This Document Contains Chapters 1 to 2 Chapter 1: Legal Foundations CHAPTER OVERVIEW This introductory chapter begins with a very broad based view of the legal landscape including a working definition of and purposes of the law, levels and sources of law (e.g., federal statutory), an introduction to stare decisis, and categories of law (e.g., criminal vs. civil). Equally important, this chapter sets the tone for the entire textbook and course by discussing and provides illustrations of how the law operates in a business context. Teaching Tip: Clean the slate Students frequently have certain notions and pre-conceptions about the law and legal terms that were generated primarily (or exclusively) by television, Web sites, blogs, and folklore. Ask students to set aside any notions they have about what law is, how it operates, and the meaning of legal terms, so that they may start the course with a clean slate. KEY LEARNING OUTCOMES Outcome Accreditation Categories Articulate a working definition of and primary purposes of the law, and identify sources, levels and categories of law. Knowledge Explain the importance of understanding the law in the context of business decision-making and gives examples how the law impacts business. Application; Critical Thinking Provide examples of how stare decisis may impact business planning. Application; Critical Thinking TEACHING OUTLINE A. Introduction to Law [P.3] Points to emphasize: • Law is a body of rules of action or conduct prescribed by controlling authority, and having legal binding force that create duties, obligations and rights as well as a mechanism to resolve disputes arising from those duties and rights. • Jurisprudence: The philosophy behind the law, including natural law (moral values form the basis for all law), positivists (agreed-upon laws enforced uniformly and strictly) and legal realism (law is a social institution accounting for social and economic realities to promote fairness). • Purposes of Law: (1) System of order that defines crimes and levies punishment for violations; (2) system for resolving disputes by providing a basis for deciding the legal interests and rights of the parties; (3) creating reliability in business planning and commercial transactions by promoting good faith dealing among merchants and consumers. • Language of the Law: Primarily a combination of Latin, early and modern English, and French, a basic understanding of which is useful to maximize the value of interaction between business managers and attorneys. B. Legal Decisions in a Business Environment: Theory to Practice [P.5] Points to emphasize: • Learning to apply legal awareness in practice involves recognizing opportunities for proactive business planning, limiting liability, gaining a competitive edge, and adding value to the business. • Legal Insight and Business Strategy: Reference to Table 1.1: Expansion Options and Potential Legal Impacts [P.7] • Role of Counsel: Managers often work closely with business attorneys, resulting in business opportunities, reduced costs, and limitation of risk and liability. C. Sources and Levels of American Law [P.8] Chalk Talk: Sources and Levels of Law Covering sources and levels of law in tandem makes sense, but students often have trouble understanding the interplay between the two. I use a diagram on the board and fill in as I go along asking students for examples of each along the way. Constitutional Statutory Admin Common Points to emphasize: • Modern law regulating businesses and individuals is generally a combination of the primary sources of law: constitutional law, statutory law, common law, and administrative (regulatory) law. • Constitutional Law: Exists at state and federal levels as the supreme law, providing the foundation for all other law to prescribe the basic structure and powers of a particular government body and to protect certain rights of individuals and business from government encroachment. Case 1.1 Arizona v. U.S., 132 S.Ct. 2492 (2012) [P. 10] Facts: In 2010, the State of Arizona passed the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act to address problems which the legislature contended were being created by the large number of unlawful immigrants living and working within their state’s borders. Among other provisions, the law created state immigration offenses and expanded the authority of local police to enforce immigration laws by requiring that individuals who were lawfully detained by the police (e.g., a traffic stop) to verify their citizenship and criminal penalties for unauthorized aliens who sought or engaged in work within Arizona. . Issue: 1) is immigration is a matter within the purview of federal government? 2) When the federal government creates rules and sanctions with a clear intent to preclude state action, can courts enforce any state action that conflicts with established federal mandates? Ruling: The U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Arizona statute as unconstitutional because the statute conflicted with the existing federal law and therefore the state statute is preempted. Sample Answers to Case Questions: 1. The role and conflicts of a federal system is on display in this case. The public policy implications of allowing states to assert their own jurisdiction over immigration are one example, but what about other areas of regulation (e.g., transportation)? Answer: Public Policy Implications in Federalism: Allowing states to assert jurisdiction over immigration, as in Arizona v. U.S., highlights tensions in federalism. States may have different priorities or solutions for issues like immigration, but granting them authority can lead to a patchwork of laws, complicating enforcement and compliance. This fragmentation can undermine national policies, create inconsistencies, and impact interstate relations. For example, in transportation, states regulate local traffic laws, but federal oversight ensures uniform standards for vehicle safety and interstate travel. Balancing state autonomy with national consistency is crucial to avoid conflicts and ensure cohesive governance. 2. The question helps to spur a discussion about the rights of the federal government to intervene when matters are “intra-state” versus “inter-state.” Answer: Federal vs. State Regulation: The balance between federal and state powers is pivotal in determining whether issues are "intra-state" or "inter-state." The federal government generally has supremacy in areas like immigration that affect national interests. Conversely, states often manage local matters such as public health or education. However, when federal regulations are comprehensive or intended to preclude state intervention, states must yield. This balance ensures that federal policies apply uniformly across the nation while allowing states to address localized concerns. The courts often adjudicate these conflicts to maintain equilibrium between state autonomy and federal authority. 