Con Law Questions
If a state tax on interstate commerce discriminates against a natural person who is a nonresident, which of the following Clauses is least likely to be relevant in determining whether the tax is valid? response - incorrect A The Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV B The Equal Protection Clause C The Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment D The Commerce Clause
The Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment would not apply to a state tax on interstate commerce that discriminates against a natural person who is a nonresident. It applies when a state denies its own citizens rights of national citizenship. The Equal Protection Clause would also be relevant in determining the validity of a state tax on interstate commerce that discriminates against a natural person who is a nonresident. This Clause prohibits states from unreasonably discriminating among similarly situated people.
In which of the following cases would strict scrutiny of a government action be applied to determine whether the action violates equal protection? response - correct A A federal law denies government benefits to an individual based on alienage. B A state law denies government benefits to an individual based on alienage. C A state law penalizes an individual who is an undocumented alien. D A state law makes aliens ineligible for public employment in positions that directly affect the self-government process.
A STATE LAW that denies government benefits to an individual based on alienage is subject to strict scrutiny and will be upheld only if the state proves the discrimination is necessary to achieve a compelling government interest. Generally, alienage classifications made by states are subject to strict scrutiny. (However, there is an exception where the law is related to participation in the self-government process. Such laws are subject only to the rational basis test.) A FEDERAL LAW that denies government benefits to an individual based on alienage is not subject to strict scrutiny. Because the Constitution gives Congress plenary power over aliens, federal classifications based on alienage generally are tested under the rational basis test (i.e., valid unless the challenger can prove that the classifications are not rationally related to a legitimate government interest). A STATE LAW that makes aliens ineligible for public employment in positions that directly affect the self-governing process are not subject to strict scrutiny like other state alienage classifications. Laws relating to the self-governing process are subject only to a rational basis review. A STATE LAW that penalizes an individual who is an undocumented alien also is not subject to strict scrutiny, because the Supreme Court has not held that undocumented aliens is a suspect classification.
Under current Supreme Court precedent, which of the following is a sufficient justification for a government program differentiating on the basis of a person's race?
A program of minority hiring to correct the effects of past discrimination in hiring by a government agency is permissible. Under the Equal Protection Clause, a government classification based on race is constitutional only if the government can show that the discrimination is necessary to achieve a compelling interest. The Supreme Court has held that remedying past discrimination is a compelling interest and that the type of hiring program described in this choice was necessary to achieve that interest.
While it is true that states may not deny their own citizens rights of national citizenship, this rule comes from the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the ___________ amendment????
Fourteenth Amendment rather than from the Article IV Privileges and Immunities Clause.
_________ is not a suspect classification for equal protection purposes. response - incorrect A Race B Gender C National origin D Alienage
Gender is not considered a suspect classification for equal protection purposes. Gender is a quasi-suspect classification, triggering an intermediate standard of scrutiny in determining whether a government action or law violates equal protection. Race, national origin, and alienage are the three suspect classifications designated by the Supreme Court as requiring a strict standard of review (strict scrutiny)for a challenge to a government action or law on the basis of equal protection.
The Privileges or Immunities Clause prohibits states from infringing upon their citizens': response - correct A Right to travel B Right to earn a living C Right to an attorney D Freedom of speech
Right to travel Freedom of speech is not a right of national citizenship under the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The right to earn a living is not a right of national citizenship under the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, although the right is protected under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, which limits states from discriminating against nonresidents.
Commercial fishing has long been one of the major industries of a coastal state. To protect the fishing industry and to promote the general welfare of the state's citizens, the legislature of the state enacted statutes requiring licenses for commercial fishing. An applicant for the license must pay a $300 fee and establish that he has been engaged in commercial fishing in the waters of the state for 10 years. A commercial fisherman residing in a neighboring state frequently takes his fishing boat up the coast. His favorite spot is approximately two miles off the coast of the legislating state. If the commercial fisherman challenges the constitutionality of the legislating state's statutes, should the court find the statutes constitutional? response - incorrect A Yes, because Congress has not enacted legislation regarding the subject matter of the statutes. B Yes, because economic and social regulations are presumed valid. C No, because less restrictive means are available. D No, because Congress has exclusive power to regulate foreign commerce, which includes commercial ocean fishing.
The court should not find the statutes constitutional, because less restrictive means are available. The statutes violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, which prohibits discrimination against nonresidents with respect to essential activities (e.g., pursuing a livelihood) unless (i) the discrimination is closely related to a substantial state purpose, and (ii) less restrictive means are not available. Here, other controls could be placed on fishing without discriminating against out-of-state fishermen.
