MISSED MBE
A potential candidate for city council publicly expresses his opinion to the media that although he has not yet officially declared his candidacy, he is not optimistic about his chances of winning if he were to run for a city council position within a particular political party. Because he has an interest in both running and winning, he therefore publicly declares that he would like to be placed on the ballot as a member of "every party possible" in order to increase his chances. The elections commissioner publicly declares that if the potential candidate attempts to "spread his luck around the ballot," he will be prohibited from being placed on the ballot at all. The potential candidate sues in federal court, stating that such a prohibition is unfair. How should the court proceed? Dismiss the case, because the commissioner has not prohibited the potential candidate's inclusion on the ballot. Dismiss the case, because the city has the right to regulate ballot access in any way it sees fit. Dismiss the case, because the question is a political one that the court has no standing to hear. Rule in favor of the potential candidate because a candidate may appear on the ballot as a member of multiple parties.
A is correct. A federal court will not consider a claim before it has fully developed; to do so would be premature, and any potential injury would be speculative. In order for a case to be "ripe" for litigation, the plaintiff must have experienced a real injury (or imminent threat thereof). Here, because the commissioner has only made a statement of his intentions but has not taken any action preventing the potential candidate from running or placing his name on the ballot (nor has the candidate even attempted to do so), the candidate has not suffered a real injury.
In order to discourage the transfer of electrical products that could threaten the security of the United States as well as to raise revenue, Congress enacted a statute that imposed a tax on the export of specific electrical products to countries that were determined to be hostile to the United States. Is this statute constitutional? Answers: No, because of the Export Taxation Clause of Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution. No, because Congress has no general police power to legislate for the health, safety, welfare, or morals of citizens. Yes, because of the taxing power granted to Congress in Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution. Yes, because of the Commerce Clause of Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution.
Answer choice A is correct. Congress may not tax goods exported to foreign countries. Under the Export Taxation Clause, a tax or duty that falls on goods during the course of exportation or on services or activities closely related to the export process is prohibited.
The plaintiff was born in a foreign country but came to the United States as a child and became a naturalized citizen. Subsequently, the plaintiff returned to her country of birth and voted in a national election for prime minister there. When the plaintiff sought to renew her U.S. passport in order to return to the United States, her application was denied by the State Department. The State Department determined that the plaintiff was a nonresident alien and was therefore not entitled to a passport. The State Department relied on a federal law stating that a United States citizen who votes in a foreign political election forfeits his United States citizenship. The plaintiff filed an action in federal court for a declaratory judgment that she is a citizen of the United States. Should the plaintiff prevail? Answers: Yes, because Congress may not take away a person's citizenship. Yes, because the law violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV. No, because Congress has exclusive authority over naturalization. No, because aliens do not have a right to enter the United States.
Answer choice A is correct. The protection of national citizenship in Clause I of the Fourteenth Amendment prevents Congress from taking away a person's citizenship without her consent, unless that citizenship was obtained by fraud or in bad faith. Under these facts, plaintiff did not consent to the taking away of her citizenship. In addition, the facts do not indicate that the plaintiff obtained her citizenship by fraud or in bad faith.
An attorney brought an action challenging the constitutionality of a recently enacted federal statute that permits the seizure of confidential communications between a U.S. citizen located in the United States and a foreign national living abroad. The attorney, a U.S. citizen, represented foreign nationals who were held in federal custody, and although she was unable to establish that a particular conversation with one of her clients had been intercepted, she contended that the statute had a chilling effect on her First Amendment freedom of speech rights. The attorney is seeking an injunction against the appropriate federal officials to prevent implementation of the statute. Who bears the burden of establishing that the attorney has standing to bring this action? Answers: The attorney, because she cannot establish a present injury. The attorney, because she is the plaintiff. The federal officials, because the attorney is asserting that the statute violates her constitutional rights. The federal officials, because the injunction sought by the attorney would prevent her injury.
Answer choice B is correct. A federal court cannot decide a case unless the plaintiff has standing to bring it. To have standing, a plaintiff bears the burden of establishing three elements—(i) injury in fact, (ii) causation, and (iii) redressability.