3. Using its state police powers to regulate employers, landlords, and other traditionally state functions. Answer: State Police Powers and Federal Limits: States traditionally use police powers to regulate areas like employment and housing, which can include setting rules for employers and landlords. However, when federal laws or regulations cover these areas, states must comply with federal standards. For instance, while states may regulate employment practices, federal labor laws establish minimum standards. Arizona’s attempt to regulate immigration reflects broader issues where state actions can conflict with federal laws. The Supreme Court’s ruling emphasizes that states cannot impose their own regulations that interfere with federal mandates, maintaining the federal government's role in ensuring national policy coherence. Teaching Tip: Reading cases This is the first case featured in the textbook and an ideal time to discuss the importance of cases in the law. The hybrid format gives students a summary of the facts and of the precise holding related to the point in the text. That point is then reinforced by a short excerpt from the opinion (“Words of the Court”). This is also an ideal time to point out the SUR (Scan, Understand, Read) system featured in Appendix A of this chapter: A Business Student’s Guide to Finding and Understanding the Law. • Statutory Law: Exists at the state, federal and local levels of law, created by a legislative body and approved or disapproved by the executive branch. o Statutory Scheme and Legislative History: When interpreting statutes courts look to the structure of the law itself (statutory scheme) and to the records kept by the legislature in drafting the statute (legislative history). o Finding Statutory Law: The official publication of federal statutory law is in the United States Code and it is arranged by title and divided into chapters and sections that form a citation. • Common Law: Law made by appellate courts and is based on the fundamentals of previous cases that had similar facts. o Origins: Deep-seated in British common law that has developed over several centuries beginning around 1066. • Stare Decisis and Precedent: Appellate courts create precedent and under the doctrine of stare decisis, lower courts apply the precedent to new cases with similar facts. o Stare Decisis and Business: Stare decisis allows business to have some degree of confidence that the law will remain reasonably consistent. (Reference to Table 1.2: Laws That Impact Business [P.13] Landmark Case 1.2 Flagiello v. Pennsylvania Hospital 208 A2d 193 (PA 1965) [P.14] Facts: Flagiello was a patient at Pennsylvania Hospital when she injured her ankle unrelated to her reason for admission. She brought suit against the hospital claiming that their negligence in maintaining the property resulted in her injury. The trial court dismissed the matter because of the established state common law of the charitable immunity doctrine and Flagiello appealed on the basis that she was a paying patient and that the charitable immunity doctrine was outdated. Issue: Does the principle of stare decisis demand that the court follow precedent even though doing so would go against societal norms? Ruling: No. Although the doctrine of stare decisis plays an important role, standing precedent can be abandoned to allow for evolving societal standards of behavior or expectations. Answers to case questions: 1. If Flagiello had been a burglar who was breaking into the medical supply cabinet instead of a patient when she injured her ankle, would the court have been willing to abandon the charitable immunity doctrine? Why or why not? Answer: Under these circumstances, there is no negligence on behalf of the Hospital and no deviation from which following the precedent would “shipwreck justice.” Given the circumstances on a case-by-case basis, it is unlikely that the court would identify the thief’s injury against any evolved societal standard of behavior or expectation that would justify abandoning the charitable immunity doctrine. Hypothetical Case with a Burglar: If Flagiello had been a burglar rather than a patient, it is unlikely that the court would have been inclined to abandon the charitable immunity doctrine. The charitable immunity doctrine traditionally protects charitable institutions from liability, particularly when the plaintiff’s actions fall outside the scope of their services or relationship with the institution. In the case of a burglar, the injury would not be related to the hospital's operational duties or patient care, and thus, the court would likely view this as a situation where the charitable immunity doctrine remains applicable. The court would consider that allowing recovery in such a scenario does not necessarily align with evolving societal standards or the purpose of abandoning the doctrine. 2. Does this case mean that stare decisis may be discarded whenever a judge perceives that following precedent will “shipwreck justice”? Answer: The court must consider the circumstances, parties, economic barometer and sociological climate through the lens and guidance of the stare decisis channels of law. If the judge holds that technological or societal changes render a particular precedent unworkable then they can justify departing from precedent. Discretion in Following Precedent: While stare decisis is a fundamental principle guiding judicial decisions, it is not absolute. Courts may depart from precedent if they determine that following it would result in "shipwrecking justice" due to significant changes in societal norms or circumstances. This departure requires a careful evaluation of the current legal, economic, and social climate. The court must balance respect for established precedents with the need to adapt legal principles to contemporary standards. Thus, while stare decisis provides stability, it allows for flexibility when adherence to precedent would lead to unjust outcomes in light of new societal understandings or conditions. • Administrative Law: The source of law that regulates the exercise of authority by administrative agencies. D. Secondary Sources of Law [P.14] Points to emphasize: • Secondary sources function to increase the level of uniformity and fairness across all 50 states, however, they have no independent authority, nor are they legally binding. • Uniform Model Laws: Drafted by legal experts, in hopes that they will be used or adopted by state legislature to provide uniformity in laws between the states (i.e. the U.C.C.). • Restatements of the Law: Collections of uniform legal principles in a specific area of law that are designed to reduce the complexity of judicial decisions. Figure 1.1 : Hierarchy of Primary Sources of Federal and State Law [P. 15 Concept Summary: Sources of Law [P.16] Self-Check: What is/are the source(s) and level(s) of law that govern the following business transactions? [P.16] E. Categories of Law [P.17] Points to emphasize: • Broad categories based on classification related to a particular legal function or a right afforded by law are helpful in understanding the “big picture” of our legal system. • Criminal Law versus Civil Law: Civil laws are designed to compensate parties for losses as a result of another’s conduct, while criminal laws are a protection of society, and the violation of criminal laws results in penalties to the violator such as fines or imprisonment. • Substantive Law versus Procedural Law: Substantive laws provide individuals with rights and create certain duties, while procedural laws provide a structure and set out rules for pursuing substantive rights. • Law versus Equity: Where remedy at law is inadequate, an injured party may also obtain a remedy at equity. o Remedies at law generally take the form of money damages while equitable remedies generally include an injunction or restraining order, and specific performance. • Important Equitable Maxims: Intended to be broad statements of rules that are based on notions of fairness and justice in applying the law. o Equity Aids the Vigilant: The law favors those who exercise vigilance in pursuing their claims and disfavors those who rest on their legal rights by failing to act to protect their rights in a reasonable period of time. o Substance over Form: When applying the law, courts look to the intent of parties involved and adhere to a standard of good faith instead of applying the black letter law in a way that would violate fundamental principles of fairness and consistency. Talking Points: Additional Discussion Questions on Substance over Form 1. Has anyone in this class ever been treated unfairly because the letter of law was applied over fundamental fairness? Answer: Personal Experience with Letter of Law vs. Fundamental Fairness: Applying the letter of the law over fundamental fairness can sometimes lead to situations where individuals feel unfairly treated. For example, in administrative or legal proceedings, rigid adherence to procedural rules might result in unjust outcomes, such as when a minor procedural error leads to significant penalties or denial of rights. Personal experiences where strict legal formalism overshadowed fairness might include instances of technicalities being used to dismiss legitimate claims or enforce harsh penalties. These situations highlight the tension between legal precision and equitable outcomes, and often lead to calls for more discretion in applying the law to achieve fairness. 