Part 1- Foundations of, Chapter 3: Business and the Constitution, Doc 10

Problem Cases Analysis 1. Plastic Milk Jug Ban and Equal Protection o Issue: Does Minnesota’s ban on plastic milk jugs, justified by waste reduction, violate the Equal Protection Clause? o Scrutiny Level: Rational basis, as this is an economic regulation not involving a suspect class. o Likely Outcome: The ban is likely constitutional. Reducing landfill waste is a legitimate state interest, and prohibiting plastic containers can reasonably be related to that goal, even if other measures could be more effective. 2. Oklahoma’s Gender-Based Drinking Law and Equal Protection o Issue: Does setting different drinking ages based on gender (21 for men, 18 for women) violate equal protection? o Scrutiny Level: Intermediate scrutiny, as gender-based distinctions require an “exceedingly persuasive” justification. o Likely Outcome: This gender-based distinction would likely fail under intermediate scrutiny, as evidenced by Craig v. Boren (1976), where a similar law was struck down. Traffic safety data would need to clearly justify this distinction, which is unlikely. 3. Development Moratoria in Lake Tahoe and Takings Clause o Issue: Did a 32-month moratorium on development constitute a taking without just compensation? o Likely Outcome: The moratoria likely do not constitute a taking, as held in Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (2002). Temporary restrictions are generally permissible if reasonable, especially if enacted for comprehensive land-use planning. 4. Westboro Baptist Church Funeral Picketing and First Amendment o Issue: Does the First Amendment protect Westboro Baptist Church’s picketing at a military funeral from tort liability for emotional distress? o Likely Outcome: The Court likely protects the church’s actions under the First Amendment, as it did in Snyder v. Phelps (2011), ruling that such speech on public issues is protected even if it causes emotional distress, provided it is peaceful and conducted in a public forum. 5. Federal Preemption of Maine’s Tobacco Delivery Law o Issue: Does the federal statute prohibiting state regulation “related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier” preempt Maine’s tobacco delivery law? o Likely Outcome: The trucking associations would likely succeed. In Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transport Association (2008), similar Maine restrictions were preempted as they imposed additional obligations on motor carriers beyond federal requirements, thus conflicting with the Motor Carrier Act. Case Study: First Amendment Analysis of Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002) and United States v. Williams (2008) The U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002) and United States v. Williams (2008) involve First Amendment challenges to child pornography laws but reached differing conclusions: • • Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition: The Court invalidated provisions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA) that criminalized “virtual” child pornography, finding that these provisions banned speech with no connection to actual child abuse. The law was overbroad because it targeted simulated depictions (e.g., CGI or adults appearing as minors), which the Court ruled was protected speech under the First Amendment. United States v. Williams: In contrast, the Court upheld the PROTECT Act’s prohibition on “pandering” or promoting child pornography, finding it narrowly focused on material that could reasonably lead to the trafficking of actual child pornography. The Court distinguished it from Ashcroft, emphasizing that Williams involved an intent to promote or distribute real child exploitation materials. Key Distinction: Ashcroft focused on overbreadth, as the CPPA extended to protected, non-harmful speech. Williams targeted speech directly tied to criminal conduct, thus meeting the government’s interest in preventing child exploitation without violating First Amendment protections.