Con Law - Outline 2
Con Law - Outline 2
Con Law - Outline 2
Separation of Powers
Federalism
Free Speech
Freedom of Religion
II.
JUDICIAL POWER
The judicial branch gets their power from judicial review and exercises their power in
a very quiet, unobtrusive way.
Tocqueville: judges and lawyers actually comprise a type of aristocracy, or, more
specifically, a juristocracy. He said political questions become Constitutional
questions. Lawyers thus have power that they dont have in other countries.
o The anti-populist reply to this is that lawyers should have this much power
because the people who know the most about the law should be ruling. Test
hint: take note whether an argument is populist or anti-populist (elitist). (In
class, this has been references more in terms of judicial supremacy).
Texas v. Johnson
o A Texas statute made it illegal to desecrate a flag. Overruled.
o Burning done to communicate political message and this is protected as free
speech. The statute is prohibiting the message not the act, so it violates free
speech; their whole reason for passing the statute is to protect flags value.
o Even though burning the flag is distasteful, must enforce the limits of the
Constitution. Court has to take cases even though they are controversial to
resolve Constitutional issues. W/in Courts authority/duty to resolve these
types of questions. (Orthodox view of role of S.C.)
Cons:
Decisions being made by non-representative institutions
judges not elected.
Also free speech issuerepresentation as free speechmay be
undermined when judges make decisions.
o Popular sovereignty
Judges as legal experts are just enforcing laws ratified by the majority
o Civic virtue
Marbury v. Madison
This case establishes judicial review in the American system.
o Arguably can be departmentalism or judicial supremacy, but its general cited
as created judicial supremacy.
o McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) made the first clear statement of judicial
supremacy. By this tribunal alone can Constitutional questions be resolved.
Judiciary Act of 1789 granted the Supreme Court the power to issue the writ, but the
act was in conflict with the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as established
in the Constitution, as outlined in Article III, 2.
o In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and
those in which a state shall be a party, the supreme court shall have original
jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme court shall
have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions and
under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
By the late 19th Century this had become the orthodox view, although
some say it was later than that.
Tariff bill was repealed, and S.C. repealed nullification; also nullified
force bill, but that became irrelevant.
Summary: Marshall believed in National and Judicial Supremacy; Jefferson believed
in federal and national departmentalism; others were in between.
o Our practice today tends to be Marshalls practice.
Constitutional Interpretation
Hamilton in Federalist 78 said that as long as the judiciary exercised its judgment
power and not its will then legit. Courts role is its judgment, not its will.
o Judgment is law interpretation through interpretative methods.
o Said the Constitution is supreme over the Congress and over the S.C.
o Legislative power is will.
Major sources of constitutional interpretation: (List moves from most legal to least).
o Text of the Constitution-Should always be the starting point.
o Original Understanding / Intent looking at the intent of the persons who
wrote the constitution (i.e. what the authors had in mind).
If the values change we should evaluate them to make sure they stay in
tune with the Constitution.
Has respect for political process. Pro-democracy.
If we want to change the Constitution, there is an amendment
process available.
Separation of Powers. Let the legislature make the laws.
Pros
o Stable, predictable
o Rely on legal materials, not political whims
o The constitution restrains
o There are some horrible things that could possibly be
upheld under a living constitution that would not be
upheld under this constitution.
Cons
o Dead-hand control
o Roper involved a case where the S.C. has to interpret the Constitution as to
whether or not they could put a minor to death.
The S.C. ruled against the juvenile death penalty; they also struck
down the ability to execute the mentally retarded (Atkins).
Checks on the Judiciary
Power of Reprisal political control of the SC
o Constitutional Amendment
Case or Controversy
Case or controversy requirements
o The judicial power only extends to cases and controversies stems from an
implicit reading of Article III, 2
SC has no power to issue advisory opinion b/c Article III says the
court can only decide case or controversy.
o Justiciability Doctrines (standing, mootness, ripeness, and political question)
assure there is a case/controversy for SC to resolve to ensure the court is not
issuing an advisory opinion or something that looks like an advisory opinion:
Standing
Allen v. Wright case dismissed b/c parties didnt have standing.
Standing requirements: Constitutional Requirements
o (1) Injury in fact - it must be distinct, individualized, &
concrete; real injury.