2. Has the university/college or any of your professors ever enforced “form over substance” which resulted in you being treated unfairly? Answer: University/College or Professor Enforcement of Form Over Substance: Instances of “form over substance” in academic settings might involve strict adherence to rules that seem to ignore the broader context or fairness of a situation. For example, a professor might enforce rigid deadlines or citation rules without considering the circumstances that led to a student's non-compliance, such as technical difficulties or personal hardships. Similarly, university policies might be applied in ways that overlook genuine efforts or extenuating circumstances, resulting in penalties that feel disproportionate. Such experiences can lead to perceptions of unfair treatment when form is prioritized over the substantive merits of a student's situation. 3. In a business context that is absent of any fraud, should courts have the right to decide what is “fair” in a transaction or contract? Answer: Courts Deciding Fairness in Transactions or Contracts: In a business context devoid of fraud, courts typically focus on enforcing the terms of contracts as agreed upon by the parties involved. However, there is an argument for courts to have some discretion to assess fairness, especially in cases involving extreme imbalances or unconscionable terms. Courts might consider fairness when contract terms are grossly inequitable or when one party exploits their superior bargaining power. While the principle of freedom of contract generally prevails, some level of judicial oversight can ensure that agreements are not only legally valid but also reasonably fair, balancing the need for legal certainty with equitable considerations. o Clean Hands Doctrine: Courts are not inclined to decide a dispute based on technicalities that benefited a party who acted dishonestly. Case 1.3 Kauffman-Harmon v. Kauffman 36 P.3d 408 (Sup. Ct., Mont. 2001) [P.19] Facts: Kauffman transferred all of his stock in his corporation to his spouse, who subsequently transferred the stock to their children, to avoid paying a judgment against him. Several years later, a dispute developed between the children concerning the stock and Kauffman intervened by claiming that he was the rightful owner of the stock and thus it should be transferred back to him. Kauffman alleged that the transfer of the stock was a temporary trust while the children contend the clean hands doctrine bars him from relief. Issue: Can Kauffman expect relief in equity even though his claim had its inception in a bad-faith action? Ruling: No. Courts are guided in their decisions not only by the letter of the law, but also on the basis that one seeking the aid of a court must come to the court with clean hands that are unstained by bad faith, misrepresentations or deceit. Answers to case questions: 1. Would the court’s ruling be the same if the children had also participated in the transaction and were accused of wrongdoing? Why or why not? Answer: Kauffman is still not entitled to take advantage his own wrong where the complaint is based on equitable relief. Courts will not aid a party whose claim had its inception in the party’s wrongdoing whether the victim of the wrongdoing is the other party or a third party. Effect of Children’s Wrongdoing: Even if the children had participated in the transaction and were accused of wrongdoing, the court's ruling would likely remain the same. Kauffman’s inability to seek equitable relief is rooted in the principle that a party cannot benefit from their own wrongdoing, regardless of the wrongdoing's scope or the involvement of other parties. The clean hands doctrine requires that anyone seeking equitable relief must not have engaged in unethical or illegal conduct related to the claim. Since Kauffman’s claim originates from his own bad-faith action to avoid a judgment, he remains barred from relief, regardless of the children’s conduct. 2. Given the court’s reasoning, would the result of this case be the same if the transfer of stock was for a legitimate purpose and the only wrongdoing Kauffman had committed involved a third party in an unrelated matter? Why or why not? Answer: In this case, Kauffman is coming into the court with a legitimate legal claim and thus he is not bared by doctrine. Legitimate Purpose and Third-Party Wrongdoing: If the transfer of stock was for a legitimate purpose and Kauffman's only wrongdoing involved a third party unrelated to the current matter, the result could differ. The clean hands doctrine primarily addresses conduct related to the specific issue at hand. If Kauffman’s claim for relief does not involve the misconduct related to the transfer of stock and is instead based on a legitimate legal claim, he might be eligible for equitable relief. The doctrine's application would then be more focused on whether the wrongdoing directly affects the claim’s integrity rather than unrelated third-party issues. Solutions for Managers: Legal Decisions in Business: An Analytical Model [P.20] END OF CHAPTER PROBLEMS, QUESTIONS AND CASES Theory to Practice [P.24] 1. Galaxy’s business objectives will necessarily involve a lease for the store and therefore contract law will impact business planning. The lease may also be governed by a landlord-tenant law. Jackson’s plan to hire new employees to staff the stores will involve aspects of employment and labor law. [Ties to Table 1.1] 2. Students benefit from understanding that Galaxy will not have in-house counsel, but will rely on a law firm for advice. In this case, Galaxy’s management could work with counsel in understanding various options and being proactive in negotiating a favorable lease and implementing a compliance system to ensure proper hiring and employment practices. [Ties to the “Role of Counsel”] 3. Answer based on Table 1.2 [P.15] Law Source Level Contracts for services/land Primarily common law State Employment discrimination Primarily statutory and administrative Primarily state and federal, some local Tax Statutory and administrative Federal, state, local Galaxy liability protection could come in several forms. First, the liability can be limited through various provisions in the lease. Second, the liability of Galaxy’s principals may be protected through choosing an appropriate business entity. 4. In this case, Galaxy should learn how the IRS has taxed any similar transactions in past. A primary purpose of the law in a business planning context is reliability: similar cases, with similar facts, should be treated (in this case taxed) in a similar way. [Tied to the importance of understanding how stare decisis and precedent can be used in business planning] 5. The equitable maxim of “equity aids the vigilant” may apply to this situation. This maxim favors Jackson/Galaxy in this case because it was Holmes who failed to pursue his legal rights for such a long period of time. [Tied to “Important equitable Maxims] Manager’s Challenge [P.25] A sample answer to all Manager’s Challenge questions is provided in the student and instructor versions of this textbook’s Web site www.mhhe.com/melvin2e. Case Summary 1.1: Equity and Fairness: Sokoloff v. Harriman Estate Development Corp. [P.25] 1. Can Harriman withhold the plans from Sokoloff? Answer: No. Doing so would clearly breach a duty owed to Sokoloff. 2. What legal theories or maxims would a court consider in deciding this case? Answer: The court would consider the legal theories of equitable relief and/or a remedy at law. The legal maxims that could apply are substance over form and the clean hands doctrine. 3. How should the court rule and why? Answer: The court ruled in favor of Sokoloff and ordered specific performance (deliver the plans). Case Summary 1.2: Statute of Limitations: Jones v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co. [P.25] 1. Which statute of limitations governs and why? Answer: The federal statute of limitations governs because Jones is bringing a suit that alleges a violation of federal antidiscrimination statues, thus bringing the claim within federal jurisdiction. 