Con Law

B. Yes, because the state law is a content-based restriction.

Question 3274 A state enacted a law that prohibited the sale of violent video games to minors and imposed a fine for each violation. The legislative history demonstrated a concern that there was a correlation between playing such games and subsequent violent behavior. A maker of video games brought suit contending that this law violated its First Amendment right of free speech. Is this law unconstitutional? Answers: A. Yes, because the costs of such a restriction on speech outweigh its benefits. B. Yes, because the state law is a content-based restriction. C. No, because video games do not qualify for First Amendment protection. D. No, because states have the power to protect children from harm.

A. Correct Answer: Attracting white students from the surrounding suburban school districts into the district's schools.

Question 1377 Twenty years ago, a federal district court found that a city school district, but not surrounding suburban school districts, had violated the Constitution; the district court issued a complex desegregation order. At the time integration efforts began, the city school district was 70 percent white. The city school district is now only 25 percent white. This decline was largely due to white families either moving to surrounding suburbs outside of the city school district or sending their children to private schools within the school district. To attract those white students back into the district schools, and to limit any further movement of white students from the district, the court orders the city school district to build five expensive, state-of-the-art magnet schools. For which of the following purposes is this order unconstitutional? Answers: A. Attracting white students from the surrounding suburban school districts into the district's schools. B. Attracting white students out of private schools located within the city school district. C. Limiting any further withdrawal of white students from the city school district. D. Forcing a state to spend public funds in a particular way that the state would not otherwise wish to do so.

B. Correct Answer: No, because a law may not limit the contributions to ballot measures.

Question 1386 Many citizens are concerned that large contributions by special interest groups and corporations to local politicians' campaigns and recent state constitutional referendums have undermined the state's democratic process. To reduce the danger of corruption and the imbalance in the presentation of arguments posed by excessive contributions, the State legislature passed a law limiting corporate and institutional donors' contributions to candidates and ballot measures to $500. Is the state law constitutional? Answers: A. No, because corporations and other groups enjoy First Amendment free speech rights. B. No, because a law may not limit the contributions to ballot measures. C. Yes, because the law is closely drawn to correspond with a sufficiently important state interest. D. Yes, because the law is rationally related to the state's legitimate interest.

C. No, because the ordinance is rationally related to the city's legitimate interest in public safety and social welfare.

Question 1398 A city council passed an ordinance prohibiting all police officers from working a second job. The council wanted to have its officers available in case of an emergency, such as a blizzard, or for certain major events, such as professional football games. Other city employees, including members of the city council, had no such restriction on secondary employment. A veteran and well-respected city police officer was upset because she would have to give up her well-paying second job as an exotic dancer at a local club. The club complies with all of the city's entertainment and liquor licensing regulations and employs the officer on an at-will basis. The officer challenged the constitutionality of the ordinance in the appropriate federal court. Is she likely to prevail? Answers: A. Yes, because the ordinance restricts the officer's First Amendment right to freedom of expression. B. Yes, because the ordinance unreasonably discriminates against police officers in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. C. No, because the ordinance is rationally related to the city's legitimate interest in public safety and social welfare. D. No, because the ordinance does not amount to an unconstitutional taking.

B. Constitutional, as a proper state tax that comports with the Commerce Clause.

Question 3206 A large utility company was located inside State A. The company burned coal to produce electricity, some of which was used within the state, but the majority of which was provided to neighboring states. In order to fund clean-up efforts made necessary as a result of burning coal, State A taxed the electricity the utility provided to its customers based on the amount used. Accordingly, even though some tax revenue came from electricity provided to State A residents, most of the tax revenue came from out-of-state residents. Residents of neighboring State B challenged State A's tax as unconstitutional, claiming that the tax disproportionately affected nonresident individuals. Assuming that Congress has not directly acted in the area, is the court most likely to find the tax constitutional or unconstitutional? Answers: A. Constitutional, as a proper ad valorem tax. B. Constitutional, as a proper state tax that comports with the Commerce Clause. C. Unconstitutional, as a violation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV. D. Unconstitutional, as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

C. Correct Answer: The Congressman only, because he exceeded his legislative immunity.

Question 3207 During legislative hearings on a new bill promoted by the President, a congressman made a defamatory statement about the President. That evening, the congressman appeared on a television news program, during which he repeated the defamatory statement in an attempt to entice citizens to contact their congresspersons to encourage them to vote against passage of the bill. In response, the President stated that the congressman was uninformed and possibly taking bribes, encouraging the rest of Congress to ignore the congressman's comments and vote in favor of the bill. If a civil suit for money damages is filed against either the President or congressman as a result of the statements, who may properly be held liable? Answers: A. Both the President and the Congressman, because each exceeded the immunity of his office. B. Neither the President nor the Congressman, because neither exceeded the immunity of his office. C. The Congressman only, because he exceeded his legislative immunity. D. The President only, because he exceeded his executive immunity.

D. No, because there was no state legislation that impaired the contract.

Question 3210 For years, a federal agency regularly contracted with a construction company to perform renovations on federal government buildings within a state. The agency properly chose to contract with the company following a federally mandated competitive bidding process. Although representatives from the agency and the company would meet to discuss and negotiate contracts for the upcoming year every January, each individual renovation project was covered by a separate contract. The company made a political contribution to an interest group whose interests were adverse to the current administration. As a result, the agency decided to prohibit the company from participating in the bidding process and therefore terminated the possibility of contracting with the company at all. After the most recent competitive bidding process, the agency gave all of the upcoming renovation projects for the year to the company's competitor. The company brings a proper suit to enjoin the agency from contracting with the competitor. Did the agency's decision to stop contracting with the company violate the Contracts Clause? Answers: A. Yes, because the government cannot cancel a contract based on a party's political affiliations. B. Yes, because it constituted impairment by the government of a public contract without a compelling government interest. C. No, because the interference was reasonably necessary to serve an important government interest. D. No, because there was no state legislation that impaired the contract.

