July 1985, Question 4 [Constitutional law]
#1
I. Justiciability
1. Standing
II. State action
III. 1st Amendment
1. Incorporation
2. Free exercise clause
3. Establishment clause
4. Free speech
(1) Forum
(2) Time, place, manner
III. Equal protection
#2
I. Justiciability
1. Standing
2. Ripeness
II. State action
III. 1st amendment
1. Incorporation
2. Free speech
(1) Content-based restriction
(2) Prior restraint
(3) Imminent lawlessness
3. Freedom of association
II. Procedural due process
IV. Equal protection
#1 The demand of Val
I. Justiciability
1. Standing
In order to successfully bring an action, Plaintiff must have standing. A party has standing where there is injury in fact, which is caused by the defendant and redressable.
(1) Injury-in-fact
A plaintiff must have suffered or be about to suffer with a significant likelihood an injury in fact. The injury may be the denial of constitutional or statutory rights, economic injury, or even environmental or aesthetic harm.
Here, there was an injury because Val was prevented from attending her graduation and delivering the traditional valedictory speech as a valedictorian as the ceremony was held on the day Val was unable to come.
(2) Causation
The plaintiff's injury must have been caused by the defendant's action. Here, the injury was caused by the high school scheduling the graduation ceremony on Saturday morning.
(3) Redressability
The plaintiff's injury must be redressable by a court order. Here, the court could issue an injunction to require the high school to reschedule the ceremony to a different day and redress Val's injury.
2. Case or controversy
There must be an actual case or controversy in dispute. Here, there is a live controversy between the high school and Val over the schedule of the graduation ceremony that would take place in the future.
3. Political questions
Federal courts may not hear non-justiciable political questions. If the issue is committed to another branch of the federal government (president or Congress) or if there are no manageable standards by which the court can resolve the issue, the federal court won't hear it. Here, the case does not involve a political question.
4. Ripeness
A case will not be heard if there is not yet a live controversy or immediate threat of harm. (future wrong). Here, the case is ripe because there is live controversy over the schedule of the graduation ceremony which could result in Val not being able to attend the ceremony and delivered the speech.
5. Mootness
A case will not be heard if a live controversy existed at the time the complaint was filed but has since been eliminated. The case will not be found moot if the controversy is capable of repetition yet evading review such as abortion litigation or voluntary cessation of the activity by the defendant. Here, the case is not moot because there is a real likelihood that Val would not be able to attend the graduation and deliver the speech.
6. Eleventh amendment
The Eleventh Amendment prohibits a party from suing a state without the state’s permission. Here, if Val sues the County Board of Education official, the suit will not be barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
II. State action
For an action to violate the Constitution, there must be government involvement with the challenged action. Here, the high school is public high school under the County Board of Education and because (1) public education falls under traditionally public functions such as parks, prisons or election, and (2) there is a heavy involvement in the Board's activity by commanding, encouraging or being entangled, therefore there is a state action.
III. 1st Amendment
1. Incorporation to States
The First Amendment is incorporated to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
2. Free exercise clause
The free exercise clause bars any law that prohibits or seriously burdens the free exercise of religion except a law of general applicability that does not intentionally burden religious beliefs and advances important public interests is allowable. Here, the custom of holding graduation ceremonies on Saturday morning does not violate free exercise clause because it is a law of general applicability which is not intended to burden religion. Rather, the custom is for the convenience of the parents and guests who attend the graduation ceremonies which is an important public interest. Thus, the custom does not violate the Free Exercise clause.
3. Establishment clause
The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from endorsing or favoring any particular religion. Incidentally favoring one religion over another in an attempt to benefit a wide variety of people is allowed. A state action with sect preference is allowed if it is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest. A state action without sect preference is allowed if it meets so called "Lemon test"- (1) it has a secular purpose, (2) primary secular effect and (3) does not foster excessive government entanglement with religion.
Here, Val could argue the custom of holding graduation ceremony on Saturday has the effect of inhibiting religion as for Val's case. However, the Board would argue that it has the secular purpose of logistics and convenience for both the organizers and attendees. The effect of inhibiting Val's religion is incidental and allowable. Further, the state action is not excessively entangled with any particular religion in this case. Therefore, the custom does not violate establishment clause.