2. Will Jones be able to sue Donnelley? Answer: Yes, assuming that the cause of action is initiated after 1990, the three years past is within the four-year statute of limitations. Case Summary 1.3: Clean Hands Doctrine: Day v. Case Credit Corp. [P.26] 1. If the court applies the clean hands doctrine, will Case be able to recover the farm equipment because Day is unable to make payments? Why or why not? Answer: No. Courts are not inclined to decide disputes based on technicalities that benefited a party who acted dishonestly and here the transaction was a bad-faith, fraudulent transaction. 2. Are Case’s hands clean? Why or why not? Answer: No. Case’s hands are stained by bad faith, misrepresentation and deceit in their awareness of the forgery followed by a failure to act. Case Summary 1.4: Cargill v. Montfort [P.26] 1. If Monfort files suit and the merger is deemed to violate antitrust laws, what type of remedy will Monfort want to receive and why? Answer: Relief in equity because they did not suffer monetary damages. Case Summary 1.5: Connally v. General Construction [P.26] 1. Is the language “current rate of wages” certain enough to be enforceable? Why or why not? Answer: The court ruled it was too vague. 2. Is there any other ambiguous or vague language in the statute? How could the statute be reworded in order to overcome any notion of vagueness? Answer: “current rate” and “locality” are both potentially troublesome. Define localities and set a specific wage tied to the locality. Case Summary 1.6: In re: Sedimentation Pollution Act [P.27] 1. How is precedent created, and how is it applied in future cases? Answer: By courts of authority starting with the date of the decision. Precedent is created when a court makes a ruling on a legal issue that becomes a guiding principle for future cases. It is applied by lower courts to ensure consistency in the legal system. 2. When two separate panels of the same court hear different cases with similar issues, must the second panel follow the decision made by the first? Answer: No. Only courts of authority set precedent. Panels are not bound by each other’s decisions. 3. If precedent has been set by a state appellate panel, who has the power to overrule that precedent? Answer: Courts of authority (i.e., appellate courts). Precedent set by a state appellate panel can be overruled by a higher court within the same jurisdiction, such as the state's supreme court, or by the legislature through new laws. Quick Assessment Questions (QAQs) 1. According to the court in Flagiello v. Pennsylvania Hospital, which of the following is true? a. Strict adherence to precedent and the doctrine of stare decisis is essential in all cases to maintain consistency in the law. b. Courts sometimes justify departing from precedent on the basis that technological or social changes render a particular precedent unworkable. c. Stare decisis serves as only a guide for judicial reasoning and therefore should only be followed under a rare set of circumstances. d. Stare decisis is an outdated principle that is no longer used by modern courts. e. None of the above Answer: b 2. Which equitable maxim stands for the notion that the law disfavors those who fail to exercise their legal rights in a reasonable period of time? a. Substance over Form b. Substantive over Procedure c. Equity Aids the Vigilant d. Clean Hands Doctrine e. Stare Decisis Doctrine Answer: c 3. Which of the following is/are considered (a) primary source(s) of law? a. Restatements of Law b. Common Law c. Model Statutes d. Administrative Law e. A or C Answer: d 4. Primary sources of law can sometimes work in conjunction with one another. a. True b. False Answer: a 5. Statutory law is created by the executive branch and approved or disapproved by a legislative body. a. True b. False Answer: b 6. Jurisprudence is when courts apply the law of a previous case to current cases with similar facts. a. True b. False Answer: b Chapter 2: Business and the Constitution CHAPTER OVERVIEW This chapter begins with a very brief history and description of the structure of the U.S. Constitution with a focus on the first three articles and the powers of Congress (especially the Commerce Clause). As a practical matter, it may be best to assume that students have only a very basic knowledge of the purpose, history or challenges associated with having a written constitution. Making the leap between understanding the nature of the constitution and how it impacts business entities can be a significant hurdle for students. Therefore, the chapter first lays out the nuts and bolts, then covers black letter law, and concludes with applications and impact of the constitutional principles in a business context. Teaching tip: Capturing the Vast Universe of Con Law Teaching such a vast and fascinating subject area in such a short period of time is a challenge primarily because of the temptation to delve into an interesting foray that intrigues the instructor. Although a dose of this intrigue in your lectures may be helpful, limiting your discussion and study to context of the constitution’s impact on business helps keep both students and instructor focused and on track. For example, students tend to be enthusiastic about material related to the Bill of Rights—they may even wish to offer their own experiences if time permits. However, the instructor’s role is to bring the focus back to a business context (e.g., regulation of commercial speech). KEY LEARNING OUTCOMES Outcome Accreditation Categories Explain the structure, nature, and importance of the U.S. Constitution and describe the enumerated powers of government to regulate individuals and businesses. Knowledge Recognize the role of judicial review in Constitutional law. Application List the major protection of the Constitution’s Bill of Rights and how they apply in a business environment. Application; Critical Thinking TEACHING OUTLINE A. Structure and Nature of the Constitution: Federal Powers [P.37] Points to emphasize: • The U.S. uses a federal system in which a national government, having limited regulatory powers granted by the Constitution, coexists with the government of each state. • The Constitution functions to (1) establish a structure for the federal government and rules for amending the Constitution; (2) grant specific powers for the different branches of government; and (3) provide procedural protections for U.S. citizens from wrongful government actions. • Structure of the Constitution: Composed of a preamble, seven articles and 27 amendments. o The preamble states the Constitution’s broad objectives and the articles then set out structure, power, and procedures (Reference to Table 2.1: Overview of Articles in the U.S. Constitution [P.39]). • The Constitution also establishes boundaries of jurisdiction. • Amendments: Additions or changes to the Constitution, the first 10 of which form the Bill of Rights. B. Overview of Federal Powers [P.38] Points to emphasize: • Federal legislation or regulation must be authorized by a specific, enumerated power in the Constitution and theses powers are limited in scope. • Separation of Powers: The system of checks and balances whereby the three branches have unique powers that allow them to resolve conflicts among themselves, thus ensuring no one branch exceeds its constitutional authority. • Reference to Table 2.2: Example of Constitutional Checks and Balances [P.40] • Judicial Review: Federal courts have the right to invalidate state or federal laws that are inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution in some way. Case 2.1: U.S. v. Alvarez, 132 S.Ct. 2537 (2012) [P. 41] Facts: The Stolen Valor Act of 2005 made it a federal crime to make false claims related to receiving military decoration or honors. The penalty for false claims about the Congressional Medal of Honor was enhanced to include up to one year in prison. Alvarez was an individual who served as a member of a municipal water district board and introduced himself and included facts about his past including that he served as a marine, was wounded, and received the Congressional Medal of Honor. None of these representations