D. Protected, because there is no compelling or substantial government interest in removing the advertisements.

Question 3213 A state narrowly adopted legislation allowing for same-sex marriage. A group of several individual talk-radio show hosts who vehemently opposed the legislation rented space on several large billboards around the state, all of which contend that the law is wrong and urge all who see it to take "any and all necessary steps" to get the law repealed. The billboards include a website address that contains the legislative steps for getting a state's law repealed, including gathering signatures on petitions and finding a legislator to sponsor new legislation repealing the law at issue. The billboards proved incredibly controversial, as slightly more than half of the state's population found the billboards extremely offensive, while the rest of the citizens were in favor of repealing the law. The state orders the talk-radio hosts to remove the billboards. The hosts bring proper suit alleging that the state's demand for removal of the billboards constitutes an infringement upon their free speech. Is the court most likely to rule that the billboards are protected or improper? Answers: A. Improper, because the call to take "any and all necessary steps" can be construed as inciting violence. B. Improper, because the state has a compelling interest in regulating subversive speech. C. Protected, because the media has greater First Amendment rights than regular citizens. D. Protected, because there is no compelling or substantial government interest in removing the advertisements.

B. The state court decision relied on federal law.

Question 3215 A public school teacher's employment was terminated after she announced her pregnancy. During a post-termination hearing, the school relied on a state statute allowing for the "discharge of any employee based on physical limitations preventing full performance of his or her job duties." The teacher was only two months pregnant at the time of her announcement, and there was no indication that she would have a difficult pregnancy. The teacher sued in state court on the basis that she had no physical limitation preventing her from performing her job and that the statute was in conflict with federal law. In the court's opinion, which reinstated the teacher, the court analyzed the state statute in light of federal law regarding a variety of issues related to discrimination, employment practices, and public employment, but failed to clearly indicate the basis for its decision. On appeal, the decision was affirmed per curiam by the highest court of the state. The school district appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court were to review this case, what would be the most likely reason allowing such review? Answers: A. The school did not discriminate against the teacher. B. The state court decision relied on federal law. C. The Supreme Court is required to hear the case. D. The state court decision incorrectly applied state law.

C. Correct Answer: Yes, because it is rationally related to a legitimate state interest.

Question 3220 A state passed legislation requiring professional gardeners to obtain a license to charge for gardening services within the state. To obtain the license, individuals must pay a $50 fee and complete an instructional class covering, among other things, how to avoid underground electric and gas lines when gardening. Although it was not the legislature's intent, the legislation disproportionately affects one race, as the majority of gardeners in the state are of the same race. Is the legislation constitutional? Answers: A. No, because it has a disparate impact on a particular race and is not necessary to advance a compelling government interest. B. No, because race is a suspect classification. C. Yes, because it is rationally related to a legitimate state interest. D. Yes, because it is substantially related to an important government interest.

D. No, because the state owns and operates the metal plant. Market-participant exception.

Question 3228 A state owned and operated a silver processing plant located within the state. Because a recent war led to a reduction in the availability of the silver ore as well as a vast increase in the price for silver, the state enacted a statute requiring that the plant sell the processed silver to residents of other states only if there were no outstanding orders from residents within the state. An out-of-state resident who lived closer to the processing plant than any such plant in his own state was prevented from purchasing silver from the plant due to the statute. He sued to have the statute struck down. Should the court strike down the statute? Answers: A. Yes, because the statute protects the interests of its own residents over out-of-state residents. B. Yes, because only Congress can regulate commerce. C. No, because the country recently experienced a war. D. No, because the state owns and operates the metal plant.

A. Yes, because she will receive a prompt post-termination hearing.

Question 3232 The jury commissioner at a state court was charged with stealing the identities of dozens of potential jurors. She readily confessed to her crime to her employer immediately after the allegations of her behavior surfaced. The county immediately terminated her employment. Both her employment contract and state law clearly stated that jury commissioners can be terminated only if there is just cause to do so. A hearing was scheduled for a week following the commissioner's termination. The commissioner filed suit to have herself reinstated as commissioner. She alleged that, because she had not been convicted, she was entitled to a pre-termination notice and an opportunity to respond. Has the commissioner likely received the due process to which she is entitled? Answers: A. Yes, because she will receive a prompt post-termination hearing. B. Yes, because no hearing is required when there is cause to terminate the employee. C. No, because she has not been convicted of a crime. D. No, because she did not receive a pre-termination hearing.

B. No, because it does not require that the aid be used only for nonreligious purposes.

Question 3234 Last year, Congress enacted legislation providing for funding opportunities to eligible secular and religiously affiliated colleges and universities. The funding will be available through individual counties as each county's funding limitations allow. The legislation does not require that each county apply standard guidelines nor does it provide any suggested guidelines other than a statement that "all counties should track funding and compile guidelines in the event of a federal audit." A county awards a large grant to a religiously affiliated college that employs a substantial number of residents. The grant contract, signed by representatives from both the county and the college, states as follows: "All grant monies must be used in compliance with county regulations. Further, the college must track the allocation of grant monies throughout the grant term." Is the county's award of the grant constitutional? Answers: A. No, because the county provided grant monies to a religiously affiliated college. B. No, because it does not require that the aid be used only for nonreligious purposes. C. Yes, because the college is required to track funding. D. Yes, because the college may be the subject of a federal audit.

C. Correct Answer: No, because the order violates the Fourteenth Amendment's incorporation of the Fifth Amendment.

Question 3236 A state board of transportation ordered a railroad company to sell a parcel of land adjoining its railroad track. The parcel in question had been part of a much larger section of land transferred a number of years before from the state to the railroad company in exchange for the company's provision of railroad services to the citizens of the state. The state board fixed a reasonable price based on the land's fair market value to compensate the railroad company for the loss of its land. The railroad refused to sell the land to the designated buyer, a farmer's cooperative. The private cooperative planned to build a warehouse on the land in order to store its members' produce for shipment by rail and other means. In an action to compel the railroad to comply with the order of the state board, should the court rule in favor of the state board? Answers: A. Yes, because the railroad is a regulated by the state board of transportation. B. Yes, because the price set by the board constitutes just compensation. C. No, because the order violates the Fourteenth Amendment's incorporation of the Fifth Amendment. D. No, because the order originated with a state board rather than a state legislature.

A. Uphold it, because Congress has plenary power over aliens.

Question 3242 Congress, without holding hearings or providing public notice, passed a bill immediately signed into law by the President. The bill terminated supplemental security income (SSI) payments to all resident aliens. The reason for the legislation was to address a budgetary shortfall. A resident alien who depended upon the payments to acquire food and shelter filed suit to challenge the constitutionality of the law. How is the court likely to rule on the law's constitutionality? Answers: A. Uphold it, because Congress has plenary power over aliens. B. Uphold it, because a person does not have a property interest in a government benefit. C. You Selected: Strike it down, because the law violated the plaintiff's procedural due process rights. D. Strike it down, because alienage is a suspect class.

