Constitutional Law - Section 4
Final Examination
Professor Harpaz
December 15, 2005
Question I
(Suggested time: 60 minutes) (50 out of 150 total exam points)
Seafood World, Inc. (SW), is a corporation with its headquarters in Alabama. It imports seafood and sells its imported seafood to restaurants and specialty fish markets throughout the United States. One of its most popular products is a catfish grown in China. Approximately 40 percent of SW’s Chinese-grown catfish are sold to restaurants in Louisiana, mainly in Baton Rouge, 40 percent are sold to restaurants in other states and 20 percent are sold to speciality fish markets. None of the specialty fish markets are located in Louisiana. SW’s labels designate the package contents as “catfish.” The phrase “Cajun Boy” is written in large lettering to the left of “catfish.” The phrase “Product of China” is located immediately below SW’s Alabama address. According to SW, Chinese-grown catfish are members of the family Ictaluridae and are biologically identical to domestic catfish that belong to that same family. SW asserts that its Chinese-grown catfish are direct descendants of Alabama catfish.
SW’s principal competitors are catfish farms located in Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana and Mississippi. Raising catfish in the controlled environment of catfish farms became popular in the United States after U.S. catfish waters became overfished and the catfish supply became seriously depleted. Farm-raised catfish now account for 95 percent of the U.S. catfish supply. The costs of raising catfish on catfish farms exceeds the costs of SW’s imported variety of catfish. The U.S. catfish industry has unsuccessfully lobbied the federal government to ban the importation of catfish or at least impose an import tariff on imported catfish that would bring the price of imported catfish in line with U.S. catfish. Louisiana catfish farmers played a leading role in that failed effort.
Fifteen months ago, SW received notification from the Louisiana Department of Agriculture (LDA) that its catfish labels violated the Louisiana Food Misrepresentation Law (LFML), a law designed to protect consumers. The law provides as follows:
No one shall misrepresent the name, or type of any fruit, vegetable, grain, meat, or fish, including catfish, sold or offered or exposed for sale, to any actual or prospective customer.
Various subsections of the law identify particular instances of misrepresentation including subsection (e):
(e) “Catfish” shall mean only those species within the family Ictaluridae that are grown in the United States of America.
In response to the LDA notification, SW informed the LDA that it believed its catfish labels were accurate and that they fully complied with federal labeling requirements that prohibit misbranding. Under the section of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act that regulates catfish: “A food shall be deemed to be misbranded ... if it purports to be or is represented as catfish, unless it is fish classified within the family Ictaluridae,” 21 U.S.C. § 343(t). SW argued, and the LDA does not dispute, that since all the catfish SW sells in Louisiana are members of the family Ictaluridae, they are not misbranded under federal law. Moreover, SW argued that its product labels include the phrase “Product of China,” thereby making clear they are not domestic catfish.
Despite SW’s arguments, the LDA informed SW that state law requires its catfish to be re-labeled so as to comply with the LFML. The LDA told SW that labeling its product as “Chinese Catfish” or “Imported Catfish” would satisfy state law. Since the purpose of the statute is to avoid giving food purchasers an inaccurate impression of the food product they are buying, these changes would avoid inaccuracy. The LDA asserted that the typical purchaser of catfish assumes that catfish is a product of the United States, particularly grown in Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas and Alabama. Therefore, the product name of imported catfish must make clear that it does not originate in the United States in order to avoid misrepresenting the nature of the catfish. It further argued that it was free to impose additional labeling requirements on catfish because the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act provides that “States may impose additional labeling requirements on products regulated by this Act so long as those requirements would not contribute to consumer confusion. States are not free to prohibit labeling information required by this Act.” In light of these facts, the LDA ordered SW to immediately cease selling its catfish in Louisiana with its current label.
One year ago, SW filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the LFML. In its suit, SW argues both that the Louisiana catfish labeling requirement is preempted by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and that it violates the Dormant Commerce Clause. In order to continue selling catfish in Louisiana during the pendency of its lawsuit, it altered the label it used on all of the catfish sold in Louisiana so that the label reads “Imported Catfish.” Thus far, the need to separately label catfish destined for Louisiana has added $250,000 to SW’s production costs and its catfish sales had dropped by 25 percent even prior to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
You are a law clerk to the judge assigned to the case. The judge asks you to write an analysis of the preemption and Dormant Commerce Clause arguments available to Seafood World in challenging the Louisiana Food Misrepresentation Law as well as the arguments available to the LDA in defending the LFML against those constitutional challenges.
