Golden Gate University
School of Law
Final Examination
Con Law II Wed., Dec. 9, 1998General Instructions
1. This is a closed book exam.
2. This exam consists of three essay questions, each of which is weighted equally. Use your time accordingly.
3. Confine your answers to materials that were covered in our course. (I.e., do not discuss substantive due process, standing, the Fourth Amendment, etc.) Although we covered the state action doctrine, do not discuss it.
4. The exam should be answered in blue books, using every other line on one side of each page, unless you are typing. Please leave large margins. Please be sure that no blue book contains answers to more than one question. In other words, use a new blue book when you begin a new question.
5. The exam will be graded on a point system in which the maximum score is 300 points, 100 points for each question. Points will be awarded for the first two questions based on issues spotted and analyzed. Question III will be graded on knowledge and understanding of the cases discussed (35 points), knowledge and understanding of Constitutional decisionmaking (35 points), clarity (10 points), thoughtfulness (10 points), and originality (10 points).
6. All exam papers, including all notes, should be returned in the envelope at the end of the exam.
7. Good luck!
QUESTION I (1 hour)
For many years the city of Phoenix has sold advertising space on panels above the windows inside its buses and on larger panels on the outside of the buses. The ad spaces have been sold primarily to commercial entities selling products, but occasionally political or public service ads have been placed. A religious group, Children of the Rosary, applied to buy space for its ad both inside and outside the buses. The ad said,"Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you" - God
Jeremiah 1:5
Contact [phone number]
[COR Logo] Children of the Rosary
CHOOSE LIFE!"
The city, concerned about the image the ad projected, possible retaliatory damage to the buses, and potential displeasure of other advertisers, changed its policies to limit acceptable ads to those which "propose a commercial transaction." The City then rejected the ads for either inside or outside the buses. In response, the Children of the Rosary changed their ad to:"Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you" - God
Jeremiah 1:5
Purchase this message as a bumpersticker for your vehicle!
Contact [phone number]
[COR Logo] Children of the Rosary"
The city rejected Children of the Rosary's revised advertisement because, in the City's view, the primary purpose of the advertisement was not to propose a commercial transaction, but instead to promote a noncommercial message."The ACLU Supports Free Speech for Everyone
To purchase this bumper sticker please call [phone number]."
The Children of the Rosary and the ACLU have sought an order preventing the City from enforcing the
new policy against their ads. You are the Senior Law Clerk to the Judge who is handling this case. What is your
analysis of the federal constitutional issues?
(For future reference, see Children of the Rosary v. City of Phoenix, 154 F.3d 972 (9' Cir. 1998).)
You are counsel for a public school system in California that has a variety of
constitutional problems. First, the school has a well-established and very successful program
designed to boost the math achievement of girls by separating the boys and girls for junior
high school math classes. Traditionally boys outperformed girls in math achievement tests,
and many fewer girls than boys took advanced high school math classes. Since instituting the
separate junior high school math classes for girls and boys, the achievement scores of the girls
have improved and more girls are taking advanced math classes. Aside from being either allboys or all-girls, the classes are identical. Are these separate math classes permissible?
Next, the school district is considering setting up a separate, alternative high school
for students who identify as gay or lesbian or bisexual. Gay rights groups are advocating for
the creation of "Harvey Milk Academy" as a safe alternative for students who are otherwise
subjected to anti-gay harassment and prejudice in the regular high schools. The curriculum
would be standard, but admission would be limited to self-identified gay or lesbian students
with parental permission. Is such an alternative public school permissible?
Finally, the school district is also considering a proposal to set up an alternative high
school for African-American male students. The drop-out rate for these young men is
particularly high. The proposal for this high school is to emphasize African-American
history, and to hire mainly African-American men to be teachers, so they can be role models
for the students. Is such a separate academy, with that hiring policy, permissible?
Assess the federal constitutional issues regarding each of these programs, and, if
necessary, suggest whatever modifications, if any, might make each proposal more
constitutionally sound.
QUESTION III (1 hour)
Some of the most controversial court decisions have come in Equal Protection and First Amendment cases. Many would argue that the most controversial decisions are the greatest test of the institutional integrity of the federal courts and of the strength of our Constitutional freedoms. Pick three of the following cases, and discuss the way that those decisions, forged in the face of public controversy, reveal success, failure, or some combination thereof, in the judicial task of interpreting the Constitution to make it most worthy of respect.