D. Permit the case to go forward.

Question 3246 A private citizen filed a slander action against the president for remarks the president made during a presidential debate prior to taking office. The president denied making the remarks and pled executive immunity. Which of the following is the most constitutionally appropriate action for the court to take? Answers: A. Dismiss the case with prejudice because the president enjoys complete immunity from civil liability. B. Dismiss the case with prejudice because of the Speech or Debate Clause. C. Dismiss the case without prejudice with leave to file again once the president leaves office. D. Permit the case to go forward.

C. Yes, because it is a reasonable exercise of Congress's power to tax and spend.

Question 3248 A federal statute imposes a $500 tax on all new automobiles sold in the United States. It requires that all proceeds of the tax will be allocated to a special fund, which will be distributed to school boards in every state for the purchase of new science textbooks. Is the statute constitutional? Answers: A. No, because the tax is not rationally related to the use of the proceeds. B. No, because the regulation of school agendas is not one of the enumerated powers of Congress. C. Yes, because it is a reasonable exercise of Congress's power to tax and spend. D. Yes, because providing schoolchildren with textbooks is a compelling government interest.

A. No, because the law discriminates against out-of-state commerce.

Question 3249 A tomato farmer in a small state developed a special variety of tomatoes. In addition to being delicious and standing up well during transport, these tomatoes were higher in vitamins and nutrients than other tomatoes. Due to the successful sale of these tomatoes, other farmers outside of the state began growing similar tomatoes and selling them at a lower price. The out-of-state farmers have contracts to sell their tomatoes to discount markets in the state. The out-of-state tomatoes are similar in taste and durability to the special variety, but lack the heightened nutritional value. Nevertheless, because of their lower cost, they are cutting into the sales of the special variety. Accordingly, the state legislature enacted a law "to ensure the health and vitality of its citizens by protecting them from imitation, nutritionally-deficient fruits and vegetables, and to preserve the integrity and prosperity of the state's local produce industry." Among other things, the law forbids the future sale of any tomatoes within the state that fail to meet the nutritional value of the state's own special varietal of tomatoes; no other tomato meets this requirement. The law also applies to the state's purchase of produce for public schools and other government facilities. Is the state's law constitutional? Answers: A. No, because the law discriminates against out-of-state commerce. B. No, because the law interferes with potential contracts between the tomato farmers and the discount markets. C. Yes, because the law furthers the legitimate state interest of preserving the health of its citizens and its farm industry. D. Yes, because the law falls under the market participant exception to the Dormant Commerce Clause.

A. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Question 3250 A federal study found that almost all of the accidents on a particular state's highways were caused by out-of-state residents. Congress passed a law requiring the payment of tolls at all of the state's borders. The law also required that any driver with an out-of-state driver's license pay an additional toll and leave a credit card number for the state to use in the event that the out-of-state driver caused an accident on one of the state's roads. Several out-of-state motorists have challenged the constitutionality of the law. Which of the following provides the best ground for challenging the constitutionality of the law? Answers: A. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. B. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. C. The Commerce Clause of Article I, Section 8. D. The Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV.

C. Yes, because the legislation caused a permanent total loss of the economic value of the man's property.

Question 3251 A man bought a mile of beachfront property with the intent to build several high-rise condominium buildings and sell them for a substantial profit. As the man was working to get the requisite permits to build the condominiums, the state legislature passed a law prohibiting all construction on a stretch of beach that included the man's property. The legislation was intended to protect sea turtles, seabirds, and beach mice that inhabit the protected area. The man discussed his options with several local real estate agents, all of whom explained to him that the prohibition on development of his land made the land basically worthless. The man sued the state, claiming that the legislation resulted in a taking of the man's land, and sought just compensation from the state. Is the man entitled to compensation for his property? Answers: A. No, because the legislation constitutes a regulation, rather than a taking, and thus requires no compensation. B. No, because protecting wildlife habitats from destruction is rationally related to a conceivable public purpose. C. Yes, because the legislation caused a permanent total loss of the economic value of the man's property. D. Yes, because the legislation amounts to a taking by exaction.

A. No, because the rule violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Question 3252 A group of parents of public school students proposed a new school rule that would require teachers to begin each school day by standing for a minute of silent prayer before lessons began. The rule would not require the teachers or students to pray during the minute of silent prayer, but would require teachers to say, "Please stand for a minute of silent prayer." Students who did not wish to participate could remain seated. Would the school rule be constitutional? Answers: A. No, because the rule violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. B. You Selected: No, because the rule is not rationally related to any neutral law of general applicability. C. Yes, because none of the students would be required to participate. D. Yes, because parents of the students, and not the school board, wish to implement the rule.

A. Correct Answer: Yes, because the city official may not deny an organization's right to broadcast its message in a public forum on the basis of its content unless the denial is necessary to serve a compelling government interest.

Question 3253 A city owned and operated a minor-league baseball park. The city sold advertising space on billboards above the park and along the walls of the baseball field. While most of the advertising space was purchased by beer and snack food companies that also sold their goods at the baseball games, a city ordinance allowed for the sale of space to political, charitable, and religious causes. All final decisions on the advertising were solely at the discretion of a particular city official. A modern-day temperance organization wanted to buy space on some of the billboards to warn of the dangers associated with drinking alcohol. The city official wanted the baseball games to remain light-hearted and fun events for the citizens, and also did not want to risk the beer companies pulling their advertisements from the ballpark. Accordingly, he denied the temperance organization's request for advertising space. The temperance organization sued the city and the official, claiming that the denial of the organization's request was unconstitutional. Is the temperance organization likely to succeed in its suit? Answers: A. Yes, because the city official may not deny an organization's right to broadcast its message in a public forum on the basis of its content unless the denial is necessary to serve a compelling government interest. B. Yes, because the city official may not refuse to allow an organization the use of a public facility to broadcast a message dealing with an issue of public concern. C. No, because the city official's denial of advertising space was a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction. D. No, because a valid city ordinance gave the official discretion to grant or deny advertising space.

