Hypothetical 2b (Essay Sample)

In this section you will be given hypothetical case facts, statutes, and legal arguments made by the parties. You will then write a Court opinion as if you were a Supreme Court justice. When writing, remember you should make the decision as current precedent dictates, not as you feel it should be. The best answers will discuss the entire history of that area of case law in the lead up to the discussion of the current case law. DO NOT draw on your own opinion, rather follow precedent. Be sure to include the statute, constitutional provision, legal question, legal reasoning, an outcome, and a doctrine. Akbar v. Binks (A long time ago...) Alliance Corporation imports hyperdrives into the U.S. and stores them in their warehouse at Mos Eisley, California. This warehouse also contains domestically produced land speeders. Because of recent budget shortfalls, the Tatooine government passes the Not A Tax Act of 2014 which imposes a tax on 3% of the value of all importedhyperdrives stored in warehouses. Upon hearing about the tax, Alliance Corporation’s CEO, Admiral Akbar exclaims, “It’s a tax!” and sues Tatooine governor Jar Jar Binks, arguing the tax constitutes a state invasion into the federal tax power and unfairly discriminates against products of foreign construction. Binks argues Michelin Tire permits the tax, and furthermore, its a required to meet a projected budget shortfal (Gather and write your information from cases p.505-564) Epstein, Lee and Thomas Walker. 2013. Constitutional Law for a Changing America: Insti- tutional Powers and Constraints. 8th edition. Congressional Quarterly Press: Washington. EXAMPLE HYPOTHETICAL Hyp othetical: Mitt Obama, a presidential candidate, sues Bob Smith, a carto onist whose comic strip sug- gests Mitt Obama is not particularly smart. Mitt Obama claims Smith's carto on is lib el under the Don't Criticize Politicians Act of 2013. Smith claims the carto on is a paro dy and is therefore protected under the First Amendment. Answer: Justice Me delivered the Opinion of the Court: We are asked to decide whether Smith's carto on qualies as lib el under the Don't Criti- cize Politicians Act of 2013. Ultimately, we must ask whether the Don't Criticize Politicians Act of 2013 violates the Free Press Clause of the Constitution. We hold that it do es. This Court has long recognized that a free press is critical to American demo cracy and that carto ons and paro dies are a prominent feature of said press. At the same time, lib el is not protected. We rst develop ed a test for lib el in Sul livan v. NY Times (1964) and further rened it in Hustler v. Falwel l (1988). Under the Sul livan/Hustler test a work is only lib el if it is published with malice and if the publisher knows it to b e untrue. In this case, the carto on is a paro dy in the long tradition of American journalism, surely no one would take it as either displaying malice toward Mitt Obama or as a statement of fact ab out the candidate's intellectual abilities. We hold in favor of Smith.