Constitutional Law - Section 3
Final Examination
Professor Harpaz
December 13, 2012
Question I
(Suggested time: 60 minutes) (48 out of 144 total exam points)
The State of Stone recently enacted the Imitation
Maple Syrup Act of 2012. The Act requires that all maple syrup sold
within the state that contains less than 75 percent real maple syrup be
labeled “Imitation Maple Syrup.” The Act defines imitation maple syrup
as “a syrup that simulates maple syrup in its looks, smell, and taste,
but which contains less than 75 percent real maple syrup.” Imitation
maple syrup can be labeled as pancake syrup or other similar terms
without including the term “imitation.” The labeling requirement only
applies if the product is labeled “maple syrup.”
The adoption of the Imitation Maple Syrup Act was
supported by consumer groups as part of a movement to promote truth in
packaging. The Act’s supporters claimed that consumers were entitled to
know whether the maple syrup they purchased was real or imitation. The
Act was also supported by the Stone maple syrup industry. Spokespersons
for the industry argued that Stone residents might want to support the
local maple syrup industry by buying real maple syrup and, therefore,
had a right to know the kind of maple syrup they were buying. The Stone
maple syrup industry has recently begun airing an advertising campaign
to promote the sale of maple syrup made in Stone using the slogan, “Get
real. Reject imitation. Buy authentic Stone maple syrup.” A political
action committee created by the maple syrup industry lobbying group
donated a significant amount of money to the campaigns of members of
the Stone legislature who supported the Imitation Maple Syrup Act.
Confederated Syrup, Inc. (CSI), an out-of-state
company that is a major producer of imitation maple syrup sold in
supermarkets and grocery stores throughout the United States, brought
suit against the State of Stone claiming that the Imitation Maple Syrup
Act violates the U.S. Constitution. The labels on the CSI line of maple
syrup do not contain the word “imitation.” Under the Stone Act, CSI
would be required to label its maple syrup as “imitation maple syrup”
in order to continue to sell the product in Stone. CSI estimates that
compliance with the Act will impose additional costs of $ 1 million on
it each year. It also estimates that industry-wide cost increases for
companies that sell imitation maple syrup in Stone will be
approximately $ 5 million dollars per year. All of those companies are
located outside of Stone and none have production facilities in the
State of Stone. Total industry profits from sales of imitation maple
syrup in Stone were $ 20 million in 2011.
CSI claims that its maple syrup products are labeled
to comply with the Federal Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA)
labeling requirements which seek to protect consumers from misbranded
foods being shipped in interstate commerce. The FDA’s informative
labeling requirements are designed to protect consumers from false and
misleading labeling of foods that adversely impact nutrition. Those
requirements provide that a product must be labeled “imitation” only
when its nutritional content is inferior to the nutritional content of
the food it imitates. Since the imitation maple syrup sold by CSI is
the nutritional equivalent of real maple syrup, the CSI labels are not
required to include the word “imitation” to comply with federal law.
The FDA maple syrup labeling requirements include the following
provision: “These labeling requirements shall not preclude any state
from imposing additional labeling requirements consistent with the FDA
labeling requirements.”
You are a law clerk to the judge assigned to CSI’s
lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Imitation Maple Syrup
Act of 2012. The judge asks you to write an analysis of the arguments
that CSI can make to argue that the Act is unconstitutional as well as
the arguments that the State of Stone can make to argue that the Act is
constitutional.
Question II
(Suggested time: 75 minutes) (60 out of 144 total exam points)
In 2011, Congress held hearings about the shortage
of skilled workers to fill jobs requiring high tech training and
skills. Witnesses testified that this shortage is a drag on the U.S.
economy because businesses that are unable to hire sufficient numbers
of skilled workers suffer in terms of lost productivity as well as in
their ability to be competitive in a global economy. To address this
worker shortage, Congress enacted the Technology Workforce Training Act
(TWTA) of 2011 as an amendment to the Federal Higher Education Act
(FHEA) of 1965.
The goal of TWTA is to create a Technology Training
Program (TTP) in every state. TTPs will be made available to eligible
participants at no cost to the trainees. The Programs are aimed at
long-term unemployed individuals, current employees recommended by
their employers to upgrade their skills, and other applicants who show
exceptional aptitude for participation in TTPs. Long-term unemployed
individuals are defined by TWTA as persons who have been unemployed for
26 weeks or more. A typical state provides for 26 weeks of unemployment
benefits so long-term unemployed individuals, as defined by TWTA, are
at or near the end of their eligibility for state unemployment benefits.
TWTA’s preference is for each state to create a
state-run TTP. However, if a state refuses to set up a TTP, the federal
government will create a Federal TTP for the state. If a state creates
a TTP, the state will continue to receive all of the federal funds it
currently receives under the FHEA as well as additional federal funds
to pay for 95 percent of the costs of its TTP. States that refuse to
create TTPs will lose 85 percent of the money they receive under the
FHEA for all higher education programs. Federal funds provided to the
states under the FHEA amount to about 2 % of the average state’s
overall budget and 20 % of state expenditures for higher education.
