Free TX Bar Constitutional Law Questions and Answers 1 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: A pet store owner opened a store in a new town. She was not aware that the city council had recently passed a law prohibiting the sale of cats and dogs from a retail pet store. The statute had a provision that allowed the pet store to give space to a non-profit humane society to adopt animals from the pet store. <br> The owner sued the city in federal court, claiming a violation of due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court used the rational basis test to conclude that the statute served a legitimate state interest and was enforceable. <br> The pet store owner appealed the decision. Will the appellate court likely affirm the decision of the lower court?
- Yes, because the pet store owner was not treated differently than any other pet store owner.
- Yes, because the correct test requires only that the law in question will satisfy any set of facts that could establish a rational basis for achieving legitimate government ends. (Correct answer)
- No, the pet store owner has a vested constitutional right to earn a living and that is unreasonably precluded by the law in question.
- No, because this ordinance is so invidiously discriminatory that it must pass the strict scrutiny test, which it fails to do.
Correct answer: Yes, because the correct test requires only that the law in question will satisfy any set of facts that could establish a rational basis for achieving legitimate government ends.
The court will likely grant the lawsuit's requests because the right to marry is considered a fundamental right under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, extended to same-sex couples. When a fundamental right is infringed, the state must demonstrate a compelling state interest and that the law is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest (strict scrutiny). Denying same-sex couples the right to marry typically fails this stringent test, as there is no compelling state interest to justify such a deprivation.
Question 2: The state constitution in one state guaranteed the right to marry to same-sex and opposite-sex couples alike. A political group got a proposition on the ballot, and a majority of the people voted to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. The proposition did not affect any of the other rights that same-sex couples may have possessed from existing state law.<br> Persons affected sued the state government for unconstitutionally taking away the rights that they had and doing it for no legitimate purpose, in violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Will the court grant the requests of the lawsuit and declare the proposition void and reinstate the rights of same-sex couples to marry?
- Yes, under the due process clause no compelling state interest justifies denying same-sex couples the fundamental right to marry. (Correct answer)
- Yes, because under the Fourth Amendment it would be an illegal interference against the right of privacy guaranteed to everyone.
- No, because the people voted to take a provision out of the existing constitution and when that is done by public vote it cannot be altered.
- No, because the ballot proposition was properly placed on the ballot and all statutory procedures were followed, thus precluding the courts from taking adverse action.
Correct answer: Yes, under the due process clause no compelling state interest justifies denying same-sex couples the fundamental right to marry.
The appellate court will likely reverse the dismissal because the massage parlor owner had a property right in her state-issued license and business permits. Under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, a state cannot deprive an individual of a property interest without providing adequate procedural due process, which typically includes notice and an opportunity to be heard. The city's arbitrary cancellation without proper procedure constitutes a violation of these rights.
Question 3: The owner of a state-licensed massage parlor sued the state for arbitrarily canceling its license and prior business permits to conduct a massage parlor at a given location in the city. Due to allegations of illegal activities in other massage parlors not affiliated with this owner, the city canceled the owner's personal license and revoked the business permits. The only information provided was a general notice from the city declaring a new policy on massage parlors that had to be rapidly instituted for the welfare of the community.<br> She sued the city in federal court, claiming that her business had been taken without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment takings clause. She claimed a lack of procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court granted a motion to dismiss based on her not having a property interest that was affected, including in the license and permits. She appealed the decision.<br> Will the federal Court of Appeals affirm the lower court dismissal of her case?
- Yes, because there is no right to earning a living under the substantive due process clause.
- Yes, because the state interest in protecting the public from illegal activities required the state action that was taken.
- No, because once the parlor had opened with all the proper permits, it could not be deprived of its licenses for any reason until they were for renewal.
- No, because she had a property right in her license and permits, which were taken without any procedural due process. (Correct answer)
Correct answer: No, because she had a property right in her license and permits, which were taken without any procedural due process.
The most likely successful constitutional argument is that the law infringes on fundamental rights of the individual, specifically personal liberty and autonomy. Laws dictating personal appearance and dress often implicate the right to privacy and self-expression, which are protected under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Such broad and intrusive government mandates on personal choices are generally subject to heightened scrutiny and are unlikely to survive constitutional challenge.
Question 4: The United States Congress passed, and the President signed, a law called the “American Morality Leadership Act” which limits the amount of makeup that women or men can wear in public and precludes the wearing of short dresses. Men over 65 must wear only brown or grey attire, while those under 65 must wear button down dress shirts with neckties, except for when they are exercising or working physically.<br> The Act has other restrictions and specifications for dress and grooming mandates for men and women. A class action was filed to challenge the Act based on a constitutional attack. Which argument listed below more closely reflects the constitutional argument that is most likely to succeed in court?
- The law is unconstitutional because it violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
- The law is unconstitutional because it is primarily discriminatory against women's rights.
- The law is unconstitutional because it violates procedural due process.
- The law is unconstitutional because it infringes on fundamental rights of the individual. (Correct answer)
Correct answer: The law is unconstitutional because it infringes on fundamental rights of the individual.
The appellate court will likely reverse the lower court's decision because the search was unconstitutional, lacking probable cause. While an officer can stop a vehicle for a traffic violation like speeding, they generally need probable cause or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to conduct a search of the vehicle. The driver being 'irritable and fidgety' without any articulable reason for suspicion is typically insufficient to justify a warrantless search under the Fourth Amendment.
Question 5: A small town police officer pulled over a driver for speeding. He believed that the driver was acting irritable and fidgety, but he had no articulable reason to think anything was wrong. He searched the car anyway and found two cartons of freshly canned peaches, which were owned by the driver's neighbor and reported stolen off of her porch 24 hours earlier.<br> Authorities charged him with theft under the state criminal code. His motion to suppress the evidence because of an unlawful search was denied.<br> On appeal, will the appellate court likely reverse the lower court decision denying the motion to suppress?
- Yes, because the search was unconstitutional due to the other officer having no probable cause that would justify searching the car. (Correct answer)
- Yes, because when a car is pulled over for speeding, the officer must always obtain a search warrant prior to making any search.
- No, the stop and the search were within the normal bounds of propriety for a speeding stop.
- No, because driver being fidgety is enough for a probable cause full search of a vehicle.
Correct answer: Yes, because the search was unconstitutional due to the other officer having no probable cause that would justify searching the car.
The trial court will likely not allow the witness to be questioned about her habit of feeding pigeons because it lacks probative value regarding her credibility or the defendant's guilt. Evidence of prior bad acts not involving dishonesty or false statement is generally inadmissible to attack a witness's character for truthfulness under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Her pigeon-feeding habit, even if illegal, is irrelevant to her ability to accurately perceive or truthfully recount the murder.
Free TX Bar Constitutional Law Questions and Answers 1
A pet store owner opened a store in a new town.
She was not aware that the city council had recently passed a law prohibiting the sale of cats and dogs from a retail pet store.
The statute had a provision that allowed the pet store to give space to a non-profit humane society to adopt animals from the pet store.
The owner sued the city in federal court, claiming a violation of due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The court used the rational basis test to conclude that the statute served a legitimate state interest and was enforceable.
The pet store owner appealed the decision.
Will the appellate court likely affirm the decision of the lower court?