10
o Policy reasons behind limiting SC power to case and controversy, and not
having advisory opinions:
11
Fairness to the persons who are the proper litigants A group may be
negatively affected by a law, but be willing to hit a compromise with
the government. An ideological third party might hurt the proper
litigants.
o Arguments FOR allowing advisory opinions
The Courts sympathy for certain parties might actually make it less
sound in decision-making.
III.
Article IV gave Congress the ability to make laws for the territories.
Reconstruction Amendments
There are delegated & enumerated powers in Const. for national government; was
expected that national govt would have narrow powers.
13
o B of R put limits on national govt; did not apply to the states originally.
State has general jurisdiction, and the police power (policy power). It was expected
that states would pass the laws that affect our lives on a day to day basis.
o So they should have the power to enact moral ideas, etc.
Civil War Amendments showed idea that state government had become the real evil.
o Shifted a good deal of power to the federal governments.
o Also set up a battle as to who had control over the enforcement and
interpretation jobs; S.C. limited their power greatly under these amendments.
th
13 abolished slavery
14thdue process clause, equal protection clause (of the laws), privileges and
immunities (of U.S. citizenship)
o Grants citizenship to those born or naturalized in the US. (Overturns Dredd
Scott)
o 5 Includes a provision for Congressional enforcement.
o Questions arising: Protected Class (Who is Protected); and State Action
Dimension (From whom is the person protected).
15thprohibits race discrimination in voting.
Strauder v. West Virginia the purpose of the 14th was to protect blacks from hostile
state legislation (this is hostile, b/c an assertion of inferiority)
o Black was convicted of murder by jury. Only white men over the age of 21
who were citizens of the State could serve as jurors.
o This violated the 14th because the 14th declared that the law in the States had to
be the same for blacks and whites.
o S.C. allowed for many other exclusions, but could not be based solely on race.
o The dissent said the 14th amendment was not meant to protect jury service.
Slaughter-House Cases establish that the equal protection clause is just about race.
o It presents a two-tier approach.
14
o Congress passed the Civil Rights Act that prohibited all persons from denying,
on the basis of race, any individuals equal access to inns, public
transportation, theatres, and other places of public accommodation.
Also not closely related enough to 13th Amendment, b/c not related to
slavery.
The 14th was to protect blacks from hostile legislation and the court
says that this legislation is not hostile (i.e. its not a badge of
inferiority).
o Suggested that social rights are not protected; only civil/political rights.
o Dissent: obvious hostility, and an endorsement of white supremacy.
15
Means
17
18
19
The narrow-tailored argument must look both at time and if there are
any race-neutral alternatives. OConnors analysis:
Skepticism we should be suspicious of race-based
classifications.
Consistency
o Same level of scrutiny for all groupsnot just
disadvantaged
o 14th Amendment protects individuals, not groups
o Dissent: we can tell the difference at a common-sense
level between things that are meant to help/hurt
minorities.
20
Race is Irrelevant
Therefore no sense in race-based classifications, so need SS.
We are not there where race is irrelevant, so if classification
benefits minority it should not be subjected to SS.
Dissent notes that the plus for race is really a super plus.
By upholding the unconstitutional program, we do not force the
smart people at Michigan to come up with a better alternative,
as they should.
Disagrees with the schools theory of critical mass. The
school is really just trying to achieve a proportional
representation of minorities; impermissible remedial measure.
Diversity could be met by lowering admission standards.
Maintaining a top 10 status not compelling state interest.
Take note of the fact that the court says its applying strict scrutiny, but
it seems to be applying a less stringent test.
Gratz v. Bollinger
o
o
21
Not clear the programs were making much difference in racial balance.
o Remedial Measures as CSI
22
Again, they can hypothesize: Empirical proof that it fulfilled the goal
is not necessary.
o Unless the judgment is totally irrational, the law is upheld.
23
Immutable/Highly visible.
24
Also, running underneath all these cases is a tension between real differences and
stereotypes. It is hard to distinguish them. (Argument for RBR, rather than IS).
o Michael M: Statutory Rape statute: Punished males, not females court
upheld rape conviction of a 17 year old boy who had sex with a 16 year old
girl because state interest was to prevent illegitimate pregnancies and to deter
males by making sex at that age criminal.
Concern: Are they basing their rationale on the idea that men are
aggressive and women need their chastity and to be protected from
male aggressors.