The state police wished to infiltrate a racist organization devoted to the goal of creating an "all white America." The police decided to create a new undercover position for the person who would infiltrate the racist organization. The pay was substantially better than the salary of ordinary officers. The chief of police invited all white police officers to apply for the undercover position. A plaintiff had been a state police officer for eight years and had received many citations for efficiency, bravery, and public service. However, the plaintiff is black, and the chief refused to even accept his application for the undercover position, even though the plaintiff told the chief that he was very desirous of obtaining the position. If the plaintiff sues to require the chief to give serious consideration to his application, should the court rule that the chief has acted in a manner in accordance with the principles of the United States Constitution?
The court should rule in favor of the chief. This is one of the very rare situations in which a distinction based on race is likely to be upheld. The government, based on the facts, has a compelling interest in infiltrating the racist group. Due to the nature of the group, a white police officer is obviously necessary for this task. This means the action meets both elements of the strict scrutiny test: the interest is compelling and the means selected are narrowly tailored because no other nondiscriminatory action would work. The increased salary likely reflects the danger of the undercover task, and so is justifiable.
Which of the following is not itself sufficient to trigger strict or intermediate scrutiny on a claim that government action discriminates on the basis of a suspect or quasi-suspect classification? response - correct A Facial discrimination B Discriminatory motive C Discriminatory effect D Discriminatory application
The discriminatory effect of governmental action is not enough, standing alone, to trigger strict or intermediate scrutiny. Only intentional discrimination violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the mere fact that government action appears to have a discriminatory effect does not show a discriminatory intent. discriminatory application of a law or program to a certain individual or group of individual is sufficient to show discriminatory intent, even if the program appears to be neutral on its face. The classic example here is a zoning ordinance that prohibits laundries in wooden buildings unless the owner is granted an exception, and exceptions are granted only to majority race members and denied to minority race members.
In certain parts of a state, single-family residences had become so expensive that the vast majority of families could no longer afford to buy a home. To alleviate this problem, the legislature enacted statutes creating a housing agency. The agency, organized along the lines of a private corporation, was authorized to act as general contractor and build homes in counties where the average cost of a new home exceeded by 50% the national average cost of a new home, then to sell the homes at the cost of materials and labor to first-time homebuyers. In one medium-sized city in the state, the average cost of a new home exceeded the national average by 15%, while in a nearby large city, the average cost of a new home exceeded the average by 50%. The agency began building and selling homes in the large city, but did not operate in the medium city. About 35% of the population of the medium city is of Armenian ethnicity. A citizen of Armenian heritage brings a class action against the state, seeking to have the agency's failure to operate in the medium city declared a violation of the right to equal protection of the Armenian citizens of that city. What fact would be most helpful for the citizen in challenging the statute? response - correct A The state could have permitted the agency to build and sell homes in all areas of the state. B Armenian citizens experience difficulty in affording single-family residences. C The legislation setting up the agency was intended to discriminate against Armenian citizens. D The percentage of Armenian citizens is much higher in the medium city than in the large city.
The most helpful fact would be an intent to discriminate. State action that is facially neutral will nevertheless be struck down if it can be shown that it was intended to discriminate on the basis of race or national origin and does in fact have that effect. The citizen must show that the legislature selected the specific cost guidelines with full knowledge of the population characteristics in the medium city and with the specific intent to disqualify that city from participation in the program because of its high concentration of Armenians. If he proves that intent, he will prevail
A state law prohibits physicians from practicing medicine within the state without a state license. Among other things, the grant of a state license requires a physician to have been a resident of the state for at least one year. A physician moved to the state from a nearby state and immediately applied for a license to practice medicine. Although otherwise qualified, the physician's request for a license was denied based on the residency requirement. The physician brought suit, alleging that the residency requirement violated the United States Constitution. Will the physician likely succeed? response - incorrect A Yes, because the requirement violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV. B Yes, because the requirement violates the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. C Yes, because the requirement violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. D No, because the state has a compelling interest in furthering the welfare of its residents.
The physician will succeed. The Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from denying their citizens the privileges and immunities of national citizenship. This includes the right to travel, and the Court has held that the right to travel includes the right of newly arrived citizens to enjoy the same privileges and immunities as are enjoyed by other citizens of the state. A state law that distinguishes between new residents solely on the length of their residency will serve no legitimate state interest. Thus, a law limiting medical licenses to persons who have resided in the state for a year runs afoul of the clause.
What does the Fourteenth Amendment Privileges or Immunities Clause protect?
The rights of national citizenship The Fourteenth Amendment Privileges or Immunities Clause prohibits states from denying their citizens the rights of national citizenship, such as the right to petition Congress for redress of grievances, the right to vote for federal officers, the right to enter public lands, the right to interstate travel, and any other right flowing from the distinct relation of a citizen to the United States Government. Corporations, aliens, and legal residents are not citizens of the United States and are not protected by the Fourteenth Amendment Privileges or Immunities Clause.