were true. Alvarez was charged with violating the Stolen Valor Act and pled guilty, but reserved the right to challenge the constitutionality of the law based on the First Amendment upon appeal. Issue: Since Alvarez’s statements were false, is he entitled to First Amendment protection? Ruling: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Alvarez and upheld the lower court’s decisions that the statute violated the First Amendment. The Court ruled that their previous decisions made clear that content-based restrictions on speech were presumed to be invalid and that it was the government’s responsibility to demonstrate a compelling interest. The Court rejected the government’s argument that false speech is not protected and pointed out several instances in which they had previously ruled that falsity alone does not make a statement automatically outside the protection of the First Amendment. Case Questions 1. The dissenting justices argued that the allowing First Amendment protection for statements that are lies was a dangerous and unwise path. They also concluded that the link between the statute and the government’s interest was more than enough to satisfy any constitutional scrutiny. Are the dissenting arguments compelling? Why or why not? Answer: This question is intended to spur discussion on the topic of protection of First Amendment rights. The dissenting justices' arguments raise important concerns about the limits of First Amendment protection for false statements. They contended that protecting falsehoods could undermine the integrity of military honors and public trust. Their view reflects a belief that some form of restriction is necessary to maintain the value of true statements and public honor. However, the majority opinion highlighted that First Amendment protections are robust and that content-based restrictions on speech, even false statements, require a compelling governmental interest. While the dissenting view is compelling in its concern for the impact of false claims, the Court's majority emphasized the broader principle of free speech and the difficulty of justifying content-based restrictions without substantial evidence of harm. 2. Could Congress have crafted a different law that would have achieved its intended result but survive a constitutional challenge? How? Answer: If Congress drafts a different law, it could not be content-based regulation. Congress could craft a law that targets false statements about military honors without infringing on First Amendment rights by focusing on fraud or misrepresentation rather than content-based restrictions. For example, the law could address deceptive practices specifically related to obtaining benefits or causing harm through false claims. This approach would involve proving that the false statements led to tangible harm or fraud, thus shifting the focus from the content of the speech to the effects of the deceitful conduct. By avoiding direct regulation of speech content and concentrating on fraudulent activities, such a law could better align with constitutional protections while still addressing the underlying concerns of false representations. • Applying the Constitution: Standards of Review: When reviewing a government action for constitutional soundness, the Court classifies the action into one of three categories of scrutiny: (1) the rational basis category, or (2) intermediate-level scrutiny, or (3) Strict scrutiny. o Rationale Basis: The government need only show that their action advanced a legitimate government objective and the action was minimally related to the government’s objective. o Intermediate-Level Scrutiny: The government must prove that their action advanced an important government objective and that the action is substantially related to the government’s objective. o Strict Scrutiny: (1) The government’s objective must be compelling, (2) the means chosen by the government to advance that objective is necessary to achieve that compelling end, and (3) no less-restrictive alternatives existed. Case 2.2: Brown v. Entertainment Merchants, 131 S. Ct. 2729 (2011) [P. 43]. Facts: In 2005, the state of California passed a law that banned the sale or rental of violent video games to anyone under age 18 and required warning labels beyond the existing Entertainment Software Ratings Board’s voluntary rating system. The law covered games in which players had the options of killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting characters that represent human beings. Entertainment Merchants Association sought to have the law declared unconstitutional. Issue: Are video games are considered speech, similar to plays and movies, and are therefore protected by the First Amendment despite the fact that some people find the video games offensive? Ruling: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the video game industry and struck down the law as unconstitutional. Because the law tried to restrict speech, the Court applied a strict scrutiny analysis to the statute and found that California failed to meet their burden of proving a compelling government interest through the use of expert testimony, and the law was both too broad/ too narrow. Case Questions: 1. Why did the state of California have to meet a strict scrutiny standard for this statute to be constitutional? Answer: Content-based regulation of speech by the government triggers strict scrutiny. The state of California had to meet a strict scrutiny standard for the statute because it imposed a content-based restriction on speech. The Supreme Court views laws that restrict speech based on content with heightened scrutiny, particularly when the speech is protected under the First Amendment. Strict scrutiny requires the government to prove that the law serves a compelling government interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. In this case, the law aimed to regulate violent video games, which the Court classified as protected speech akin to books, plays, and movies. Since the regulation was based on the content of the video games, California needed to demonstrate that the law was necessary to serve a critical interest and that no less restrictive means could achieve the same goal. The Court found that California failed to meet these requirements, leading to the law being struck down. 2. If the expert testimony had been conclusive and scientifically proven, should the court’s decision be different? Why or why not? Answer: Perhaps. While we can’t know for sure, the Court did point out that the government had failed to carry their burden and this suggests that scientific proof may help the government overcome a strict scrutiny analysis. If the expert testimony had been conclusive and scientifically proven, the court's decision might have been different. Conclusive evidence demonstrating a compelling government interest could potentially satisfy the strict scrutiny standard. However, even with strong evidence, the law must still be narrowly tailored, and the Court might consider whether less restrictive means could achieve the same goals. The overall constitutional principle of protecting free speech remains a significant factor. 