B. Correct Answer: No, because Congress lacks the authority to require a state to enact any specific legislation.

Question 3254 A federal study found that, in the majority of school shootings, the guns used were purchased within one mile of the school. In order to prevent further school shootings, Congress enacted a statute requiring each state legislature to enact a state law prohibiting the sale of guns that had previously been transported in interstate commerce within one mile of a school. Congress has established a substantial record to show that the limitation on gun sales is the least restrictive means to achieve the government's interest in curbing school shootings. Is the federal statute constitutional? Answers: A. No, because the Second Amendment prohibits federal legislation limiting the sale of guns. B. No, because Congress lacks the authority to require a state to enact any specific legislation. C. Yes, because it was enacted pursuant to Congress's Commerce Clause power. D. Yes, because it is the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling government interest.

C. Correct Answer: Yes, because the judge had jurisdiction to issue the search warrant. Watch out for this one!

Question 3255 A federal judge improperly granted a search warrant for the home of a woman she believed was dating her ex-husband. In doing so, the judge acted with malice and for the sole purpose of harassing the homeowner. The homeowner brought a civil action in federal court against the judge personally for damages based on the violation of the homeowner's Fourth Amendment rights. The homeowner acknowledges that the judge had jurisdiction to issue the search warrant. The judge seeks dismissal on the action on the grounds of immunity. Should the court dismiss the case? Answers: A. No, because the judge acted with malice. B. No, because a judge enjoys only qualified immunity with regard to the violation of a person's constitutional rights. C. Correct Answer: Yes, because the judge had jurisdiction to issue the search warrant. D. Yes, because an action for damages may not be maintained against a sitting judge.

B. No, because the statute violates the Dormant Commerce Clause.

Question 3264 A state statute requires out-of-state breweries to sell beer through in-state distributors. The state adopted this law in order to enforce its prohibition on the possession and consumption of alcohol by minors and to ensure that state alcohol taxes were paid. In-state breweries may sell their beer directly to consumers. An out-of-state brewery has challenged this statute as unconstitutional. Should the court uphold this statute? Answers: A. No, because the Twenty-First Amendment eliminated any restrictions on the distribution of alcohol in interstate commerce. B. No, because the statute violates the Dormant Commerce Clause. C. Yes, because the Tenth Amendment preserves the state's general police power to enact this statute. D. Yes, because the Twenty-First Amendment gives states the power to regulate alcohol distribution.

C. Yes, because the law is not narrowly tailored to achieve its purpose.

Question 3270 A state law prohibited all outdoor advertisement of cigars within 1,000 feet of a school. The legislative history for the statute demonstrates that the prohibition was intended to combat cigar use by minors, which legislators believed was a pressing problem. Federal law does not prohibit state regulation of cigars. Moreover, in order to receive federal funding for state substance abuse programs, a state must prohibit the sale of tobacco products to minors. Cigar manufacturers, distributors and retailers have challenged the state law as unconstitutional. They note that the state prohibition on outdoor advertisement encompasses ads that are neither untruthful nor misleading. In addition, they point out that the law is not narrowly tailored to protect students while also permitting legal advertisement of cigars to adults because in certain cities, the law prevents outdoor advertising of cigars in almost all areas of the city. Is the court likely to strike down the law? Answers: A. No, because the state's interest in the health of minors is compelling and dovetails with the federal purpose of preventing minors from smoking. B. No, because the law directly advances the state's compelling interest. C. Yes, because the law is not narrowly tailored to achieve its purpose. D. Yes, because the law prohibits truthful speech.

D. Yes, because a public university is a limited public forum and the policy is content neutral.

Question 3272 A public university adopted the following policy: In order to be recognized as a student organization with rights to school facilities and funds, an organization must permit any student to be a member regardless of the student's status or beliefs. One student organization was a local chapter of a national organization that restricted membership in local chapters to members of a particular religious sect and denied membership to homosexual individuals. May the university apply its policy to the student religious group? Answers: A. No, because the policy violates the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause. B. No, because the policy violates the First Amendment Freedom of Association Clause. C. Yes, because a public university is free to allocate its funds among student groups in any rational manner it sees fit. D. Yes, because a public university is a limited public forum and the policy is content neutral.

A. No, because the statute was viewpoint-neutral and reasonably related to a legitimate government interest.

Question 4184 In response to several violent and fatal confrontations, Congress enacted a law prohibiting all public speeches related to gun control inside government offices. Shortly thereafter, a protestor was arrested after displaying a large placard in a government office that said "GUNS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM; GOVERNMENT IS." At trial, the protestor challenged the law as a violation of his free speech rights. The government replied by stating that the law served the legitimate government interest of preventing violence in government offices. Is the protestor likely to prevail in his challenge? Answers: A. No, because the statute was viewpoint-neutral and reasonably related to a legitimate government interest. B. No, because First Amendment restrictions apply only to public forums. C. Yes, because the statute regulated speech that was not content-neutral and was not narrowly tailored to serve a significant government purpose. D. Yes, because government offices are public forums.

D. The applicant must show that the ordinance is not rationally related to a legitimate government interest. When you see and Equal Protection case, look at what type of class is involved: Suspect (Race, Ethnicity, National Origin, Alienage OR Fundamental Right) -- Strict Scrutiny (compelling gov. interest) Quasi (Gender and Legitimacy) -- Intermediate Scrutiny (substantially related to important gov. interest) Other (Age)-- Rational basis -- INCLUDES ALL DISPARATE IMPACT CASES

Question 4357 A city ordinance provided that only applicants under the age of 50 would be considered for the city's fire department, even though the employees of the fire department may serve until they reach the age of 55. A 50-year-old man applied for a position in the fire department, and his application was rejected solely because he did not meet the age restrictions in the ordinance. The applicant sued the city, alleging that the ordinance violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. What statement most accurately describes the burden of proof? Answers: A. The city must show that the ordinance is the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling government interest. B. The city must show that the law is substantially related to a legitimate government interest. C. The applicant must show that the ordinance is not substantially related to an important government interest. D. The applicant must show that the ordinance is not rationally related to a legitimate government interest.

D. The ordinance violates the Due Process Clause.

Question 4359 A city adopted an ordinance that prohibited any apartment building from housing more than one convicted felon on the premises. A convicted felon owned an apartment building in the city. He lived in one of the apartments in the building with his brother, who was also a convicted felon. The building owner received a citation from the city for violating the ordinance, and was ordered to pay a fine and bring the building into compliance. The building owner sued the city, arguing that the ordinance violated his constitutional rights. What is the best argument for striking down the ordinance? Answers: A. The ordinance violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause. B. The ordinance violates the Equal Protection Clause. C. The ordinance violates the Eighth Amendment. D. The ordinance violates the Due Process Clause.