Question II
(Suggested time: 90 minutes) (75 out of 150 points)
The Springdale Secondary is a 6.5-mile stretch of railroad track that extends from Barrington, Massachusetts to Hudson, Massachusetts. The railroad property includes the railroad track and station buildings at both ends. The Barrington end of the Springdale Secondary is at an interchange with a railroad line owned by CSX Transportation, an interstate railroad carrying freight throughout the eastern United States. CSX is not currently operating any trains that travel past the Barrington interchange. The Hudson end terminates in an interchange with Norfolk Southern, another interstate railroad freight carrier. Norfolk Southern is not currently operating any trains that travel past the Hudson interchange. Like many other stretches of rail lines that once provided the major means of passenger and freight transportation for the nation, the Springdale Secondary is in a state of disuse. Without connections to any other operating rail lines at either end, the Springdale Secondary has no current value as a passenger or freight railroad.
The current owner of the Springdale Secondary is the Springdale Transit Authority for Regional Travel (START), a transit authority created and operated by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. On December 30, 2004, START signed a lease agreement that gave the Town of Barrington the limited right to operate a rail passenger excursion and dining service over the Springdale Secondary. Barrington’s rail passenger excursion train was to travel at a speed of no faster than five miles per hour and would serve food and beverages and provide entertainment in the form of musical reviews, stand-up comedy, or murder/mystery/romance productions. Passengers would board the excursion train in Barrington, Massachusetts, have dinner as the train traveled to Hudson and back, and then disembark. The lease agreement barred the Town of Barrington from engaging in any freight or passenger services on the Springfield Secondary other than the excursion train described in the lease. Under the lease agreement, the railroad excursion train would begin and end within Massachusetts and would service passengers with purely intrastate ticketing and with no connection to interstate rail passenger or freight services.
The excursion train became operational in May, 2005. While the Town of Barrington currently subsidizes the operation of the train, it hopes that over the long term the train will become a popular activity for both tourists and local residents and will become self-supporting. Barrington charges $40 per person for its dinner excursion and $25 for its lunch excursion. To encourage passengers to try the train, the Town of Barrington provides 4 categories of discounted prices including discounts for families with two or more children, senior citizens, minor children accompanied by an adult, and year-round residents of the Town of Barrington.
Allison Anders (AA) and Barbara Baldwin (BB) are a married lesbian couple who reside with their two adopted children in the Town of Barrington. They were married in Massachusetts shortly after the state began to permit same-sex marriages. Since the excursion train became operational, Allison, Barbara and their two children have ridden the excursion train on 4 separate occasions. Each time they have received the family discount.
Recently, the Town of Barrington was informed by the federal government that its pricing policy violates the provisions of the Federal Railroad Pricing Act (FRPA). The Act applies to all rail transportation in the United States, as long as the railroad tracks are connected to the interstate railroad network, no matter where the trip begins or ends and no matter whether the railroad tracks are currently linked directly or by interchanges to an operating interstate passenger or freight railroad system.
FRPA, among other provisions, defines categories of discounts that can be made available for rail transportation. FRPA permits, but does not mandate, family discounts. However, a recent amendment to FRPA, called the Traditional Family Amendment (TFA), has defined family for purposes of the family discount. Under the TFA, family is defined as a married couple consisting of a man and a woman accompanied by two or more of their biological and/or adopted children. The supporters of the TFA argued that a uniform federal discounting policy was necessary for the efficient operation of the interstate railroad system and that uniform categories of discounts should be structured so as to not offend the moral values of the majority of communities throughout the nation.
After the federal government ordered the Town of Barrington to conform its discount policy to the provisions of the TFA by refusing to offer the family discount to same-sex married couples with children, the Town of Barrington and Allison Anders and Barbara Baldwin filed suit challenging the constitutionality of the Traditional Family Amendment to FRPA. You are a law clerk to the judge assigned to the case. The judge asks you to write an analysis of the constitutional arguments available to the Town of Barrington and AA and BB in challenging the TFA as well as an analysis of the constitutional arguments available to the federal government in defending TFA against a constitutional challenge.
Question III
(Suggested time: 30 minutes) (25 out of 150 total exam points)
In addition to the facts in Question II above, a lawsuit was recently brought against the Town of Barrington by David Dowd (DD). Mr. Dowd is a resident of the State of New York who owns a summer home in the Town of Barrington. He lives in his Barrington home during July and August as well as occasional weekends during other parts of the year. He pays real estate taxes to the town. In addition, he pays fees for water and sewer service. Income from real estate taxes is the principal source of revenue collected by the Town of Barrington.
Mr. Dowd has ridden the Barrington excursion train on several occasions. Each time he requested the discount available for residents, but was informed that the discount was only available to year-round residents of Barrington and that he does not qualify since his legal residence is in New York and he only resides in Barrington part of the year, principally in the summer. DD does not dispute these facts. However, his lawsuit argues that refusing to grant him the same discount available to year-round residents violates his rights under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Section 2 of the United States Constitution: “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.”
.
You are a law clerk to the judge assigned to the case. The judge asks you to write an analysis of the Privileges and Immunities Clause arguments available to David Dowd in challenging the residency discount as well as the Privileges and Immunities Clause arguments available to the Town of Barrington in defending its residency discount.
END OF EXAMINATION