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.