B. No, because the exclusion of non-citizens is likely not the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling government interest.

Question 4360 A border state had a large number of both legal and undocumented immigrants. During one election, the state's voters elected a number of candidates who ran on platforms focused on limiting access to state benefits to U.S. citizens. Shortly after the election, the state legislature passed a law that would limit enrollment at the state's public universities to U.S. citizens. Under the law, any applicant to a state university who is not a U.S. citizen is automatically denied admission. A legal U.S. resident alien who was denied admission to a state university based on the law brought a suit against the state, arguing that the law violated the Equal Protection Clause. Is the law likely to be upheld? Answers: A. No, because the exclusion of non-citizens is likely not substantially related to a legitimate government interest. B. No, because the exclusion of non-citizens is likely not the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling government interest. C. Yes, because the exclusion of non-citizens is likely rationally related to a legitimate government interest. D. Yes, because the exclusion of non-citizens is likely substantially related to an important government interest.

A. Yes, because the statute is substantially related to preventing teen suicides.

Question 4363 A city enacted legislation that required schools to automatically expel any male student who bullied another student, with bullying defined as "physical violence not used in self-defense." The legislation did not reference bullying committed by female students. The law was enacted in response to a high level of teen suicides that were linked to severe bullying, and it directly followed similar legislation in a neighboring state that was successful in the reduction of teen suicides over a five-year period. The in-depth analysis of the reduction of suicides in the neighboring state revealed, in those cases where bullying resulted in suicide, the vast majority involved bullying initiated by males, which was more severe than female bullying and less likely to stop without intervention. Would this statute likely survive a constitutional challenge? Answers: A. Yes, because the statute is substantially related to preventing teen suicides. B. Yes, because the statute is rationally related to preventing teen suicides. C. No, because there are other available solutions to prevent teen suicides. D. No, because the statute does not apply to bullying committed by female students.

D. Yes, because the statute constitutes a bill of attainder.

Question 5849 A Senate committee conducted an investigation into alleged corruption in the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). After a thorough investigation, the committee concluded that five SEC agents had significant illegal interactions with organized crime members over the course of three years. Soon after, Congress, on the advice of the Senate committee, passed a statute that removed the agents from the SEC and barred them from any other federal employment. The five agents, whose employment permitted removal with or without cause, were named in the statute. The agents subsequently challenged the statute on the basis that it was unconstitutional. Will the agents' challenge to the statute be successful? Answers: A. No, because the agents could be removed with or without cause. B. No, because the statute does not subject the agents to criminal or penal measures. C. Yes, because the statute constitutes an ex post facto law. D. Yes, because the statute constitutes a bill of attainder.

C. Correct Answer: No, because it violates the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.

Question 5852 A public middle school principal requested the services of a clergy member in the school's graduation ceremony. The principal asked the clergy member to deliver a prayer at the beginning of the ceremony. A parent of one of the middle school children learned that the prayer would take place at the ceremony and immediately filed an injunction, claiming the prayer would be unconstitutional. Is the prayer constitutional? Answers: A. Yes, if the clergy member's prayer at the ceremony is nonsectarian. B. Yes, if the graduation participants are not required to participate in the prayer. C. No, because it violates the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. D. No, because the principal requested the service of the clergy member.

B. Yes, because the Supreme Court may determine whether the state court decision relied upon a determination of a federal issue.

Question 5854 A state healthcare act contained an ambiguous provision regarding the requirements for an insured person to bring a claim against an insurer. This provision in the state healthcare act was identical to one in the federal healthcare act, and relied in part on definitions contained in the federal act. An insurance company was sued under the state healthcare act. In its defense, the insurance company claimed that, based on the ambiguous provision, it could not be sued under the state act. When the case reached the state's highest court, that court sided with the insurance company, but it was unclear whether the court's decision relied on the court's interpretation of definitions contained in the federal act. The insured person petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review of the state court's decision. Is it constitutional for the Supreme Court to review the state court's decision? Answers: A. Yes, because the Supreme Court may review any final judgment rendered by the highest court of a state. B. Yes, because the Supreme Court may determine whether the state court decision relied upon a determination of a federal issue. C. No, because the state court's decision could rest on adequate and independent state grounds. D. No, because the suit by the insured person against the insurance company involved a state, not federal cause of action.

D. No, because it places an undue burden on a woman's right to an abortion.

Question 5857 A state enacted a statute regulating a woman's ability to have an abortion. Among other pre-viability restrictions, the statute provides that a married woman who seeks to have an abortion must notify her spouse beforehand. Is the statute constitutional? Answers: A. Yes, because it is rationally related to a legitimate state interest. B. Yes, because it is necessary to further a compelling state interest. C. No, because a woman's right to an abortion cannot be restricted pre-viability. D. No, because it places an undue burden on a woman's right to an abortion.

C. Yes, because the county installed a permanent structure on the landowner's property.

Question 5862 A landowner owned a large number of acres of land in a rural district fifty miles outside of a major metropolitan area and airport. Due to a field of vision problem pilots experienced in the vicinity of the landowner's property, the county determined it was necessary to erect a 75-foot tall aviation light signal on the landowner's property. Pursuant to its authority under a state law regarding air travel, the county installed the aviation light on a corner of the landowner's property that he did not use. The landowner requested compensation for the installation but the county refused. The landowner subsequently brought suit against the county. Is the landowner constitutionally entitled to just compensation? Answers: A. No, because the light signal was installed on an unused portion of the landowner's property. B. No, because the county's action is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. C. Yes, because the county installed a permanent structure on the landowner's property. D. Yes, because the county's action adversely affected the landowner's property interest.

B. The matter is not ripe for adjudication.

Question 5950 A telecommunications company applied for a permit to construct a tower on land that the company owned to host a wireless communications signal. The local zoning board denied the permit based on the existing zoning of that land. Prior to seeking a special use variance, the company filed suit in federal court seeking a declaratory judgment that the zoning board's denial violated a federal law that prohibits a state or local government from effectively denying the provision of wireless services to the public. Of the following, which likely constitutes the local government's best constitutional defense against this suit? Answers: A. An action by a local zoning board does not constitute an unconstitutional taking unless the action results in a permanent total loss of the property's economic value. B. The matter is not ripe for adjudication. C. The suit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. D. The suit violates the "case or controversy" requirement of Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution because it seeks a declaratory judgment.