SEXUAL ORIENTATION
There is a big status/conduct controversy.
Romer v. Evans (1996)
o Amendment 2 of CO Constitution prohibits municipalities from adopting
ordinances (statutes, etc,) to benefit homosexuals (lesbians or bi-sexuals).
o The court uses RBR (with bite) to invalidate Amendment 2.
o State interests include:
Put them in same position as every1 else, dont give special rights.
Ordinary Rights says that civil rights are basic and there is
nothing special about them.
25
o State interests:
Said procreation was one of the goals; some people that get married
cant procreate.
Same sex couples not good parents; again, not a proper fit.
V.
Due Process Clause Implied Fundamental Rights (SDP)
In interpreting due process clause, or privileges and immunities clause, where do we
look to determine what rights are substantive?
o Some cases have said no rights.
o Tradition.
o Natural Law.
o Bill of Rights.
Procedural due process says you can take away a certain amount of
life, liberty and property as long as the correct due process is given.
Total Incorporation
Pseudo Incorporation
26
Selective Incorporation
Incorporation
Three Different Views of Incorporation:
o Total incorporation
Economic SDP Rights specific right protected under SDP, but not as part of
incorporation of bill of rights: Right to Contract. Economic SDP does not exist today.
Lochner v. New York (1905).
o New York regulation prevented bakers from working more than 10 hours a
day. Said to violate the DPC.
Ct. said it was more about evening the bargaining power b/w
employee/employer who wants you working long hours.
o Dissent:
28
Eisenstadt v. Baird the court used EPC (based on marriage classification) and
applied RBR (a-typically because statue was overruled).
o Now considered more about the scope of right to privacy
o The ct. invalidated a law that prohibited contraceptive devices from being
given to unmarried persons violated EP clause, b/c did not prevent married
couples from obtaining it.
o Claimed to be applying RBR, but clearly wasnt.
Carey v. Population Services International widened the right to privacy as
articulated in Griswold to include individual decisions about child-bearing (rather
than just rights to privacy in marriage).
o Overruled statute which prohibited any1 besides pharmacists to distribute
contraceptives.
o SDP.
There is a continuum of what rights people think are included in 14th Amendment, in
addition to due process:
o No rights
o History and Specific Tradition: Need documentation of tradition, to some
degree.
o Living Tradition: Tradition changed by changing times
o Natural Rights-Like true liberty.
o Justice
o Public policy-The most activist; judges overrule things b/c they are bad public
policy.
29
Test is RBR and this statute passes (it wouldnt if it banned all
abortion, but it has a health of the mother exception).
o Roe in Reverse arguing Roe under EPC
If a state has liberal abortion laws can this violate Constitutional right
to life under EPC? 14th amendment says cannot deny any person due
process. Pro-life says person is broad enough to encompass unborn
child.
Must determine if the birth-status classification (if you are born, cant
kill you, if unborn, can kill you) is suspect, quasi-suspect, etc. Then
justify some level of heightened scrutiny. Use SS to hold liberal
abortion laws unconstitutional b/c it violates rights of fetuses under
EPC.
Court didnt choose this approach b/c they were pro-choice.
Planed Parenthood of Penns. v. Casey
o Moves the Roe spectrum down towards natural rights. Overrules trimester
scheme and creates undue burden test. Some of the language discusses
tradition; others discuss natural rights.
o The court talks about stare decisis: not overturning Roe, although they say
Roe may be wrong.
o The new dividing line is viability. Pre-viability and post-viability (the line
seems to be at about 23 weeks; will change as tech. advances)
Said the health exception, which only protected life of mother, was not
strong enough.
31
o The law was seeking to prohibit Intact D&E (D&X), but statue was
ambiguous and could have also banned D&E.
o Three procedures
95% of 2nd trimester use D&E (did not want to affect these);
32
Washington v. Glucksberg
o Prohibition against Physician-Assisted-Suicide does not violate 14th.
Autonomy rights protected under SDP does not include all important,
personal, and intimate decisions.
Sexual Privacy
Bowers v. Hardwick
o Court upheld a GA law banning homosexual Sodomy; declines to classify
sodomy as fundamental right, in sexual freedom/individual freedom line.
o They instead use specific tradition methodology no deeply rooted right in our
culture to engage in homosexual sodomy historically criminalized.
o Test no specific tradition, no fundamental right RBR
Lawrence v. Texas
o Liberty presumes autonomy of self that includes certain intimate conduct;
Court overrules Bowers to invalidate an anti-sodomy statute.
