafleting in public forums fails narrow tailoring because litter can be addressed by punishing litterers directly.
Question 2: A state law requires all public school teachers to begin each day with a moment of silence 'for meditation or voluntary prayer,' enacted with the express purpose of returning prayer to schools. Under the Establishment Clause, the law is most likely:
- Unconstitutional, because its legislative purpose was to endorse religion (Correct answer)
- Constitutional, because moments of silence are inherently neutral
- Constitutional, because no student is compelled to pray
- Unconstitutional, because any mention of prayer in schools is forbidden
Correct answer: Unconstitutional, because its legislative purpose was to endorse religion
In Wallace v. Jaffree, the Supreme Court struck down a moment-of-silence statute enacted with the sole purpose of promoting prayer.
Question 3: Police obtain a valid warrant to search a house for stolen televisions. While searching a kitchen drawer, an officer finds a small bag of narcotics. The narcotics are:
- Admissible, because the warrant covered the entire house
- Admissible under the plain view doctrine regardless of where they were found
- Inadmissible, because the warrant did not mention narcotics
- Inadmissible, because a television could not fit in a kitchen drawer (Correct answer)
Correct answer: Inadmissible, because a television could not fit in a kitchen drawer
A warrant search is limited to places where the named items could reasonably be found, and a television cannot fit in a kitchen drawer, so the drawer search exceeded the warrant's scope.
Question 4: A state statute grants a property tax exemption only to residents who have lived in the state for at least ten years. A three-year resident challenges the law. The strongest constitutional argument against the statute is that it:
- Violates the Contracts Clause
- Penalizes the right to interstate migration in violation of equal protection and the right to travel (Correct answer)
- Constitutes a bill of attainder
- Violates procedural due process by denying a hearing
Correct answer: Penalizes the right to interstate migration in violation of equal protection and the right to travel
Durational residency requirements that allocate benefits based on length of residence penalize the fundamental right to travel and trigger strict scrutiny.
Question 5: A public university expels a student for academic dishonesty without any notice of the charges or an opportunity to respond. The student's best constitutional claim is a violation of:
- Procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment (Correct answer)
- The Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV
- Substantive due process
- The Ex Post Facto Clause
Correct answer: Procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment
A student at a public institution has a protected interest in continued enrollment, and expulsion requires at least notice and an opportunity to be heard.
Question 6: Congress passes a law prohibiting flag burning 'in a manner that offends onlookers.' A protester burns a flag at a rally and is prosecuted. The law is:
- Constitutional, because conduct is not speech
- Constitutional, because Congress has plenary power over the flag
- Unconstitutional, because it suppresses expressive conduct based on its communicative impact (Correct answer)
- Unconstitutional, because it is a taking of private property
Correct answer: Unconstitutional, because it suppresses expressive conduct based on its communicative impact
Under Texas v. Johnson and United States v. Eichman, flag burning is protected expressive conduct, and laws targeting its offensive message fail strict scrutiny.
Question 7: A state denies unemployment benefits to a worker fired for refusing to work on her Sabbath. Under Free Exercise Clause precedent governing unemployment compensation, the denial is:
- Constitutional, because unemployment benefits are a privilege, not a right
- Unconstitutional, because conditioning benefits on violating religious beliefs burdens free exercise without a compelling interest (Correct answer)
- Constitutional, because the rule is generally applicable
- Unconstitutional, because all benefit denials require strict scrutiny
Correct answer: Unconstitutional, because conditioning benefits on violating religious beliefs burdens free exercise without a compelling interest
Sherbert v. Verner held that denying unemployment benefits for Sabbath observance imposes an unconstitutional burden on free exercise absent a compelling interest.
MD Bar Constitutional Rights and Liberties 2
A city ordinance bans all leafleting in the downtown business district to reduce litter.
A political activist is cited for handing out campaign flyers.
Is the ordinance constitutional?