Under TWTA, if a state creates a state-run TTP, the
state chooses the eligibility criteria for participation in its TTP.
These criteria, at the option of the state, may require long-term
unemployed residents of the state who are under the age of 40 to
participate in the state-run TTP. The U.S. economy, in the view of
Congress, is likely to get the most long-lasting benefits from the
participation of such persons in a TTP.
If the state refuses to create a TTP and a Federal
TTP is created for the state, the eligibility criteria for the Federal
TTP are defined by TWTA. Under TWTA, if a Federal TTP exists within a
state, long-term unemployed state residents who are under the age of 40
are required to participate in the Federal TTP. This requirement can be
waived in cases of hardship. In addition, if a Federal TTP exists
within a state, the state is required to provide the federal government
with the names of state residents who are long-term unemployed as
defined by TWTA and who are under the age of 40 so that the federal
government can enforce the TWTA mandate.
After the enactment of TWTA, the State of Stone
refused to create a state-run TTP. As a result, the federal government
has now set up a Federal TTP in the State of Stone. Due to Stone’s
refusal to create a state-run TTP, federal officials have informed the
state that it will lose 85 percent of its FHEA funds for the next
fiscal year. The federal government has also asked Stone to provide it
with the names of long-term unemployed residents of Stone under the age
of 40, as required by TWTA, because such individuals will be required
to participate in the Federal TTP in the State of Stone. While Stone
has the requested information in a database it maintains, Stone has
refused to turn over this information to the federal government.
The State of Stone has filed suit against the
federal government challenging the constitutionality of TWTA. It argues
that the expansion of the FHEA to create state-run Technology Training
Programs under threat of a state losing 85 % of its FHEA funds violates
the Spending Power. It also argues that the requirement that Stone
provide the Federal TTP in the State of Stone with the names of
long-term unemployed Stone residents who are under the age of 40
violates state autonomy as protected by the Tenth Amendment.
A related suit has been filed by Amy Andrews (AA).
AA is a 30 year old, long-term unemployed Stone resident. The federal
government has informed AA that TWTA requires her to participate in the
Federal TTP in Stone. AA has filed suit challenging the
constitutionality of this requirement on the ground that it exceeds
Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause.
You are a law clerk to the judge assigned to both
cases. He asks you to write an analysis of the Spending Power and Tenth
Amendment arguments that can be made by the State of Stone and the
responses by the federal government to those arguments as well as the
Commerce Clause arguments that can be made by AA and the
responses by the federal government to those arguments. While there are
other constitutional issues that can be raised, the judge tells you
these are the only constitutional issues the judge wants you to include
in your analysis.
Question III
(Suggested time: 45 minutes) (36 points out of 144 total exam points)
In 2011, the State of Stone enacted the Stone
Insurance Reform Act (SIRA). The central provision of SIRA is Section 5
which provides:
Any individual or group health
insurance policy which is issued, amended, or renewed on or after July
1, 2011, shall exclude coverage for elective abortions, unless the
procedure is necessary to preserve the life of the mother.
Section 5 defines an "abortion" as any means of terminating a pregnancy
other than one done with the intent to increase the probability of a
live birth, to preserve the life or health of the child, or to remove
"a dead or unborn child who died as a result of natural causes," and it
defines an "elective" abortion as one performed "for any reason other
than to prevent the death of the mother upon whom the abortion is
performed."
The preamble to Section 5 explains the purpose of
the provision. It states:
This Section is designed to save
employers money when they provide health insurance coverage for their
employees by eliminating unnecessary procedures from insurance
coverage. In addition, this Section is designed to show respect for the
life of the fetus by removing elective abortions from the list of
ordinary medical procedures covered by health
insurance.
No other medical procedure was removed from health insurance coverage
by SIRA.
Debbie Drake (DD) is a 26 year old woman who resides
in the State of Stone and is employed by Global Industries, Inc. DD
receives health insurance through her employer. After SIRA became law,
DD was informed by her employer that beginning in 2012 her health
insurance would no longer cover elective abortions as defined in SIRA
because her employer is obligated to comply with Section 5 of SIRA. As
a result, DD has filed suit challenging the constitutionality of
Section 5 as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause.
You are a law clerk to the judge assigned to the
case. The judge asks you to write an analysis of the Due Process
arguments that DD can make in challenging Section 5 of SIRA as well as
the Due Process arguments that the State of Stone can make to defend
the law. The judge tells you to only address the Due Process arguments
and to ignore the potential impact of the Affordable Care Act on
Section 5 in your analysis.
END OF EXAMINATION