Sample Exam Question - Review Question
4
The State of Connecticut recently enacted the Small Parts Labeling
Law. The law requires that toy manufacturers place conspicuous
warning labels on toys designed for children between the ages of three
and seven that pose a danger to children under the age of three of
choking, aspiration or ingestion because of small parts. The law
forbids the sale of any such toy in the State of Connecticut that does
not include a required warning label.
When the law was first proposed, Connecticut held hearings on the
law. It heard testimony from medical experts who testified that
choking on small parts is one of the leading causes of toy-related
death for children under age three. It also heard testimony from
the President of Safe Toys, Inc., the only manufacturer of toys for
children between the ages of three and seven located in
Connecticut. Safe Toys was a major supporter of the law, arguing
that the safety of children should always be a priority for the
government. Under questioning, the President of Safe Toys made
clear that the new law would have no adverse effect on Safe Toys, Inc.
because few of its toys contained any dangerous small parts and the few
that did already contained explicit warning labels.
Before enacting the Small Parts Labeling Law, Connecticut considered
the provisions of the Federal Toy Safety Act of 1980. Under this
Act, toys may not be shipped in interstate commerce if they are
intended for use by children under three years of age and they present
(1) an electrical, mechanical or thermal hazard to such children or (2)
a risk of choking, aspiration or ingestion because of small
parts. In addition, warning labels are required on toys that are
intended for children between the ages of three and seven if those toys
pose an electrical, mechanical or thermal hazard to children under age
three. In 1983, Congress considered an amendment to the Toy
Safety Act that would have extended the warning label requirement to
toys intended for children between the ages of three and seven if those
toys pose a risk of choking, aspiration or ingestion because of small
parts to children under age three. The amendment was defeated.
Children's Toys, Inc., an Ohio corporation, is a major manufacturer of
toys for children between the ages of three and seven. Its most
profitable line of toys are sets of plastic blocks that can be linked
together. Many of the individual parts in the sets would pose a
small parts hazard to children under the age of three. However,
all of the toys manufactured by Children's Toys carry labels informing
purchasers that the toys are designed for children between the ages of
three and seven and are, therefore, in compliance with the Federal Toy
Safety Act.
Children's Toys has filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality
of the Connecticut Small Parts Labeling Law. Children's Toys
argues that it is in compliance with the Federal Toy Safety Act and
that the State of Connecticut's effort to impose a labeling requirement
on it is unconstitutional. In addition, it argues that since
Children's Toys sells its products nationwide, the Connecticut Law
imposes a burden on its interstate activities. Moreover,
Children's Toys claims that the Connecticut law was designed to benefit
one of its chief competitors, Safe Toys, Inc.
The State of Connecticut defends its Small Parts Labeling Law, in part,
by arguing that, despite the federal ban on unsafe toys intended for
use by children under three years of age, choking on small parts
continues to be one of the main causes of toy-related death for young
children. Therefore, it argues, a warning label requirement is
necessary because parents often interpret an age label on a toy (that
states, for example, "3-up") as no more than a suggestion regarding the
developmental level of the user without recognizing that the toy may
contain dangerous small parts.
You are a law clerk to the judge assigned to the case. The judge
asks you to write an analysis of the constitutional arguments that can
be made by Children's Toys, Inc. in claiming that the Small Parts
Labeling Law is unconstitutional as well as the arguments that can be
made by the State of Connecticut in defense of the law.