Also Casey and Romer create doctrinal erosion because they are
sweeping statements of individual autonomy and class-based
legislation denies EPC to homosexuals.
33
Says this case is not about sex in public, minors, coercion, commercial
transactions, and marriage.
o OConnor Concurring
Also points out that there was an oscillation back and forth between
broad and narrow views of SDP. If Casey erodes Bowers, then Bowers
must logically have eroded Roe.
Says the ct. is disingenuous; dont believe their analysis and this is
elitism.
SDP Considerations
o Liberty interest
o Infringement
o Fundamentality
Living tradition
Natural justice
o Apply test
Notice-these do not always apply, they may create their own test.
Common Social Substantive Due Process Cases
o Procreation
Lawrence
o Medical Autonomy
Right to die.
34
o Family Autonomy
Washington v. Gluxberg: Physician-assisted suicide.
Is there a right to have a physician help you commit suicide? Washington
prohibits it. The tradition has been to prohibit this. It is not a fundamental right, so
it is subject to RBR. Is there a rational basis for this?
Rehnquist (opinion)- State has an interest in protecting life and preventing people
from committing suicide. Also helps protect vulnerable groups of people
(mentally ill, etc.) We need to help these people, not give them the means to
commit suicide.
o Ethics of the medical community; Doctors should be healers.
o If people have the option to commit suicide, they may feel pressured if the
option exists. (Grandma has 3 weeks to live, wants to live, but worries
about hospital bills, etc.)
o Could lead to euthanasia, voluntary or even involuntary, doctors deciding
to kill very sick patients without consent. Insurance companies making
these decisions, refusing to pay for more treatment, etc.
OConnor, concurring: Agrees there is no generalized right to commit suicide.
But, there is no need to answer the question of whether or not you can receive
palliative care, which may endanger their lives, right now.
Souter, concurring: Doesnt like fundamental, specific tradition approach in
majority opinion, thinks it should be broad, living tradition methodology. Says
that now that suicide is not a crime, assisting in one is not a crime and we should
revisit this argument because of medical autonomy. State interest that wins out in
this case is the same question as in majority about vulnerable groups. Worries that
doctors may have trouble distinguishing who should be a candidate for this. s
Family Autonomy SDP Rights
Myer v. Nebraska and Pierce v. Society of Sisters
o There exists a fundamental right to family autonomy (parental control)
o NE statute said only English could be taught in schools; Pierce concerned a
state law that outlawed attendance at private schools.
o Overruled
35
In re Michael H. court used specific tradition analysis to hold that there was no
fundamental right to paternity of a biological father if the mother was married (i.e.
husband, not father has paternity right). This statute subjected to RBR and upheld
because state has interest in preserving the marriage. Court says no specific tradition.
o Could even argue that the legal tradition favors the marriage unit, rather than
the mere biological relationship.
o Brennan (dissent) blood relationships important, father should have right.
Troxel mothers son has died and she wants visitation rights with his child (her
grandchild). Judge says he has right to grant visitation to anyone if its in the best
interest of the child. Mother says this sweeps too broadly.
o Majority applies some level of heightened scrutiny; Dissent wants RBR
There should be no fed. family law (Scalia)
o Thomas wants to overrule SDP precedents, or pick level of scrutiny.
Overview:
A long line of cases emerge where the court recognizes some fundamental right.
o Right to refuse unwanted medical treatment Cruzan.
o Permission to live with ones family Moore v. City of East Cleveland.
o Marriage as a fundamental right (note this was also related to race) Loving v.
Virginia.
o Parental freedom and rights related to the upbringing of children Meyer v.
Nebraska.
o The existence of private schools Pierce v. Society of Sisters.
o But the court did not recognize an unwed fathers parental rights as
overwhelming the states interests In Re Michael H.
All the rights you have under 14th Amendment, you have under 5th Amendment, but
5th Amendment applies to fed., rather than states.
o This is where reverse incorporation comes into play.
VI.