3. Should a state be legislating regarding this type of conduct, or should such conduct be solely a private issue to be decided on and enforced by parents or guardians? Answer: This question is intended to spur discussion on the role of government in private lives of its citizens. States should be cautious in legislating on such matters, as the regulation of content and conduct often falls within the realm of personal choice and parental control. While states can address public concerns, individual decisions about exposure to media and its impact are typically better managed by parents or guardians, who can tailor supervision to their children’s specific needs and values. • The Supremacy Clause and Preemption: Under the Supremacy Clause, federal laws preempt (override) any conflicting state laws. C. Commerce Powers [P.44] Points to emphasize: • Congress’s broadest power is derived from the Commerce Clause whereby Congress is given the power to “regulate Commerce among the several states.” • Application of Commerce Powers: The direct and broad power to regulate all persons and products related to the flow of intrastate commerce is the fundamental source of its authority. o Interstate versus Intrastate Commercial Activity: Congress has the authority to regulate (1) channels of interstate commerce, (2) the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, (3) the articles moving in interstate commerce, and (4) intrastate commerce when it has a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce. • The Supreme Court has even deferred to congressional regulation of a product that is cultivated for noncommercial purposes solely in one state as sufficiently related to interstate commerce, citing Gonzalez v. Raich. o Civil Rights Legislation: In the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Congress used its commerce power to ban discrimination in places of public accommodation such as restaurants (Katzenbach v. McClung) and hotels (Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S.) o Non-commercial Activity: Some limits on Congress’s commerce power still exist, such as in cases where the activity is purely non-commercial, the activity Congress seeks to regulate must have a sufficient nexus to some legitimate economic interest (U.S. v. Lopez; U.S. v. Morrison). • Constitutional Restrictions on State Regulation of Commerce: States are free to regulate commerce that crosses into their state borders so long as (1) it does not impose a discriminatory law, and (2) the state law is a legitimate effort to regulate health, safety, and welfare. Case 2.3 Gonzalez v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) [P. 47] Facts: In 1996, California voters approved a proposition legalizing the use of marijuana for medical purposes. The California legislature then adopted the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 to ensure that its residents had access to marijuana for medical use as an alternative to conventional methods. Raich and Monson were patients diagnosed with a variety of medical conditions which were not alleviated through traditional methods and medications. As a result, physicians in each case prescribed marijuana. In 2002, U.S. drug agents arrived at Monson’s home and confiscated and destroyed her marijuana plants pursuant to a federal law called the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Issue: Does enforcement of the CSA violate the Commerce Clause because the medical marijuana was cultivated and possessed within state borders and did not enter the stream of commerce? Ruling: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the government and held that the CSA was a valid exercise of Congressional powers derived from the Commerce Clause. In analyzing the question of purely intrastate production and use of marijuana, the Court pointed out that Congress need only supply a rational basis for believing that locally cultivated marijuana would end up in interstate commerce. Case Questions: 1. The CSA expressly prohibits the cultivation, processing, distribution, and use of marijuana, declaring it unfit for any legal use. Since a market for marijuana legally cannot exist, why is this a Commerce Clause case? Do you agree or disagree with the Court that locally grown and locally consumed crops can have an impact on interstate commerce? Answer: This is Congressional authority that derives from the Commerce Clause and this question is intended to spur discussion of the appropriate scope of the Commerce Clause to regulate intra-state activities. The Commerce Clause case arises because the CSA regulates all aspects of marijuana, including local cultivation and use, based on the potential impact on interstate commerce. Even if marijuana doesn’t currently enter interstate commerce, the Court found that Congress could regulate it to prevent potential market disruptions. This broad interpretation supports the idea that local activities can affect national markets. 2. The California law gave licensed physicians the duty and authority to prescribe medical marijuana. Should a court have the right or power to substitute its judgment for the judgment of a trained professional? Answer: This question is intended to spur discussion on the role of the federal government in regulation of controlled substances. Courts generally should not substitute their judgment for that of trained professionals like physicians, who have expertise in medical matters. Judicial review typically respects professional discretion, especially in complex medical decisions, unless there is clear evidence of misconduct or legal violation. 3. California enacted this law to provide relief to certain California citizens deemed to need it. Citizens of other states were excluded from all provisions of this statute. Should the federal government have the right to determine that a federal law preempts a state law designed and intended to affect only the state’s residents? Answer: This question is intended to spur discussion on the role of the federal government versus the right of state government to regulate matters within its own borders. The federal government can preempt state laws under the Supremacy Clause if federal regulation addresses national interests. While states can address local concerns, federal law may override state laws to ensure uniformity in critical areas like controlled substances, even if it impacts only state residents. Legal/Ethical Reflection and Discussion: Gonzalez v. Raich [P. 48] D. Tax and Spend Power [P.49] Points to emphasize: • Congress hast the power to tax the citizenry and to spend the federal government’s money in any way that promotes the common defense and general welfare. • Necessary and Proper Clause: Under the Necessary and Proper Clause, Congress may also place conditions on the use of federal money in order to achieve some public policy objective. (Refer to South Dakota v. Dole). Self-Check: What is the constitutional source of authority for each of the following laws? [P.50] Concept Summary: Structure and Nature of the Constitution: Federal Powers [P.50] E. Constitutional Protections [P.51] Points to emphasize: • The Bill of Rights contains protections for citizens from unlawful or repressive acts by the government and guarantee right of due process. • The Bill of Rights and Business: Corporations and other business entities do not always receive the same level of constitutional protections as individuals. Teaching Tip: The First Amendment as a Cultural Icon As you begin your discussion of the First Amendment, it can be an ideal time to bring up the fact that the free speech and expression rights are somewhat unique to Americans. For example, many European nations ban the sale of Nazi memorabilia and do not permit marches or other signs of expression if it is related to recognition of the Nazi regime. A nation’s history influences its laws. I have found that pointing this out is a good teaching moment for students to recognize that their frame of reference is almost inherently American-centric. • First Amendment: Contains the important introductory phrase “Congress shall make no law” and then articulates several specific protections against government encroachment in the areas of religion, press, speech, assembly, and petition of grievances. o Limits on Free Speech: Although the Supreme Court has given broad protections to speech that involves political expression, the First Amendment is not absolute and the government may place reasonable restrictions related to time and place of political expression in certain cases. Teaching Tip: Famous Holmes Quote Students remember that free speech is not an absolute right by recalling Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’s point that the Constitution does not protect one who falsely yells “fire” in a crowded theatre. o Commercial Speech: Traditionally, advertising had little or no First Amendment protection, but the Supreme Court has gradually increased the constitutional protections related to advertising allowing purely commercial speech to have partial First Amendment protection so long as it is truthful (Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council). • Central