Purchase a course multi-pack for yourself or a friend and save up to 50%!
5-COURSE MULTI-PACK $180
10-COURSE MULTI-PACK $300
Accelerated 1-year bachelor's program
Question 1
Nonsuspect classification are subjected to which level of review?
Correct Nonsuspect classifications are held up only to the mildest level of scrutiny ' rational basis review.
Incorrect! Nonsuspect classifications are held up only to the mildest level of scrutiny ' rational basis review.
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 2
Which of the following is not a nonsuspect classification?
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct Of these, discrimination based on gender is quasi-suspect, all the others are nonsuspect and will be subjected only to rational basis review.
Incorrect! Of these, discrimination based on gender is quasi-suspect, all the others are nonsuspect and will be subjected only to rational basis review.
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 3
A Westernstate statute, as interpreted by its courts, results in the ability to sue an out-of-state corporation in any county in Westernstate but requires that a suit brought against a corporation formed under the laws of Westernstate be brought only in the county where that corporation has its principal place of business. Will this state-sponsored discrimination be permitted?
Correct For equal protection purposes a corporation is not treated any differently than is an individual (contract with Privileges and Immunities Clause ' Chapter 2), so (b) is wrong. Answers (a) and (c) both agree on the nonsuspect nature of the classification involved (i.e., 'out-of-state corporations) but (c) is wrong insofar as the law is likely to survive rational basis review. A local company would certainly be more inconvenienced by being sued in a distant county than if it were sued in the location of its principal place of business. A foreign corporation, however, will be equally inconvenienced no matter where in Montana the suit is heard. The state goal of avoiding inconvenience is a legitimate one, and the law seems rationally related to that goal.
Incorrect! For equal protection purposes a corporation is not treated any differently than is an individual (contract with Privileges and Immunities Clause ' Chapter 2), so (b) is wrong. Answers (a) and (c) both agree on the nonsuspect nature of the classification involved (i.e., 'out-of-state corporations) but (c) is wrong insofar as the law is likely to survive rational basis review. A local company would certainly be more inconvenienced by being sued in a distant county than if it were sued in the location of its principal place of business. A foreign corporation, however, will be equally inconvenienced no matter where in Montana the suit is heard. The state goal of avoiding inconvenience is a legitimate one, and the law seems rationally related to that goal.
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 4
Westernstate seeks to reward its hardworking teachers by granting the children of all public school teachers the right to attend public universities in the state free of charge. In order to avoid disputes, the law creates this tuition-free status only for children whose parents lived and taught within the state throughout that child's high school career. Is the law valid?
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct State residency is a nonsuspect classification, and therefore subject rational basis review, making (a) wrong. But laws which use such classifications to discriminate against out-of-state citizens will fail because they pursue an illegitimate purpose, i.e., discriminating against out-of-state citizens in favor of state citizens, and not because they are not rationally related to some otherwise legitimate purpose as suggested in (b).
Incorrect! State residency is a nonsuspect classification, and therefore subject rational basis review, making (a) wrong. But laws which use such classifications to discriminate against out-of-state citizens will fail because they pursue an illegitimate purpose, i.e., discriminating against out-of-state citizens in favor of state citizens, and not because they are not rationally related to some otherwise legitimate purpose as suggested in (b).
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 5
The general outlines of "nonsuspect classifications" overlap significantly with:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct In Idaho Department of Employment v. Smith, 434 U.S. 100, (1977) the Court used language very similar to (b) and pointed out that such laws are subject to rational basis review. Legislation regarding 'social welfare' is arguably a very broad area, and includes most laws which make use of nonsuspect classifications. Answer (d) is wrong because racial classification are suspect and gender classifications are quasi-suspect.
Incorrect! In Idaho Department of Employment v. Smith, 434 U.S. 100, (1977) the Court used language very similar to (b) and pointed out that such laws are subject to rational basis review. Legislation regarding 'social welfare' is arguably a very broad area, and includes most laws which make use of nonsuspect classifications. Answer (d) is wrong because racial classification are suspect and gender classifications are quasi-suspect.
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 6
Westernstate law requires that all persons over 6 foot 6 inches in height sit in the last two rows of movie theatres, concert halls, and similar public venues. Several "tall-ies" sue claiming equal protection violation. What is the standard of review which will be applied to the law?
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct Because the classification is nonsuspect, only rational basis review applies. There is no such test as that suggested in (c). A 'case of first impression,' (d), is a case involving an area of law which has never before been considered in the given jurisdiction. Even in such cases the judge is not free to use any standard she chooses.
Incorrect! Because the classification is nonsuspect, only rational basis review applies. There is no such test as that suggested in (c). A 'case of first impression,' (d), is a case involving an area of law which has never before been considered in the given jurisdiction. Even in such cases the judge is not free to use any standard she chooses.