A man was a permanent resident alien of the United States who was awaiting an opportunity to become a citizen. He filed an application to become an instructor in the local public high school but was denied the position solely on the ground that he was not a citizen. The man now brings suit, alleging that his status as a resident alien was not a proper ground for denying him a position as an instructor. May the state deny a permanent resident alien employment as an instructor in the public high school? response - incorrect A Yes, because employment by the state is a privilege, not a right. B Yes, because citizenship bears some rational relationship to the interest that is being protected. C No, to do so would be a denial of equal protection. D No, because the evidence presented was uncontroverted that he was awaiting the opportunity to become a citizen.
The state's action would be reviewed under the rational basis standard. Although state classifications based on alienage are generally suspect, a state may reserve a government position for citizens if it is related to self-governance, involves policymaking, or requires exercise of important discretionary power over citizens. In these cases, only a rationality test is used. A public school teacher at the primary and secondary school level performs an important governmental function (e.g., he influences students' attitudes about government, the political process, citizenship, etc.), and therefore the exclusion of aliens is rationally related to the state's interest in furthering educational goals. [Ambach v. Norwick (1979)]
A state statute provided that only residents of the state can be granted a license to practice medicine within the state. The statute was passed after a series of well-publicized mistakes by a nonresident physician led to a public consensus that nonresidents were less likely to be familiar with the medical standards followed in the state, making them more likely to commit malpractice. A respected surgeon who lived and was licensed in a neighboring state was offered and accepted the position of chief surgeon at a hospital in the state with the residency statute. Because he lived only 20 minutes away from the hospital, he did not wish to move. He filed an action in federal court challenging the residency requirement, alleging that the statute discriminated against nonresidents in violation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV. Is the federal court likely to find that the statute is constitutional? response - incorrect A Yes, because the state has a substantial justification for the discriminatory treatment. B Yes, because a license to practice medicine is not a "privilege" under the Privileges and Immunities Clause. C No, because the statute is not necessary to achieve an important government purpose. D No, because the statute is not necessary to achieve a compelling state interest.
The statute is likely unconstitutional because the statute is not necessary to achieve an important government purpose (put another way, the state does not have a substantial justification for the statute). The Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV protects against discrimination by a state in favor of its own citizens when it affects a fundamental right, such as the pursuit of a livelihood. Any statute that results in such discrimination violates the Clause unless the state shows that it has a substantial justification for the discriminatory treatment. In effect, it must show that nonresidents either cause or are part of the problem it is attempting to solve, and that there are no less restrictive means to solve the problem. Here, the state statute clearly discriminates against nonresidents in favor of residents. The reason offered by the state to justify the discrimination, i.e., that nonresident physicians are less likely to be familiar with the medical standards imposed by the state, does not meet the test of necessary to achieve an important government purpose. The state can find less restrictive means to ensure that all physicians are familiar with its medical standards.
Under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Section 2, __________. response - correct A corporations are protected as well as natural persons B states may not deny their own citizens rights of national citizenship C states may not discriminate against nonresidents regarding fundamental rights D aliens are protected as well as citizens
Under the Privileges and Immunities Clause, states may not discriminate against nonresidents regarding fundamental rights—i.e., those involving important commercial activities (such as pursuit of a livelihood) or civil liberties—absent a substantial justification: i.e., the state shows that nonresidents either cause or are part of the problem the state is attempting to solve, and that there are no less restrictive means to solve the problem. For example, states may not charge nonresident commercial fishermen substantially more for a license than they charge residents absent substantial justification.
A state located in the southern half of the United States experienced a strong influx of retirees, due in part to its mild winters and in part to the generous health benefits that the state historically provided to its elderly residents who fell below the federal poverty line. The state's Office of Budget Management determined that the influx of retirees would bankrupt the state's health care benefit fund within five years. To preserve the fund and ensure the health of its citizens, the state revised its health care statute to make persons ineligible for coverage until they have lived in the state for at least one year. If a retiree who was denied benefits because she just moved to the state challenges the constitutionality of the statute in federal court, is she likely to prevail? response - incorrect A No, because the state has a compelling interest in maintaining the fiscal integrity of its health care fund. B No, because the states do not have a constitutional duty to provide health care benefits to retirees even if they fall below the federal poverty line. C Yes, because the requirement improperly burdens the right of interstate travel in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. D Yes, because the requirement deprives some retirees of certain privileges and immunities in violation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV.
he court will likely find that the one-year residency requirement is unconstitutional because it burdens the right to travel. An individual has a fundamental right to travel from state to state, and a state law that is designed to deter persons from moving into the state is likely to violate the Equal Protection Clause (as well as the Fourteenth Amendment Privileges or Immunities Clause). When a state uses a durational residency requirement (a waiting period) for dispensing benefits, that requirement normally should be subject to the strict scrutiny test, and usually will be found not to have satisfied the test. One such requirement that has been invalidated on this basis is a one-year waiting period for state-subsidized medical care, such as the one here. [See Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County (1974)]