Federalism
Federalism distribution of power between a national government and state
governments.
o General Rule:
For an act of the federal government to be valid it must fall within the
federal powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution and it must
not violate any particular limitations on federal powers found in the
Constitution.
o Federal balance balance between ensuring the state governments have all the
power theyre supposed to have and no more and ensuring the federal
government has all the power its supposed to have and no more. Problems
emerge when the line must be drawn.
37
o Power to enforce the 14th through 5 Congress has the power to enforce 14th
through appropriate legislation. Congress can abrogate SI.
38
o Gibbons v. Ogden commerce includes not just buying and selling, but also
includes the regulation of navigation on waterways.
This gives Congress the power to regulate instrumentalities of
interstate commerce as well as transportation of items for sale where
they cross state lines.
Background of this case is S.C. having jurisdiction to interpret
Congress commerce power.
Industrial Era (1870s 1937)
Federal government is permitted to control the flow or stream of interstate
commerce.
o End of Flow goods come to resting point within a state. Local sale is post
flow of IC.
o Beginning of Flow goods are moved in IC. Production is pre-flow.
Schechter v. US
o Schecters were post-flow. They purchased live poultry at NY railway,
slaughtered in NY, sold to local butchers, who then sold to local customers.
o If commerce clause reaches all enterprises having an indirect effect on IC,
federal authority would reach all activities. Has to be in the flow or stream of
interstate commerce.
o Considered a formalist approach
Carter Coal Case
o Production is occurring in one state, so it is intrastate. It is not commerce. It is
not in the scope of congresses enumerated power. They can regulate when it
enters the stream of commerce.
o The acts occur before the beginning of the transportation of commerce; they
are production. State regulates intrastate production.
o What about argument that this has huge effect on national economy?
Sutherland says this is indirect, so no matter how big it is, it is beyond
Congress authority to regulate.
Stafford
o Interstate shipment of cattle.
When temp. held in Chicago, the cattle are still in the stream of
commerce, b/c they are not being raised there, or slaughtered. This is
just in the middle of their shipment.
New Deal Era (1937 1995) Realist period; overturned previous cases.
Congress can regulate anything that has a Substantial Effect on IC.
Wickard v. Filburn
o A local activity that may not be regarded as commerce can be regulated by
Congress under the commerce clause if the activity, in the aggregate, exerts a
substantial economic effect on IC, regardless of whether the effect is direct or
indirect.
o Some commentators argue that this ushers in an age of no judicial
enforcement against Congressional statutes that have even the remotest
39
connection with interstate commerce. And, in fact, no such law was struck
down until the contemporary age.
o The test becomes RBR.
o Wickard arguably turns National Government power into police power rather
than D&E power!
The New Federalism (1995 until)
Congress can regulate:
o (1) Channels and instrumentalities;
o (2) Flow / Stream of IC; and
o (3) Activity that substantially affects IC in the aggregate.
Activity is limited to economic activity in the new federalism.
Non-Economic activity that cannot be regulated by Congress is:
Family Law
Crime
Education
US v. Lopez (1995)
o SC struck down Congress Gun Free School Zone Act as being outside the
commerce clause. Court says there is a limit to Congress power.
Congress later passed new law, which included requirement that gun
had recently moved in interstate commerce.
Added a jurisdictional hook.
o Now economic activity is distinguished from non-economic activity. If
something classifies as economic, you stick with Wickard. If something is a
non-economic activity, Congress will almost surely not be able to regulate it
under the guise of the CC. Guns near schools NOT an economic activity.
o Rehnquist:
Allowing this to take place makes a hash of the enumerated powers;
you have to preserve some balance.
Guns involve crime, schools involve education- both traditional state
functions- fall under police power rather than commerce clause.
Doesnt fit two categories; Not going to create a new categorical rule.
o Kennedy and OConnor add two important points concerning why there must
be a limit to Congress power:
Blurring the lines of political authority. In a democratic form of
government, the people need to know who to blame or praise at
election time.
The state is traditionally responsible for education, criminal
legislation, and family law. These are very risky areas for the federal
government to get involved in.
o Thomas wants to take it all the way back to the Industrial Era, and possibly
Pre-Industrial.
o Dissents: Should use RBR. These dissenters are termed realists because
they want Congress to be able to regulate all activities that really do affect IC.