4. Free speech
1. Content-based
Speech regulations that forbid the communicative impact of the expression are content-based and require strict scrutiny that the regulation must be necessary, narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest. Here, custom of holding graduation ceremony on Saturday is not content-based regulation because it deals with the day it is held and not the content of the speech itself.
2. Content-neutral
Speech regulations that forbid something other than the communicative impact of the expression are content-neutral and require intermediate review that the regulation serve a significant government interest, are narrowly tailored to serve that interest and leave open alternative channels of communication. Here, custom of holding graduation ceremony on Saturday is content-neutral regulation because it deals with the day it is held and not the content of the speech itself.
(1) Time, place, manner
Time, place and manner restrictions on speech or communicative conduct are analyzed based on the type of forum in which the speech or conduct occurs.
1) Forum
There are two types of forums, public and nonpublic. Public forums are forums that are generally open to the public and subject to intermediate review. Nonpublic forums are there are forums that are closed to the public with lower standard of review.
Here, the graduation ceremony is a public forum because it is open to the public.
2) Content-neutral
Discussed above.
3) Narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest
Since the event could just as well be held on Sunday while meeting its secular purpose, it is not sufficiently narrowly tailored.
4) Open alternative channels of communications
Val has no way of delivering her valedictorian speech other than coming on the Sabbath day so there is no alternative channels of communication available. This may potentially violate the free speech rights.
III. Equal protection
1. Incorporation to federal government
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is applicable to the federal government through the Fifth Amendment due process clause. The Equal Protection Clause prohibits the state or federal governments from treating similarly situated persons differently. There are three levels of review under the Equal Protection Clause- strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, rational basis. Here, Val is subject to rational basis because religious classifications are not suspect nor quasi-suspect class.
1) Rational basis
This review requires the classification to be rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Here, Val could argue a discrimination because of the scheduling but the school could argue that there is no discrimination targeting Val because everyone is treated equally. There is a legitimate government interest in holding the event on Saturdays as discussed above. Therefore, it is likely that there is no violation of equal protection.
#2 The application of NFO
I. Justiciability
1. Organizational standing
In order to successfully bring an action, Plaintiff must have standing. A party has standing where there is injury in fact, which is caused by the defendant and redressable. Organizational standing requires i. the members have standing in their own right, ii. the interests asserted are related to the organization's purpose, iii. the case does not require participation of individual members.
(1) Injury-in-fact
A plaintiff must have suffered or be about to suffer with a significant likelihood an injury in fact. The injury may be the denial of constitutional or statutory rights, economic injury, or even environmental or aesthetic harm.
Here, there is an injury if the Board refuses to allow NFO members from hosting a recruiting meeting at the high school auditorium. It would disrupt recruitment of new members and advancement of the group's purpose. (2) Causation
The plaintiff's injury must have been caused by the defendant's action. Here, the injury above would be caused by the Board's denial of application to use the auditorium.
(3) Redressability
The plaintiff's injury must be redressable by a court order. Here, the court could issue an injunction to require the Board to allow NFO to use the auditorium.
(4) Organizational standing
Here, the NFO members have standing in their own right as discussed in (1) above.
ii. the interests asserted are related to the organization's purpose
Here, the right to use the auditorium is related to the organization's purpose of racial and religious discrimination since in order to advance its agenda the group must recruit people and expand.
iii. the case does not require participation of individual members
Here, the case does not require each member to be in the litigation.
2. Case or controversy
There must be an actual case or controversy in dispute. Here, there may be a live controversy if the Board denies the application of NFO. Until it does that however there is no actual controversy.
3. Political questions
Federal courts may not hear non-justiciable political questions. If the issue is committed to another branch of the federal government (president or Congress) or if there are no manageable standards by which the court can resolve the issue, the federal court won't hear it. Here, the case does not involve a political question.
4. Ripeness
A case will not be heard if there is not yet a live controversy or immediate threat of harm. (future wrong). Here, the case is ripe if the application is denied.
5. Mootness
A case will not be heard if a live controversy existed at the time the complaint was filed but has since been eliminated. Here, the case is not moot if the application is denied.
