Con Law

Question 1

Protected Speech–Defamation

Answer 1

1A limits common law suits brought by public figures. Such persons cannot recover for defamation unless he can show that the statement was made w/ actual malice.

If the matter is one of legitimate public interest, its publication is privileged if it is made w/o actual malice.

Actual malice will be found where the statement is made w/ knowledge that it is false or w/ reckless disregard for its truth or falsity

Question 2

Campaign contributions under 1A

Answer 2

statute limiting campaign contributions is not tested under SS; instead, it must be “closely drawn” to match a “sufficiently important interest” (IS)

Law limiting amount that person/group may contribute to political candidate are valid; but limits on aggregate contributions are invalid

Question 3

State action

Answer 3

includes govt. agencies and officials acting under color of state law. However, this does not mean the act must be done directly by a state actor; state action can be found in the actions of seemingly private individuals who (1) perform exclusive public functions or (2) have significant state involvement in their activities

Exclusive public functions: Supreme court has found that certain activities are so traditionally the exclusive prerogative of the state that they constitute state action.even when undertaken by a private individual or organization. These include running a town and running an election for public office

Significant state involvement: state action also exists whenever a state affirmatively facilitates, encourages, or authorizes acts of discrimination by its citizens. Must be some sort of affirmative act by the state approving the private action; not enough that the state permits it

Question 4

Takings

Answer 4

5A prohibits govt. taking of private property for public use w/o just compensation.
Public use limitation is liberally construed and use will be “public” as long as it is rationally related to a legitimate public purpose (health, safety, welfare, etc.)

Taking vs Regulation: while govt. must fairly compensate an owner when her property is taken for public use, it need not pay compensation for mere regulation of property. thus whether govt. action amounts to a taking or is merely a regulation is crucial.
Actual appropriation or physical invasion: taking almost always found is there is an actual appropriation or destruction of a person’s property or a permanent physical invasion by the govt.
Use restrictions:
Denial of all economic value is a taking (not necessarily true of temp denials of all economic use)
Decreasing economic value: generally, regulations that merely decrease the value do not necessarily result in a taking, as long as they leave an economically viable use for the property. Court considers: the social goals sought to be promoted, the diminution in value to the owner, and whether the regulation substantially interferes w/ investment backed expectations.
Building/development permits–Exaction of Occupation rights: condition building or development permits on landowner’s conveying title to all or part of the property to the govt. or granting public access (easement). such exactions constitute a taking unless (1) the govt. can show the condition relates to a legitimate govt. interest (nexus) and (2) the adverse impact of the proposed building/development on the area is roughly proportional to the loss caused to the property owner from the forced transfer

Question 5

Levels of Scrutiny

Answer 5

SS: upheld only if it is necessary to achieve a compelling govt. interest (burden on govt.)
IS: upheld if it is substantially related to an important govt. interest (burden generally on govt.)
RB: upheld if rationally related to a legitimate govt. interest (burden on plaintiff); generally upheld unless arbitrary or unreasonable