40
Fed-5 v. Realist 4:
o Fed-5 say federalism is part of the Constitution and therefore has to be subject
to judicial enforcement.
o Realist Dissenters feel federalism shouldnt be subjected to judicial review
and is better enforced through the political process.
They really prob. feel that federalism is a historical anachronism.
41
42
43
44
45
o Pure Remedial View Congress may prohibit via statute anything the
Supreme Court thinks is unconstitutional. To enforce 1, Congress must
enforce the meanings of 1 that the Supreme Court deems appropriate.
Scalia is here.
As the buffer zone gets larger, it becomes more like the substantive
view, but as it decreases in size, it becomes more like the remedial
view.
The other justices are all in this range somewhere, w/ 4 taking a broad
view, and 2 take a narrow view; we dont know where the 2 new guys
are.
Congress can draw a box around the S.C. view, but only to a certain
extent.
o Substantive View Congress gets to interpret 1 for themselves, meaning
they can decide what rights are included.
View that is worst for federalism; b/c gives Congress a good deal of
power over states.
46
Advocates for a very narrow remedial plus; expresses concern for the
separation of powers and federalism.
Boerne Background:
Sherbert (1963) If a statute results in substantial infringement
of the free exercise of religion (which is protected under DPC
incorporation), then that law is unconstitutional as applied to
those persons unless it passes SS balancing test (which
involves CSI-NT v. Burden on Religion).
Employment Div, Dept of Human Resources of Ore v. Smith
overturned Sherbert and said that if the government infringes a
religious right, a no-targeting test applies.
o Unless the religion was specifically targeted, then the
law is not unconstitutional.
o Conservatives and liberals were both pissed by this
ruling; C want to protect religion and liberals want to
protect minority rights.
o This is much less protective of religion and very
controversial, so Congress passed the Religious
Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) to essentially make a
statutory form out of Sherbert. Made SS the test.
47
Proportionality the buffer zone cant be much bigger than the actual
core violation.
o This buffer zone / sweeping power allows Congress to:
Sovereign Immunity
Rights or immunities of a non-consenting state not to be the in a suit in either state
or federal court where the is a private citizen for money damages (and may
includes other damages like injunction).
o Cannot sue a state for injunction, but you can name a public official in their
private capacity for an injunction.
What can Congress do to authorize lawsuits that are consistent with sovereign
immunity?
o Instead of the state, name a public official in his or her private capacities.
Problems:
Statutory Immunity statutory immunities may protect public
officials' private assets.
Insolvency a person may not have the personal assets to
cover a judgment
Possible that the states cant/wont indemnify the person.
48
Original Constitutional plan had both commerce power and SI, so they
should be read in harmony.
Garrett
o Americans w/ Disabilities Act grants disabled persons right to reasonable
accommodation.
o This is an employment regulation; they are regulating both states and private
actors. That is w/in the commerce power. BUT, Congress cannot abrogate
sovereign immunity to enforce this right, unless they are working under 5.
The reasonable accommodation is not at issue, but the SI is.
o Ct. says exceeds the power of 5, and it cannot stand only on the grounds of
abrogating SI.
o Ct asks whether there is a clear statement of abrogation: Yes.
o 5 Analysis:
50
Tennessee v. Lane
o Disabled victim had to go to court, but he couldnt get to the court room
because it wasnt wheelchair accessible. Congress passed the ADA which
requires court houses to be handicap accessible. Again, clear abrogation.
Access to courts receives some level of heightened review, regardless
of disability.
The scope of 1 obv extends to access to courts.
The need for a pattern is lessened under heightened scrutiny.
Again, P & C is less impt.
RULE:
o If were at RBR, Congress buffer zone must be very small.
o At heightened scrutiny, the proportionality analysis is more deferential.
EXAM- 4 Sections:
Policy Q: Historical evolution, debate on the court, usually judicial power and
another area.
Short answers: 3 sentences max. Some will be case names or yes/no.
2 Fact Patterns about current law: no history, no theory. You want to back this
up with case authorities. Write it like a brief, not a novel. No need for tons of
background info, just give the rule and cite it.
Refer to other sections when you have to talk about the same thing twice, or cut
and paste.
May pick something from the current docket for making the fact pattern
(healthcare).
Tips: short, concise, to the point. Use common sense abbreviations. No pretty essays.
Time crunch: 3-hour exam. Just answer each question and move on. No need to write
everything you know. You can type or write.
51