6. Eleventh amendment
The Eleventh Amendment prohibits a party from suing a state without the state’s permission. Here, if NFO sues the County Board of Education official, the suit will not be barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
II. State action
For an action to violate the Constitution, there must be government involvement with the challenged action. Here, the County Board of Education is run by the state and therefore its decision is a government action.
III. 1st Amendment
1. Incorporation to States
The First Amendment is incorporated to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
2. Free speech
1. Content-based
Speech regulations that forbid the communicative impact of the expression are content-based and require strict scrutiny that the regulation must be necessary, narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest. Here, denial of NFO from using the auditorium to advance its racial and discriminatory agenda is content-based regulation because it deals with the content of the speech itself.
(1) Unprotected
Obscenity, Misrepresentation and defamation, imminent lawless action, and fighting words are not protected speech. Here, it is the antiracists who are about to resort to imminent lawless action and not NFO. Therefore, NFO's free speech right is protected.
(2) Prior restraint
Under the 1st Amendment, speech cannot be enjoined before it occurs. A prior restraint is only allowed where the government can show that some irreparable or serious harm to the public will occur and then there must be narrowly drawn standards and a final determination of the validity of the restraint.
2. Content-neutral
Speech regulations that forbid something other than the communicative impact of the expression are content-neutral and require intermediate review that the regulation serve a significant government interest, are narrowly tailored to serve that interest and leave open alternative channels of communication.
III. Equal protection
1. Incorporation to federal government
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is applicable to the federal government through the Fifth Amendment due process clause. The Equal Protection Clause prohibits the state or federal governments from treating similarly situated persons differently. There are three levels of review under the Equal Protection Clause- strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, rational basis. Here, Val is subject to rational basis because religious classifications are not suspect nor quasi-suspect class.
1) Rational basis
This review requires the classification to be rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Here, Val could argue a discrimination because of the scheduling but the school could argue that there is no discrimination targeting Val because everyone is treated equally. There is a legitimate government interest in holding the event on Saturdays as discussed above. Therefore, it is likely that there is no violation of equal protection.
3. Freedom of association
The First Amendment recognizes an individual's right to freely associate with other individuals in groups. Here, NFO's rights to freely associate are being violated.
IV. Procedural due process
Procedural due process requires the government to use fair process before depriving a person of life, liberty or property.
All the following events occurred in California.
H, an engineer, married W, (Marital economic community begins) a dentist, in 1976. Before marriage they orally agreed that the earnings of W after marriage would be her separate property. (Pre 1986 Prenuptial agreement which is not in writing) Later W told friends in H's presence that she would have refused to marry H had he not agreed to this. (Detrimental reliance) After marriage W deposited her earnings in her separate bank account.
STOCKS
Beginning in 1977, without H's knowledge, W used withdrawals from the account (Source) to buy common stocks in her name. (Her title) By 1985 she had accumulated a valuable portfolio. (No community labor in managing the stock portfolio)
RESIDENCE
In 1977, H and W purchased a single family residence as their home. The deed conveyed the property to "H and W in joint tenancy with right of survivorship." (Anti-Lucas: jointly titled property is CP) H made the down payment from separate earnings accumulated before the marriage. (SP contribution is entitled to reimbursement at divorce; SP down payment toward CP residence is a gift at death) H and W signed a note and trust deed for the balance of the purchase price. H made monthly payments on the note from his current earnings (CP used to pay for the house so it is CP) until 1983, when he was disabled in an accident caused by the negligence of X. Thereafter, W made the payments from her current earnings. (CP used to pay for the house.)
COTTAGE
H settled his damages claim against X for $200,000, (Source: CP b/c personal injury during marriage) and over W's strenuous objection used the money to build a vacation cottage (Probably CP; not CP's gift to H's SP b/c W objected.) on land he had inherited. (SP) Due to market conditions, the value of the land and improvement is increasing rapidly. (Van Camp, since the cottage cannot be severed from the land, give it to H's SP and reimbursement to the CP)
In 1985, H died, leaving a properly executed will made a few weeks before death. The will included an accurate description of the family residence and devise of "my one-half interest in said property" to S, and adult son from an earlier marriage. The will also provided that all other assets were left to S.
What are S's and W's rights, if any, with respect to the following properties:
1. The stock portfolio? Discuss.
2. The family residence? Discuss.
3. The vacation cottage? Discuss.
Answer according to California law.