Hudson Gas v. Public Service Commission created a framework for a four-part test that subjects government restrictions on commercial speech to a form of intermediate-level scrutiny. • (1) Qualifies for First Amendment protection so long as it concerns lawful activities and is not misleading; --if it qualifies-- (2) A substantial government interest in regulating the speech must exist; (3) The government must demonstrate that the restriction directly advances the claimed government interest; and (4) The governments restriction must not more extensive to achieve the government’s asserted interest. Case 2.4 R.J. Reynolds Fact: Among those proposed by the FDA were images of a man exhaling cigarette smoke through a tracheotomy hole in his throat and a pair of diseased lungs next to a pair of healthy lungs. R.J. Reynolds and four other tobacco companies (RJR) challenged the rule arguing that it would infringe on their commercial speech rights under the First Amendment. The trial court ruled in favor of RJR and the FDA appealed. Issue: Did the government violate RJR’s First Amendment rights? Ruling: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the trial court’s decision in favor of RJR. The court applied the Central Hudson test and ruled that the FDA had failed to supply any evidence that the rule which restricted the commercial speech directly advances a substantial government interest. The court ruled that the labels were not purely factual because they did not convey any warning information or offer any information about the impact of smoking. Rather, the images were intended to generate emotional responses. Therefore, the FDA could not meet their burden under the Central Hudson test with respect to how the graphic warnings directly advance the government’s interest. Case Questions: 1. This question is intended to focus attention on different levels of scrutiny and the impact on the final decision. Answer: Levels of Scrutiny and Impact on Decision: The case highlights the application of different levels of scrutiny to commercial speech. Under the Central Hudson test, which is used for evaluating restrictions on commercial speech, the government must demonstrate that the regulation directly advances a substantial government interest and is not more extensive than necessary. The court’s decision reflects a strict scrutiny approach, requiring robust evidence that the FDA's graphic warnings directly furthered the government’s health interests. The court found that the FDA's proposed images, which aimed to provoke emotional responses rather than provide factual warnings, did not meet this standard, showing the impact of rigorous scrutiny on the outcome. 2. The FDA needed more persuasive evidence that the rule advanced the interest of the government. Answer: Need for Persuasive Evidence: The FDA’s failure to provide sufficient evidence that the graphic warnings directly advanced its substantial interests was a key factor in the court's ruling. To meet the Central Hudson test, the FDA needed to show that the images would effectively contribute to reducing smoking rates or informing consumers in a meaningful way. The court determined that the images were intended more to elicit emotional reactions than to deliver clear, factual information about the dangers of smoking. Consequently, without persuasive evidence linking the images to a direct advancement of public health goals, the regulation could not be justified under the First Amendment protections for commercial speech. 3. This question is intended to spur discussion of the difference between compelled speech and prohibited speech. Answer: Compelled Speech vs. Prohibited Speech: The distinction between compelled speech and prohibited speech is crucial in this context. Compelled speech involves forcing individuals or entities to convey specific messages, which can raise First Amendment concerns if it infringes on their freedom of expression. Prohibited speech, on the other hand, involves restrictions on speech content that is deemed harmful or undesirable. In R.J. Reynolds, the issue was about whether the FDA's requirement for graphic images amounted to compelled speech. The court found that the FDA’s images were not just factual warnings but intended to elicit emotional responses, thus crossing into the realm of compelling specific types of expression rather than merely regulating harmful content. This distinction influenced the court's determination that the regulation did not align with First Amendment protections. o Advertising and Obscenity Regulation: Obscenity regulation of commercial speech is subject to the same scrutiny as any other government regulation of commercial speech, referencing Bad Frog Brewery, Inc. v. N.Y. State Liquor Authority. Note to Instructor: The “Bad Frog” label at issue is available through Connect or through an Internet search. o Political Speech by Corporations: Typically, political speech by corporations is fully protected by the First Amendment. • Political Spending and Corporations: In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that the government may not ban all political spending by corporations in candidate elections. F. Other Amendments [P.55] Points to emphasize: • The Fourth Amendment protects individual citizens’ rights to be secure in their “persons, houses, papers and effects.” • The Fifth Amendment provides that no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” G. Due Process Protections [P.56] Points to emphasize: • The Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments protect individuals from being deprived of “life, liberty, or property” without due process of law. • Fourteenth Amendment: Makes the Bill of Rights applicable to the states. • The Due Process Clauses serves two purposes: (1) to impose procedural requirements on federal and state governments, and (2) to limit the substantive power of the states to regulate certain areas affecting individual liberties. o Equal Protection: The Clause that guarantees that the government will treat people who are similarly situated equally. Concept Summary: Constitutional Protections [P.57] H. Privacy [P.58] Points to emphasize: • The right of privacy, although not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, is implied by language in the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments, which created a constitutionally protected zone of privacy (Griswold v. Connecticut; Roe v. Wade).. • Federal Statutes: In addition to privacy rights afforded by the Constitution, Congress has legislates specific privacy rights such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and Freedom of Information Act. o The USA Patriot Act provides increased authority for government officials to surreptitiously access and/or monitor individual and corporate financial records, e-mail, telephone conversations, and Internet activity when investigating possible terrorism-related activity. • Workplace Privacy: Most privacy rights afforded by the Constitution do not extend to the workplace; nonetheless, privacy rights have become increasingly important to business owners and managers as Congress and state legislatures seek to clarify workplace privacy rights. END OF CHAPTER PROBLEMS, QUESTIONS AND CASES Theory to Practice 1. Congress is using the Commerce Clause as their authority for passing the law. Quick will likely challenge the law as an unconstitutional exercise of congressional power because the activity being regulated is purely local and no enumerated power exists. [Ties to “Overview of Federal Powers” and “Commerce Powers” ] 2. In this case, Congress is using its Spending Power to implement policy. This changes the analysis because Congress has greater latitude to set policy via conditions on spending. [Ties to “Tax and Spend Power”] 3. Holmestown’s actions amount to a discriminatory tax because it impermissibly impacts interstate commerce. Therefore, the law is likely to be ruled unconstitutional. [Ties to “Constitutional Restrictions on State Regulation of Commerce”] 4. The Due Process Clause requires the government to provide a hearing and/or procedure whenever the government has taken some action to deprive. [Ties to “Due Process Protections”] 5. The Fourth Amendment is at issue. If the search is related to a criminal investigation, the government must have probable cause. If the search is related to an administrative investigation, the standard for the government to obtain a warrant is lower. [Ties to “Other Amendments”] Manager’s Challenge [P.60] A sample answer to all Manager’s Challenge questions is provided in the student and instructor versions of this textbook’s Web site www.mhhe.com/melvin. Case Summary 2.1: Preemption: Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., [P.61] 1. Given the Supreme Court’s language and the result of this case, is Congress’s preemption power broad or narrow? Explain your answer. Answer: Congress’s preemption power is limited in scope to invalidate only state law that is in direct conflict with federal law. In the absence of express congressional intent, state law is pre-empted if that law actually conflicts with federal law, or if federal law so thoroughly occupies a legislative field ‘as to make reasonable the inference that Congress left no room for the States to supplement it.’ In this sense, Congress’s preemption power isn’t broadly applied over state law in general, rather it arises only when there is a direct conflict between state and federal law. 2. Does the Supreme Court’s ruling bar all residents of New Jersey, or any other state, from bringing suit against a tobacco company for false advertising or promotion? Why or why not? Answer: Yes. The Supreme Court’s ruling indicates that Congress chose specifically to regulate tobacco related advertising and promotion and therefore federal law is supreme to New Jersey and any other state that attempts to regulate that same category of advertising. 3. Why would Congress want to preempt state law regarding the advertising and promotion of tobacco products? Do you agree with their decision to do so? Why or why not? Answer: Congressional preemption of state law regarding the advertising and promotion of tobacco products serves the purpose of maintaining consistency in a public policy matter. One could support the theory that this decision is appropriate because the federal government is in the best position to balance the general welfare of the public with the business interest of the tobacco industry as a whole. Case Summary 2.2: Commercial Speech: State v. DeAngelo [P.61] 1. Is the ordinance constitutionally sound? Answer: The ordinance would not be constitutionally sound unless the government can prove that (1) a substantial government interest in regulating the sign exist, (2) the restriction directly advances the claimed government interest, and (3) the restriction must be not more extensive than necessary to achieve the government’s asserted interest. 2. What level of scrutiny will a court apply to the ordinance? Answer: In cases of Commercial speech the government applies intermediate-level scrutiny. The level of scrutiny a court applies to an ordinance depends on the nature of the ordinance and the rights it affects. If the ordinance involves fundamental rights or suspect classifications (such as race or religion), the court will apply strict scrutiny, requiring the government to show a compelling interest and that the ordinance is narrowly tailored. For other types of laws, such as economic regulations or less sensitive issues, the court will typically use rational basis scrutiny, which only requires the ordinance to be rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Case Summary 2.3: Commerce Clause: U.S. v. Alderman [P.62] 1. I s the law constitutionally sound? Answer: Yes, the activity criminalized by the statutes has a sufficient nexus to interstate commerce to fall within the broad congressional power under the Constitution. 2. If Alderman purchased the body armor in the same state as it was manufactured, how does that affect “interstate” commerce? Answer: It affects “interstate” commerce in the sense that it has a substantial economic effect on “interstate” commerce. Case Summary 2.4: Necessary and Proper Clause: United States v. American Library Association [P.62] 1. Is the plan constitutional? Answer: Yes, Congress can cite the Necessary and Proper clause as authorization to set conditions on the use of federal money in order to achieve some public policy objective. 2. Is the First Amendment at issue? Explain your answer. Answer: Yes. In order to comply with CIPA, the public libraries would have to block a substantial amount of constitutionally protected speech, in violation of the First Amendment. Case Summary 2.6 Pagan v. Fruchey and Village of Glendale [P.63] 1. Could the ordinance itself be modified to meet the third part of the Central Hudson test? Answer: It could be argued that a more specific ordinance could better facilitate satisfying the third requirement of the Central Hudson Test. Perhaps modifying the ordinance to prohibit parking a vehicle on a public roadway for the purposes of displaying it for sale, when the “For Sale” sign is visible to vehicles traveling in the roadway, would be easier to demonstrate that the restriction directly advances their claimed government interest. However, even in light of such modification, Glendale still would have to offer data to support their contention to meet their burden in showing that the ordinance actually advances its claimed interest in traffic safety. 2. What type of data do you suppose the court wanted from Glendale to support their claim that the ordinance advanced their traffic safety interest? Why didn’t the court give more weight to the police chief’s opinion? Answer: The court wanted actual data and evidence to support their contention that the ordinance advanced their traffic safety interest. This would include statistics such as a showing that accidents increased by “X” amount when a vehicle is posted for sale on a public road. The police chief’s opinion is mere speculation about something that might occur rather than concrete evidence that it has occurred. An opinion of the like does not demonstrate that the restriction directly advances the claimed interest as is needed to satisfy the requirement Case Summary 2.7: Williamson v. Mazda [P. 63] 1. Who prevails and why? Answer: The court ruled that the federal statute did not preempt state tort law because there was no indication in the statute that Congress meant to preempt such claims. 2. If the federal law had mandated specific standards rather than give manufactures a choice, how would that impact your analysis? Answer: This may bolster Mazda’s argument because it may indicate that the federal statute was providing a safe-harbor to manufacturers so longs as they complied with the specific requirements. Quick Assessment Questions (QAQ) 1. Which standard of review is typically used by the Supreme Court when considering the constitutionality of laws that are related to economic and tax regulation? a. Rational Basis b. Intermediate-Level Scrutiny c. Strict Scrutiny d. Indulgent Scrutiny e. Preemptive Scrutiny Answer: a 2. Under the Commerce Clause, Congress has the authority to regulate which of the following: a. Channels of interstate commerce b. All intrastate commerce c. Articles moving in interstate commerce d. a and c e. All of the above Answer: d 3. Which of the following are functions of the Constitution? a. Establishing a structure for federal government and rules for amendments b. Providing procedural protections for U.S. citizens against wrongful government actions c. granting specific powers for legislative, executive and judicial branches d. a and c e. All of the above Answer: e 4. Federal legislation or regulation must always be authorized by a specific, enumerated power in the Constitution. A) True B) False Answer: True 5. Businesses have full First Amendment protection for commercial speech. A) True B) False Answer: False 6. Under the Supremacy Clause, valid state laws preempt federal laws. A) True B) False Answer: False Solution Manual for The Legal Environment of Business: A Managerial Approach: Theory to Practice Sean P. Melvin, Michael A. Katz 9780078023804
Download
Close
Close
