**** Flashcards
The state passed a law stating that “only persons living with their parents or guardians who are bona fide residents of the state shall be entitled to free public education; all others who wish to attend public schools within the state may do so, but they must pay tuition of $3,000 per semester.” A 15-year-old girl moved in with her friend so that she could attend the public schools in the state, and the state legislature passed the tuition statute just as she completed her junior year. The girl wants to complete her senior year in the state high school, but cannot afford to pay tuition.
If the girl sues in federal court to strike down the tuition statute, is the court likely to rule that the statute is constitutional?
Yes, unless the girl can show that the statute is not rationally related to a legit state purpose.
The court is likely to rule that the statute is constitutional. A bona fide residence requirement, such as this statute, that is not based on a suspect classification and does not limit the exercise of a fundamental right, is judged by the rational basis test.
Note* - this statute does not impair the right of interstate travel. Any person is free to move to the state and establish residence there. This statute does not deter people from moving into the state.
A state enacted health care legislation to provide comprehensive insurance coverage on prescription drugs for all of its citizens. The legislation provided state reimbursement for the cost of all prescription drugs with one exception—a drug commonly known as the “abortion pill,” which was prescribed to induce early term abortions without surgery. All other prescription drugs for pregnant women were covered. A pregnant woman who had received a prescription for the drug and was subsequently denied reimbursement filed suit in federal district court challenging the constitutionality of the legislation.
Which of the following best describes the appropriate standard by which the court should review the constitutionality of the state legislation?
Because the state legislation does not improperly discriminate against a suspect class or burden a fundamental right, the woman will have to show that the legislation is not RATIONALLY RELATED to any LEGIT state interest.
apply rational basis standard.
The police department of a small city has jurisdiction within the city limits and over a defined portion of the surrounding rural communities within the county. A farmer lives in one of the rural communities receiving police protection from the city. The farmer does not pay any tax to the city directly, but a portion of the farmer’s county property tax is turned over by the county to the city in order to support the city’s police department.
The farmer’s property was vandalized several times over the past several months, and the farmer became unhappy with the police protection that the city was providing. After his complaints to the police department and city hall did not improve the situation, the farmer wanted to vote against the mayor in the next election, but a city ordinance provides that only residents of the city may vote in city elections.
If the farmer brings a suit to compel the city to allow him to vote in the city’s mayoral election, is he likely to prevail?
No, because the resident voting limitation appears to be rationally related to a legit state interest.
Limiting the voters in a city’s mayoral election to residents of the city serves the interests of efficiency and prevents persons with little personal interest in the city from voting. Thus, a court would likely uphold the ordinance.
A state statute makes it a felony for anyone in the corridors or on the grounds of any building in which a court may be in session to make a speech or carry a sign intended to improperly influence judicial proceedings. When the head of a street gang was on trial for murder, a gang member was arrested for carrying a sign on the steps of the courthouse warning that if the gang leader was not freed, “the judge will die.”
May the gang member be convicted of violating the state statute?
Yes, because the statute does not violate the 1st Am.
The statute, although based on the subject matter of speech, is viewpoint neutral and reasonably related to the courthouse purpose of promoting a stable, orderly atmosphere in which judicial proceedings can take place, free of improper outside influence or coercion. Thus, the statute is valid and the gang member can be convicted for his actions.
Note – overbreadth argument does not apply because the statute is not overbroad. A regulation of speech that restricts substantially more speech than necessary is unenforceable, even if the speech in question could have been properly restricted by a narrower statute. This doctrine is inapplicable here because the statute is not overbroad: It reaches only speech in the courthouse or on its grounds and only that speech that might improperly influence the judicial proceedings; it does not limit all speech at that location.
A public high school publishes a weekly newspaper as part of its journalism class. The student editor-in-chief of the paper wrote an article supporting the legalization of marijuana and showed it to his faculty advisor. The advisor told the editor that while this issue was receiving a lot of media attention in their community, in order to discourage drug use, school policy prohibited the paper from including any drug-related articles. The advisor then told the editor not to include the article in any edition of the paper.
A few days later, the editor and faculty advisor were preparing to upload the electronic files for the paper to their printer. The advisor was momentarily called away, and the editor quickly replaced an article on clothing styles with his article on the legalization of marijuana. When the paper came out, the article was the talk of the school. After a brief investigation, the student was removed from his position as editor-in-chief. The student brought suit against the school, claiming that his removal was a violation of his First Amendment rights under color of law.
How should the court rule on this issue?
For the high school, because the newspaper involved was a public high school newspaper published as part of a journalism class.
Curriculum-based public high school activities are not public forums. Content regulation of nonpublic forums is allowed as long as the regulation is viewpoint neutral and reasonably related to a legitimate gov’t purpose. Here, school policy prohibited all discussion of drugs in the school newspaper and was therefore viewpoint neutral. Moreover, the school could argue that prohibiting discussion of drugs in the school paper discourages drug use, a legitimate school interest. Thus, the court should rule for the school.