Congress enacted legislation that made funding available to the states to provide services for children with special needs. The act conditions the funding on the states' meeting a variety of conditions designed to ensure that children with special needs received adequate services. In addition, the act grants parents of a child with special needs a right of action against a local school board for the failure to provide adequate services. The act permits the parents to recover the cost of tuition at a private school that meets the child's needs, together with "attorney fees and costs." The act is silent as to whether expert fees are considered costs. The parents of a child with special needs successfully pursued an action against the local school board under this statute. The court awarded the parents the appropriate damages, as well as attorney's fees and costs, including expert fees. Of the following, which is the most likely constitutional basis on which the local school board can challenge the court's award? Answers: The act itself is unconstitutional because the Tenth Amendment prohibits federal involvement in areas, such as elementary education, that have been traditionally reserved to the States. The awarding of expert fees is unconstitutional because conditions imposed on states by Congress in the exercise of its spending power must be set out unambiguously. The conditions imposed on the states to receive funding are unconstitutional, because Congress can only exercise its spending power to carry out another enumerated power. Providing the parents the right to bring this action is unconstitutional, because the Eleventh Amendment prohibits suits by private citizens against local governmental entities for money damages.
Answer choice B is correct. While Congress has the power under the spending power to spend for the general welfare and may impose conditions on the receipt of an appropriation by a state, such conditions must be set out unambiguously to be enforceable. Since expert fees were not unambiguously included in the amounts that may be recovered by the parents of a child with special needs under this statutory cause of action, these fees cannot be recovered.
A senator, seeking to prevent violence against children, has introduced legislation in the Senate that would give children a federal civil remedy against parents who inflict violence upon them. The senator points to several scientific studies by respected educational and medical organizations that such violence is disruptive of family life and can have negative lifelong effects on the abused child, and a seriously adverse impact on society at large. Consequently, the senator has justified the legislation under the Commerce Clause of Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution. If the legislation were enacted, which of the following would likely be the strongest basis for finding it unconstitutional? Answers: The "dormant" aspect of the Commerce Clause invalidates this legislation. The legislation does not regulate the channels or instrumentalities of interstate commerce. The legislation regulates non-economic activity in an area of traditional state concern. The Origination Clause of Article I, Section 7 of the United States Constitution invalidates this legislation.
Answer choice C is correct. Congress's power under the Commerce Clause to regulate intrastate activity that is not obviously economic (so-called "non-economic" activity) is limited by principles of federalism, at least when the regulation involves an area of traditional state concern. Because the facts do not indicate that this regulation is an essential part of a larger regulation of interstate commerce, the fact that the legislation regulates non-economic activity in an area of traditional state concern is the strongest basis for finding this legislation unconstitutional.
Due to the rising cost of water, Congress enacted a statute that allocated $20 million to fund a consortium of independent non-profit water organizations. The purpose of the consortium was to address the various issues causing a rise in the cost of water and water shortages across the United States, and to fund research into solutions. The statute provided clear guidelines about what the consortium should research and what it could spend, and specified that the remaining funds would be allocated for infrastructure improvements. In addition, the statute delegated to the Department of the Interior the power to select the water organizations to participate in the consortium. Is the statute constitutional? Answers: No, because Congress is delegating its authority to the executive branch of the government. No, because the statute exceeds the scope of Congress's investigative power. Yes, because Congress has the power to enact this legislation under the Necessary and Proper Clause. Yes, because Congress has the power to spend for the general welfare of the public.
Answer choice D is correct. Congress has the power to spend for the general welfare of the public. Here, spending money to figure out ways to cut the cost of water and reduce water shortages is a proper use of Congress's power to spend for the general welfare.
An appropriate representative of a resident in a state mental health facility sued an official of the facility in federal court. The resident, who remained a citizen of another state, sought an injunction to compel the official to comply with state law regarding the use of the least restrictive environment approach for the care of the mentally ill. The official moved to dismiss the action as unconstitutional under the Eleventh Amendment. Should the court grant the official's motion? Answers: A)No, because an injunction, not damages, was sought as a remedy. B)No, because the action was brought against a state official rather than the state. C)Yes, because a fundamental right is not involved. D) Yes, because the action sought the enforcement of state law rather than federal law.
D) The Eleventh Amendment prohibits an action in federal court by a citizen of one state against another state when the basis for the action is the violation of state law.
In response to growing concerns about the overcrowding of landfills with scrap metal, Congress passed a statute requiring all unwanted vehicles to be disposed of at federally licensed auto-recycling facilities. These facilities were able to recycle more components of vehicles than most other recycling facilities. However, due to the high operating costs of these facilities, the cost of disposing the vehicles was much higher than the cost of disposing them at general purpose recycling facilities. A state wants to dispose of its fleet of decommissioned trucks at a state-operated recycling facility. However, this facility is not federally licensed. Is the state permitted to dispose of its decommissioned trucks at the state-operated facility? Answers: No, because the federal statute was passed pursuant to Congress's power to legislate for the general welfare. No, because the federal statute regulates interstate commerce. Yes, because the market-participant exception applies. Yes, because there is a presumption against preemption in an area governed by the state's police power.
