Substantive Law Study Support

Questions for Analysis and Responses

1. The Supreme Court has upheld laws that regulate the following:

• minimum wage requirements

• child employment restrictions

• workers’ compensation laws

• collective bargaining requirements

• price controls

How does each of these restrict an individual’s liberty? What is the state interest to be protected by such laws?
This question in part calls for subjective answers. The following are some suggestions, but not the only correct responses.

2. Because of health costs, Congress proposes to limit the amount of damages recoverable in a medical malpractice case. In fact, some states have such laws now. In light of the holding in Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Envt. Study Group, do you think laws limiting damages in medical malpractice cases are constitutional? Explain your answer.
Duke Power held that when there was a legitimate government purpose, a law limiting recoverable damages was constitutional. In Duke Power, the legitimate government purpose was encouraging the development of nuclear energy. The cost of medical care is a national concern, and the government should have an interest in seeing that affordable medical care is available. Protection of health and life is a legitimate government concern. Arguably, large medical malpractice awards influence the cost of medical care. Whether true or not, Congress would still have a reasonable basis for believing it is, and the law seems reasonably related to a legitimate government need.

3. Answer the following questions based on City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41 (1999).
a. Did Chicago have a legitimate government interest in passing the loitering ordinance?

Yes, the Court felt there was: “The very presence of a large collection of obviously brazen, insistent, and lawless gang members and hangers-on on the public ways intimidates residents, who become afraid even to leave their homes and go about their business. That, in turn, imperils community residents’ sense of safety and security, detracts from property values, and can ultimately destabilize entire neighborhoods.”
b. What was the constitutional due process problem with the ordinance?

It was too vague and covered too many legal types of conduct.

4. Why did Justice Scalia dissent in Roper v. Simmons?

Scalia believed that the Court was attempting to change the meaning of the Constitution, specifically the meaning of the Eighth Amendment, and he stated, “…Because I do not believe that the meaning of our Eighth Amendment, any more than the meaning of other provisions of our Constitution, should be determined by the subjective views of five Members of this Court and like-minded foreigners, I dissent.”