C. Yes, because the Eleventh Amendment prevents the recovery of retroactive money damages by citizens against a state agency.

Question 6279 A federal statute generally makes age discrimination in the hiring or firing of employees illegal and provides for a civil action for damages against the offending employer. The statute applies to public as well as private employers and contains a clear statement of Congressional intent to abrogate state immunity. In federal court, an employee sued her employer, a state agency, for violation of this statute and sought relief in the form of retroactive money damages. The state agency moved to dismiss the action as constitutionally prohibited. The state employee conceded that the age discrimination that she experienced was rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Should the court dismiss the action on constitutional grounds? Answers: A. No, because Congress was acting pursuant to its power under the Commerce Clause. B. No, because Congress was acting pursuant to its power under the Enabling Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. C. Yes, because the Eleventh Amendment prevents the recovery of retroactive money damages by citizens against a state agency. D. Yes, because the strict scrutiny test must be met for there to be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

B. Yes, because Congress may exercise its power to tax for any public purpose.

Question 6292 In order to improve the safety of passenger train services on northeast corridor routes, Congress imposed a $25 tax on all tickets sold by passenger train services for travel throughout the United States. As an exercise of Congress's taxing power, is this tax constitutional? Answers: A. Yes, because Congress can tax passenger tickets due to its power to regulate interstate commerce. B. Yes, because Congress may exercise its power to tax for any public purpose. C. No, because the tax impinges on the fundamental right to travel. D. No, because direct taxes are subject to the apportionment requirement of Article I, Sec. 2 of the U. S. Constitution.

B. For the state, because the worker received timely notice of the termination and post-termination hearing.

Question 6298 An employee was terminated by her employer. The former employee applied for and was awarded payments from the state's unemployment insurance fund. After several payments, the state agency that administered the fund determined at a pre-termination hearing that the former employee was not entitled to payments from the fund due her employment at another job. The state sent the employee a notice that explained why her payments were being terminated. The notice also stated that the termination would take effect immediately, and that the employee had 60 days in which to file a protest of the termination with the state agency. If the employee filed a protest, the state agency would be required to hold a post-termination hearing on the matter. The employee contested the termination and lost. The employee then filed an action in federal court contending that she had been denied her procedural due process rights. If the court finds that the termination of worker's unemployment payments should be treated in the same manner as the termination of disability benefits, rather than welfare benefits, how should the court rule with regard to the former employee's claim that she was denied her procedural due process rights? Answers: A. For the state, because a hearing is not required after the worker received timely notice of the termination. B. For the state, because the worker received timely notice of the termination and post-termination hearing. C. For the worker, because the worker did not receive timely notice of the pre-termination hearing D. For the worker, because she was deprived of his due process rights under the Fifth Amendment.

A. The federal provision preempts the state statute.

Question 6588 The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) provides that specific provisions of the Act "supersede any and all State laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any employee benefit plan." Among those specific provisions is one that requires an employer with a group health plan to provide to each employee who would lose coverage as the result of termination of employment the opportunity to elect continuation coverage under the plan for a period of at least 60 days. Prior to the enactment of the continuation coverage election requirement, a state statute imposed a similar requirement on employers within the state with a group health plan. What is the effect of the federal provision on the state statute? Answers: A. The federal provision preempts the state statute. B. The state statute continues to be effective because it imposes the same requirements as the federal provision. C. The state statute continues to be effective because it only applies to employers within the state. D. The state statute continues to be effective because it was enacted before the federal provision.

C. For the utility, because the utility is privately owned.

Question 6591 The owner of a residence contracted with a privately owned utility to provide internet service to the residence. After several years of paying the monthly bills sent by the utility, the owner failed to pay three monthly bills in a row. The contract did not specify what action the utility was required to take in such a circumstance. The utility, after giving the owner two days' advance notice, terminated the owner's access to the internet. After terminating the service, the utility provided the owner with the opportunity for a hearing on the matter. The owner has filed suit against the utility for violating of the owner's constitutional rights by failing to give her a hearing before taking such action. The owner's complaint points out the utility in question is a publicly regulated monopoly. How is the court likely to rule on the owner's lawsuit? Answers: A. For the owner, because she had a contractual right to receive internet service. B. For the owner, because the Fourteenth Amendment requires not only prior notice but also a hearing before the termination of service. C. For the utility, because the utility is privately owned. D. For the utility, because the utility provided the owner with notice before termination of service and the opportunity for a hearing afterwards.

A. No, because preventing fires inside of public buildings is rationally related to a legitimate government interest.

Question 7044 As part of a woman's religion, she was required to burn a small amount of holy oil in an urn before consuming a meal. Although she was able to burn the holy oil before breakfast and dinner at home, she needed to conduct this ritual at work before her lunch break. The woman's supervisor asked her to burn the holy oil outside, but because she had several other religious accoutrements that she needed to use in conjunction with the ritual, she insisted on burning the oil in her cubicle. In addition, the woman stated that she had a flame snuffer in order to ensure that the fire did not pose a danger. A state fire statute prohibits any open fires in public buildings because they present a fire hazard. The woman has filed an action in state court challenging the constitutionality of this statute, claiming that it violates her right to the free exercise of religion. Assuming no relevant federal statute is applicable, should the court rule that the state statute violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment? Answers: A. No, because preventing fires inside of public buildings is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. B. No, because the state statute does not violate the woman's right to due process to determine if the law is arbitrary or irrational. C. Yes, because preventing a religious ritual of this type does not advance a compelling state interest. D. Yes, because the statute is not substantially related to an important governmental interest.

A. The law must be rationally related to a legitimate government interest.

Question 7050 A recently enacted state statute prohibits drivers from using privately owned cars to pick up passengers at the airport for a fare; only cars-for-hire in a regulated industry, such as taxicabs, are permitted to do so. These cars-for-hire are required to obtain permits to pick up passengers and they must wait in a designated taxicab line. The stated purpose of the statute is to reduce the recent upswing of car congestion at the arrival deck of the airport, and to reduce the parking of the privately owned cars-for-hire on the arrival deck while drivers wait for their passengers to arrive. A driver who drives a privately owned car-for-hire challenges the constitutionality of this statute, claiming it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Which of the following tests is the most appropriate test to apply in determining the constitutionality of the statute? Answers: A. The law must be rationally related to a legitimate government interest. B. The law must be substantially related to important government interest. C. The law must be the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling government interest. D. The law must be narrowly tailored to serve a substantial government interest.