No, because the federal statute regulates interstate commerce.
Congress enacted and the President signed the Toxic Waste Policy Act (Act). The Act delegated the primary responsibility for developing and administering a toxic waste disposal program to the Department of Energy (DOE) based on intelligible standards set forth in the Act. The Act also authorized the creation of a toxic waste fund to impose the cost of disposing of toxic waste on the creators of such waste through a statutorily-fixed fee. A provision of the Act requires the Secretary of the DOE to annually evaluate the fees collected to ensure that those fees offset the costs of the waste disposal program. If not, the Secretary is required to adjust the amount of the fee accordingly. The Act provides that the Secretary's adjusted fee becomes effective 90 days after publication unless both Houses of Congress adopt a resolution disapproving of the adjustment. This year the DOE Secretary, pursuant to the provision, proposed a fee increase. Both Houses of Congress disapproved the increase by resolution. Is a challenge to constitutionality of this provision likely to be successful? Answers: Yes, because the Act violates the "nondelegation doctrine." Yes, because the provision provides for a "legislative veto" of an executive action. No, because the principle of bicameralism has been satisfied. No, because the President approved of the provision by signing the Act.
Rationale: Answer choice B is correct. It is unconstitutional for Congress to legislatively veto an executive action—that is, to retain direct control over the actions of an executive agency, rather than going through the proper channels of passing a bill.
The District of Columbia government has the power to levy an income tax. Congress has recently enacted a statute that prohibits the District of Columbia from imposing a tax on the income of individuals who work in the District of Columbia but live elsewhere. Congress was seeking to provide an incentive for nonresidents to do business within the District of Columbia. Is this statute likely to be found constitutional? Answers: No, because it violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. No, because it violates the Uniformity Clause of Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Yes, under the Enclave Clause in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Yes, under the Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Rationale: Answer choice C is correct. Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution, also known as the Enclave Clause, Congress has the general police and regulatory powers over the District of Columbia that a state enjoys over persons and things within its boundaries. Among those powers is the power to tax or not to tax income earned within its boundaries.
Pursuant to an act of Congress, a new executive department was created following a rise in the number of threats to security in the country. The new executive department was headed by a commission comprised of five officials selected by the President with Senate approval. The act authorizing the creation of the new executive department also mandated the creation of a number of lower-level committees charged with investigating security threats. The committees, which would be supervised by a Senate-confirmed appointee, would then make reports to the commission regarding their investigations. Congress permitted the President to appoint the members of the investigatory committees. The President appointed the members of the committees without seeking Senate approval. Was the appointment of the committee members by the President constitutionally permissible? Answers: No, because Congress cannot delegate this appointment to the President. No, because the President needs the consent of the Senate to make these appointments. Yes, because Congress can appoint members with administrative and enforcement powers. Yes, because Congress can delegate this appointment to the President without Senate approval.
Rationale: Answer choice D is correct. Congress may delegate the appointment of "inferior" officials to the President. "Inferior" officials are those supervised by Senate-confirmed appointees. Here, Congress can delegate to the President the power to appoint these inferior officials without Senate approval because they will be supervised by a Senate-confirmed appointee.
A professional basketball player who was a citizen of one state sued an artist who was a citizen of another state. The artist had created multiple oil paintings of the player's image from which limited edition prints were created and sold without the player's consent or permission. The player sought damages in excess of $80,000 for violation of his state statutory right to publicity. While the state trial court ruled in the player's favor, the state appellate court overturned this decision on the erroneous grounds that a free speech privilege arising under the First Amendment protected the artist from this action. The appellate court decision denied the player recovery on his state-based cause of action. The state's highest court declined to hear the appeal. The player filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. Can the Supreme Court grant this petition? Yes, because diversity of citizenship exists between the player and the artist and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Yes, because the state court decision turned on whether a federal constitutional privilege existed for the artist. No, because the state's highest court did not render a decision in this case since it declined to hear the appeal. No, because the player sought to recover damages from the artist under a state statutory cause of action.
The Supreme Court's only power over a state court judgment is to correct the judgment when the state court incorrectly applies federal rights. Here, the Supreme Court can grant this petition because the state court judgment turns on the erroneous grounds that there is a federal constitutional privilege that protected the artist from a right to publicity cause of action.
