manheimsample_answer

manheimsample_answer - Course Con Law II Professor Name...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Course: Con Law II Professor Name: Manheim Exam Date: Friday, May 06, 2005 Page 1 of 6 ESSAY QUESTION #1 I. State Action Requirement If one were to challenge the reforms implemented by CSU under the 14 th Amendment, there is a requirement that the constitutional injury must be done by a state actor. CSU is a state university, and so it satisfies as a “state actor” for 14 th amendment purposes. ETS, which creates and administers the SAT, may or may not be a state actor. The facts indicate that it is a non-profit organization comprised of public and private colleges. Under the public function rule, those private actors who are performing what has been traditionally the sovereign function may be said to implicate the state it its conduct. Administering the SAT may not be a traditional function of the state – but some would argue that we think of the states as providing these exams for its students. Under the Entanglement/Nexus rule, the question is whether the connection between the state and private actor (here, ETS) is sufficiently close, such that we can attribute the private actor’s conduct to the state? This would involve whether the state has authorized or sanctioned the conduct, has coerced the conduct, is in a symbiotic relationship with the private actor, and so on. I.e., “how involved is the state?” In TSSAA , the Tennessee Athletic Association was also comprised of many public schools, just as ETS is. But there were a number of other factors that implicated the state in that case – e.g., a majority of its members were state officers, etc. However, the dissent in that case pointed out that it was a non-profit organization, like ETS, and that it wasn’t a traditonal function of the state. It appears that the state has authorized and sanctioned ETS to perform these services, and many people would connect those services to those that would be provided by the state. It appears that they satisfy the state aciton requirement. II. Equal Protection Analysis . A. Suspect Classes Reform one says that CSU would no longer count bonus GPA points earned in AP classes. Those living in the wealthier – predominantly whites – would challenge this reform as being discrimination under the EP Clause. There are 2 ways to trigger a heightened standard of review under this clause: 1. to find the discrimination is occurring along suspect class lines; and 2. that the reform is a deprivation of the exercise of a fundamental right. It appears that the reform, with respect to the AP classes, is neutral on its face – i.e., it doesn’t facially distinguish between classes of citizens. In that case, a challenger would have to show that there is a disparate impact in the treatment PLUS a discirminatory purpose on behalf of the state. The facts suggest that the impact would be felt in wealthy areas, because those are the areas that have been benefitting from the AP courses. However, there are 2 problems with this: 1. wealth is NOT a suspect class for
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page1 / 6

manheimsample_answer - Course Con Law II Professor Name...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online