B. Dismiss the writ of certiorari

Question 7057 A municipality enacted an ordinance detailing a mandatory movie-ratings system for all theaters in the municipality. The ordinance also prohibited minors from showings of movies with certain ratings indicating obscene imagery or language. A movie theater located in the municipality did not want to adhere to the ordinance's rating system, and filed a case in state court challenging its constitutionality based upon the freedoms of speech provided in the state and federal constitutions. The state court found that the ordinance violated both the state constitution and the federal Constitution, and ruled in favor of the movie theater. The municipality appealed to the state supreme court. The state supreme court sustained the ruling of the lower court in part, declining to decide the issue under the federal Constitution because the state constitution, which granted greater protection than the federal Constitution to obscene speech, was clearly violated by the ordinance. The municipality subsequently filed a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. What should the U.S. Supreme Court do in response to the writ of certiorari? Answers: A. Remand the case to the state supreme court B. Dismiss the writ of certiorari C. Reverse the state supreme court's decision D. Affirm the state supreme court's decision

B. Yes, because the statute unduly burdens interstate commerce.

Question 7136 State X recently enacted a statute that required any sushi-grade fish sold in State X to sushi restaurants to be sourced from a State X fishmonger located no further than 50 miles from any sushi restaurant located in State X. The purpose of the regulation was to ensure that fish that was typically consumed in a raw form in sushi restaurants maintained its quality and freshness during delivery. A fishmonger located in State Y, which borders State X, is located 25 miles away from a group of sushi restaurants in State X that used to buy their fish from him prior to the enactment of the statute. If the State Y fishmonger challenges the constitutionality of the statute, will he prevail? Answers: A. Yes, because the statute violates the Privileges or Immunities Clause. B. Yes, because the statute unduly burdens interstate commerce. C. No, because the statute protects an important local interest. D. No, because State X is acting as a market participant.

C. The court must determine whether the statute is substantially related to an important government interest.

Question 7137 A state enacted an intestacy statute that provided full inheritance rights for marital children from both parents. Under the statute, nonmarital children were permitted to inherit only through their mothers. The underlying purposes of the statute were to promote family relations and establish an accurate and efficient method of disposing property at death. The father of a nonmarital child recently died intestate. The nonmarital child brought suit challenging the constitutionality of the statute. Which of the following most accurately states the appropriate standard of review for the court? Answers: A. The court must determine whether the statute is the least restrictive means of achieving an important government interest. B. The court must determine whether the statute is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. C. The court must determine whether the statute is substantially related to an important government interest. D. The court must determine whether the statute is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest.

D. The Taxing and Spending Power under Article I, Section 8

Question 7169 Global warming lobbyists were putting pressure on Congress to reduce the effects of global warming caused by personal vehicles. In response to these concerns, Congress passed a statute conditioning federal subsidies to oil producers on using cleaner extraction techniques for producing fuel, ultimately leading to lower emissions of carbon dioxide from personal vehicles. Which of the following constitutional provisions most strongly supports the enactment of this statute? Answers: A. The Necessary and Proper Clause under Article I, Section 8 B. The Police Power under Article I, Section 8 C. The Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment D. The Taxing and Spending Power under Article I, Section 8

C. Correct Answer: Yes, because the ban on solicitation is reasonably related to a legitimate government interest.

Question 7179 A state airport commission adopted a regulation prohibiting the solicitation of money inside airport terminals, but permitted the solicitation of money on the pathways outside the terminals where travelers were accessible. The commission adopted the regulation due to the disrupting effect solicitation had on travelers attempting to reach their gates, causing delays and congestion in the terminals. Fundraisers from an organization devoted to raising money to help cure cancer attempted to solicit donations in the airport terminal, and were detained for violating the regulation. The organization has challenged the constitutionality of the regulation. Is the regulation constitutional? Answers: A. No, because a ban on all solicitation is not narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest. B. No, because the regulation preventing solicitation in airport terminals is not content neutral. C. Yes, because the ban on solicitation is reasonably related to a legitimate government interest. D. Yes, because the regulation leaves open ample alternative channels for communication on the sidewalks outside the airport terminals.

A. No, because the statute was not narrowly tailored to serve the government's goal.

Question 7229 A state statute was recently enacted prohibiting any grocery store or market within one mile of a school from displaying any posters advertising items for sale. The goal of the statute was to discourage minors from illegally purchasing alcohol or soliciting others to purchase alcohol for them after seeing posters advertising that it was for sale. Before the regulation, many affected stores that did not sell alcohol also advertised in this manner, and the stores that did sell alcohol often advertised non-alcoholic items for sale with posters as well. Is the statute constitutional? Answers: A. No, because the statute was not narrowly tailored to serve the government's goal. B. No, because the statute was not the least restrictive available means to achieve the government's goal. C. Yes, because restrictions on commercial speech are not subject to protection by the First Amendment. D. Yes, because the government's interest is rationally related to the restriction.

B. No, because the Thirteenth Amendment enables Congress to pass this statute.

Question 7368 Congress passed a statute that forbade private sellers of real property from discriminating against prospective buyers on the basis of race. A seller entered into negotiations to sell his home to a couple through e-mail. However, when the couple arrived to sign the sales contract and purchase the home, the seller discovered the couple was black. After the seller refused to sell his property to the couple, the couple bought an action against him under this statute. In response, the seller has challenged the constitutionality of the statute. Is the seller's challenge to the constitutionality of the statute likely to succeed? Answers: A. No, because the "obligations of contracts" clause only applies to state legislation. B. No, because the Thirteenth Amendment enables Congress to pass this statute. C. Yes, because the statute regulates purely private conduct. D. Yes, because the statute substantially impairs a contract between private parties.

D. Correct Answer: Yes, because the trend of raising backyard chickens, in the aggregate, has a substantial effect on the national egg market.

