Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
Chapter 03 - Business and the Constitution
V. ANSWERS TO PROBLEM CASES:
1. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Jones, holding that under the circumstances, he had been
denied due process. When the mailed notice of the tax sale was returned to the state unclaimed,
2. No. Reversing the decision of a federal district court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit upheld the advertising restrictions after applying the four-part test that controls the
determination of whether restrictions on commercial speech violate the First Amendment.
Although the restricted advertisements presumably would be truthful and nonmisleading (element
3. Yes. The Supreme Court held that § 1409 did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. The Court
applied the intermediate scrutiny test described in the text, but that unlike what often happens
when this test is applied, the challenged classification was held not to deny equal protection.
According to the Court, the statute’s imposition of different requirements on unmarried fathers
4. No. There were sound reasons for a bond taxation rule such as Kentucky’s—a rule existing on a
longstanding basis in many states. The long history appeared to demonstrate that national
5. If Nike’s speech was commercial and Kasky succeeded in proving that it contained falsehoods,
the First Amendment would not protect Nike against liability. Commercial speech that is false
3-1
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any
manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Chapter 03 - Business and the Constitution
6. The applicable test called for the school districts to demonstrate that their policies were necessary
to the fulfillment of a compelling government purpose A Supreme Court majority held that the
school districts had not passed the test, but members of that majority did not fully agree on the
7. Yes. This case is United States v. Morrison. The non-economic nature of the behavior being
regulated by the statute was a key reason why the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the statute on
8. Because no fundamental right or suspect classification is implicated by this statute, the rational
basis test will apply. Under that test, the end need only be "legitimate" or "permissible," and
easing solid waste disposal problems easily qualifies. Because all that is required for
3-2
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any
manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Chapter 03 - Business and the Constitution
9. Today, the measures would receive intermediate scrutiny (requiring a substantial relation to an
important governmental purpose) if they discriminated against women. This standard should not
change because the measures discriminated against men. In this case, the male challenge to the
statutes was not successful. The Supreme Court stated that the traffic safety purpose underlying
10. No. The U.S. Supreme Court cited Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S.
104 (1978), in which it decided that a partial regulatory restriction on property use did not
11. Yes. The Supreme Court concluded Stevens was entitled to the protection of the First Amendment
even though his speech would be highly offensive to many persons. The Court declined to
12. Yes. Although Maine argued that the laws giving rise to the case should be seen as permissible
attempts to further public health interests, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Maine laws were
13. The Supreme Court held that the federal Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) neither
expressly nor impliedly preempted an Arizona law that subjects employers who employ
unauthorized aliens to civil consequences and that requires employers to use the E-Verify system
to determine the work authorization status of employees. IRCA prohibits employers from hiring
aliens if the employer knows they are not authorized to work in the United States. IRCA also sets
3-3
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any
manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Chapter 03 - Business and the Constitution
and similar laws” exception in IRCA’s preemption clause. As for the Arizona law’s requirement
that employers use E-Verify, there was no preemption because this provision in the state law did
3-4
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any
manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
