As noted, this law must meet strict scrutiny. And even if the ordinance were stricken, the City could simply enact a tax on all families with two or more children and still reach Pat and Paul. As such, it is subject to a strict scrutiny analysis. Here, if Paul and Pat can argue that the tax is dissuading them from adopting, then that could be a serious hardship. If the order is seen as necessary to achieve a compelling purpose, then the order was appropriate and should be upheld.
Therefore, the law would not be struck down on this ground. Practice answering questions and discover additional resources to support you in preparing for exams on the Companion website. Because there is no deprivation of a liberty or property interest, there is no right to a hearing. At the outset, it is important to note that the press has the same First Amendment rights as ordinary citizens, and that the government has no duty to open itself or its records to the press with the exception of trials, from which the press cannot be excluded. The court will balance these arguments but will likely find they have standing due to the pending adoption, and the case is ripe, as they have enough information to see how the tax would actually work.
Here, the City Attorney published truthful information regarding Paul and Pat. Even if raising funds for education and recreation facilities were a compelling state interest, the ordinance is not necessary to the achievement of that interest. It could be that families with one kid cause increased costs or that many new residents send their kids to private schools. This series is designed to help you understand what examiners are looking for, focus on the question being asked, and make your answers stand out. Acknowledgements What you need to do for every question in Constitutional and Administrative Law Guided tour Guided tour of the companion website Table of cases and statutes Chapter 1: Sources of the constitution Chapter 2: The unwritten sources of constitutional power: prerogative powers and constitutional conventions Chapter 3: Parliamentary supremacy Chapter 4: Parliamentary accountability Chapter 5: The constitution and the Human Rights Act Chapter 6: Executive accountability Chapter 7: The individual and the state: police powers, public protest and surveillance Chapter 8: Information: access and protection Bibliography Index.
Thus, the city can argue that this right is not implicated by its terms. Paul and Pat, husband and wife, became residents of City since the effective date of the tax ordinance and live alone with no children. Here, the tax has not been applied to Pat and Paul yet and they are asking for a declaratory judgment. Therefore, this would not be a good argument for Paul and Pat to raise. Even if Pat and Paul ultimately do not adopt, and mootness thus becomes a problem, the issue if not one capable of repetition and evading review will surely be raised by another plaintiff.
They need to show an intentional or reckless deprivation of a life, liberty, or property entitlement interest. This is fundamental per the U. Paul and Pat have challenged the ordinance as violating their rights to familial privacy, to due process, and to equal protection. As adoptions are becoming more difficult, and babies hard to come by if they were adopting babies , then the order may be seen as serving a compelling interest. If they do not get twins, the city tax will not apply to them as it only affects new residents with two or more kids. Use of these answers is for your personal bar review preparation and law school study only. The accompanying exam answers are written by Bar None Review.
Even the duration of residence classification is rational, as the facilities may have been adequate for existing families but not for the increased strain of new families that require new facilities. Rather, under the collateral bar rule, the City attorney and the press, if the nondisclosure order included them , may be held in contempt without being able to challenge the validity of the order. The court should note that this is not an issue of taxpayer standing — which is generally non-justiciable. Compare your responses using the Try it yourself answer guidance on the companion website. City has moved to dismiss the entire complaint on the following grounds: 1 the plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the tax ordinance, and 2 that, in any event, none of the alleged constitutional rights claimed by Paul and Pat were violated by City.
In addition to standing, justiciability requires ripeness, that the issue is not moot, that circumstances do not require the federal court to abstain, and that no political question exists. This is called the Collateral Bar Rule. Plan answers quickly and effectively using Answer plans and Diagram plans. The tax applies only to people who have become residents of City since the effective date of the ordinance. During discovery, Paul and Pat revealed that they are medically unable to conceive a child and have applied to adopt twins.
Therefore, a good argument can be made that a ban was necessary. In order to uphold a prior restraint the government must have a compelling governmental interest at stake. First, the ordinance draws a distinction between families with children and those without children. This requires the court to weigh: 1 the hardship in the absence of pre-enforcement review; and 2 the fitness of the issues and record for review. If so, this law does not meet its goal or affect the right people. There is no challenge based on the privilege and immunities clause of the Fourth Amendment as there is no discrimination against out-of-staters. Also, the clause is in issue via the 14th Amendment.
Because Pat and Paul are already seeking an adoption and the case involves only questions of law for which the record is fit, ripeness will not be a problem. This series is designed to help you understand what examiners are looking for, focus on the question being asked and make even a strong answer stand out. Such a challenge would not succeed in this context, however, where the city is not cutting off an entitlement but is instead imposing a tax. In this case, striking the ordinance will redress the injuries Paul and Pat have and will suffer, and thus the redressibility requirement for standing is met. The court could have ordered redaction of names instead of a complete ban. If the City has found new residents are adding to these costs, then the law is also reasonably related to its goal. Certainly school revenue is compelling but recreation areas may not be.
Here, Paul and Pat have shown that though they are medically unable to have children, they have applied to adopt twins. Third, the statute draws a distinction between families with two or more children who resided in the city before the ordinance was passed and those who have since moved there. The exam answers may not be reprinted or republished in any form without express written permission. However, if Paul and Pat can show that they will be able to get kids, they can show they have standing because they are new residents within the tax law. Moreover, because suit is being brought against the City in federal court, it is useful to first consider whether the Eleventh Amendment will bar the claim.