Question 7371 Due to rising public concerns about the treatment of chickens in the egg industry, there has been a recent spike in the number of households raising chickens on their private property to collect eggs. Because it was often easy for a family to raise enough chickens to produce more eggs than the family could use, many households sell their surplus eggs at local markets and to private buyers. Lobbyists for the egg industry recently presented Congress with a study that revealed that, because so many buyers were purchasing eggs from local private sellers, eggs from backyard chickens were starting to substantially affect the national market. As a result, rates of salmonella contamination in eggs used by private consumers are rising and the big egg factories are losing business. In response to this study, Congress seeks to pass a statute that would prevent family households from raising more than two hens per household without a license. Will this statute be constitutional? Answers: A. No, because the statute does not consider the number of members of a household to determine how many hens would produce a surplus. B. No, because the statute will regulate the purely private conduct of raising hens, not the sale of eggs. C. Yes, because Congress can restrict private conduct that poses a public health risk or endangers the public welfare. D. Yes, because the trend of raising backyard chickens, in the aggregate, has a substantial effect on the national egg market.

A. The state has the burden of persuading the court that the application of this statute to the family is the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling state interest.

Question 7376 A state statute sets a statewide residency limit on private homes. Under the statute, every private home may house no more than two people per bedroom, not counting any children under three years old. A family in the state consists of two parents, four children between the ages of four and nine, and a 19-year-old daughter who had recently moved back in to the family's home with her infant child. The daughter's presence in the three-bedroom home increased its occupancy to seven family members over the age of three. The state files suit against the family under the residency limitation statute. The family defends only on the ground that the statute in question is unconstitutional as applied to their living situation. Which of the following is the most probable burden of persuasion on this constitutional issue? Answers: A. The state has the burden of persuading the court that the application of this statute to the family is the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling state interest. B. The state has the burden of persuading the court that the application of this statute to the family is rationally related to a legitimate state interest. C. The family has the burden of persuading the court that the application of this statute to them is not necessary to vindicate an important state interest. D. The family has the burden of persuading the court that the application of this statute to them is not rationally related to a legitimate state interest.

D. No, because the employee had no right to continued employment.

Question 7385 A public employer often hired graduates from a local college. Because the state gives public employers a one-year stipend for employees hired just out of college, the employer often hired these students upon their graduation on a one-year temporary basis. In the last week of the one-year period, the employer notified the employee by e-mail as to whether the employee was going to be offered permanent employment. One of these temporary employees, on the first day of the last week of his one-year term, came to work intoxicated, as he had several times previously. The employee was told that his employment was terminated, effective immediately, because of his drinking problem, that he would be paid as if he worked the remainder of the week, and he was escorted off the premises. The employee was never given a hearing with regard to his termination. The employee has initiated an action against his former employer alleging that he was denied due process when he was dismissed without a hearing. Is the employee likely to succeed in his action? Answers: A. Yes, because a public employee is entitled to notice and a hearing before termination of the employee's employment. B. Yes, because the employee had a legitimate property interest in continued public employment. C. No, because the employee was terminated for cause. D. No, because the employee had no right to continued employment.

A. The Commerce Clause of Article I, Section 8

Question 7390 A congressional committee concluded that the national rate of interstate sex trafficking has been skyrocketing due to law enforcement's inability to properly monitor and shut down online auctions of kidnap victims. In an effort to combat sex trafficking, Congress passed a statute making it a capital offense to transport any kidnap victim across state lines with financial motivations. Which of the following best supports congressional authority to pass this statute? Answers: A. The Commerce Clause of Article I, Section 8 B. The federal police power C. The Enabling Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 5 D. The Necessary and Proper Clause of Article I, Section 8

D. The state court may apply religiously neutral principles of law to determine ownership of the place of worship.

Question 7420 A local religious community constructed a place of worship on land that they owned. Several years later, the community's religion divided into two different sects, with one sect recognizing a new leader and a new interpretation of their religious tenets. The schism led to a dispute among the members of the local religious community as to which sect the local community should belong, with the majority in favor of joining the sect that recognized the new leader. The place of worship is now occupied and used by the members who voted to recognize the new leader of the religion. The minority, supported by the original leader of their religious sect, brought an ejection action in state court to gain possession of the place of worship. In determining who is entitled to ownership of the place of worship, which of the following courses of action may the state court take? Answers: A. The state court must follow the wishes of the majority of the local religious community in determining ownership of the local place of worship because title to the land is held by the local religious community. B. The state court must legally enforce the established religious tenets of the original sect by awarding ownership to the original leader of the religion at the time that the place of worship was constructed. C. The state court may determine which sect more closely adheres to the religious doctrines followed by the local religious community at the time that the place of worship was constructed, and award ownership to that sect. D. The state court may apply religiously neutral principles of law to determine ownership of the place of worship.

C. Against the state, because there is a reasonable expectation that the father will be subject to a civil contempt action again.

Question 7434 A father, as he had been on three other occasions, was held in civil contempt for failure to pay child support payments to the mother of his child. The father was then incarcerated for six months. He appealed the court decision that found him in contempt. He contended that he was indigent and was entitled to the appointment of counsel to represent him at the contempt hearing. He argued that the court's failure to do so violated his rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. By the time the father's appeal was heard, he had been released from prison. The state argues that although the father's financial and employment situation remained unchanged, the father's action should be dismissed as moot. How should the court rule on the state's defense? Answers: A. For the state, because there was no live controversy after the father was released from prison. B. For the state, because any further potential injury to the father would be speculative. C. Against the state, because there is a reasonable expectation that the father will be subject to a civil contempt action again. D. Against the state, because the father is entitled to counsel to represent him at a civil contempt hearing.

A. The age limitation on the driving school option is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest of encouraging safe driving habits.

Question 7441 A 60-year-old driver received a traffic citation for his failure to use the headlights on his automobile after dark. He pled not guilty and requested a trial, at which he was found guilty. He requested that, in lieu of paying a fine, he be required to attend the driving school course that was offered by the municipal court for certain traffic offenses. The court program offering driving school in lieu of fine was rationally limited to drivers between the ages of 15 and 18 years old because they were the most likely to modify their driving habits and thereby benefit from the school. Based on this reasoning, the judge denied the driver's request solely because he did not qualify for driving school due to his age. The driver has challenged the judicial refusal to admit him into driving school as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Of the following reasons, which best supports the rejection of the driver's constitutional challenge? Answers: A. The age limitation on the driving school option is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest of encouraging safe driving habits. B. The Equal Protection Clause does not apply to age discrimination. C. The Equal Protection Clause does not apply to judicial action. D. The Equal Protection Clause only applies to state action.