WILLIAM MITCHELL COLLEGE OF LAW

FINAL EXAMINATION

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW--LIBERTIES

Professors Kenneth Kirwin & Ann Iijima

Thursday, May 19, 1994 - 6:30-9:30 p.m.

3 Hours - Open Book, Notes

1. For anonymity, use your assigned test number which was mailed to you.

2. Put your test number on this page and on all bluebooks.

3. If you do not know your test number, you may obtain it at the Communication Center or in the Records Office (Cindy Egeness) during the first 30 minutes of the exam period.

4. If you do not use your test number, you will be deemed to have waived your privilege of anonymous grading.

5. TURN IN YOUR BLUEBOOKS AND THIS EXAM AT THE END OF THE PERIOD.

*****************************************************************

STUDENT CONDUCT CODE

IT IS A VIOLATION OF THE CODE:

1. To use any sources which are forbidden by the instructor to complete an exam.

2. To submit as one's own work the work of another.

3. To engage in any conduct which tends to give an unfair advantage to any student in any academic matter.

Knowledge of any violation should be promptly reported.

VIOLATION OF THE STUDENT CONDUCT CODE MAY RESULT IN EXPULSION

OR SUSPENSION FROM THE COLLEGE OR DISMISSAL FROM THE CLASS.

*****************************************************************

GRADUATING SENIORS: IF YOU ARE A GRADUATING SENIOR, NOTE THIS FACT ON ALL BLUEBOOKS AND THIS EXAM PAPER. DO SO CONSPICUOUSLY.

TYPING AREA: If you are going to type your examination, the typing area is located in Room 107. You must return the exam to this room at the conclusion of the exam period.

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

This is a closed-book, open-notes exam with one one-hour question and one two-hour question. You may use any written, typed, or word-processed materials you have prepared, but no books, pamphlets, handouts, or other printed or photo-copied materials.

The answer to each question will be graded separately. Therefore, please make sure that each answer stands by itself and does not rely upon or refer to anything included in your answer to the other question.

You will have three hours to complete the exam. Please take the time to read each question carefully and outline your analysis before you begin to write the answer. If you make notes or outlines to organize your answer, please put them on your exam paper or in a separate bluebook marked "SCRATCH." Only material written in essay form will be considered in grading.

If you think that, with respect to any particular issue, there are insufficient facts to warrant drawing any conclusion, please indicate what kinds of additional facts would be relevant and why. Similarly, if you think that any of the statements of fact contain an ambiguity, please resolve the ambiguity for yourself, indicating briefly the nature of the ambiguity and your resolution.

Please discuss all issues reasonably presented, even if resolution of some would alone dispose of the problem. Specify all grounds and reasons which support your conclusion, including alternative grounds, and discuss possible contrary arguments.

Please write legibly.

QUESTION I (one hour)

Suggested time: 6:30-7:30

In an address to the Senate Commerce Committee, which was considering three bills that would regulate television violence, Attorney General Janet Reno stated that the entertainment industry itself needed to address the problem. She warned that if "immediate voluntary steps are not taken and deadlines established, government should respond, and respond immediately."

In order to forestall the threatened governmental regulation, the National Association of Broadcasters ("NAB"), an association of radio and television broadcast stations, decided to undertake self-regulation. The executive committee of NAB adopted the following policy:

(1) Between the hours of 5 a.m. and 11 p.m., there shall be no broadcast of scenes involving violence or cruelty intermingled with sexual activity.

(2) Any member of NAB that violates the provisions of paragraph (1) shall be suspended from membership in NAB for one year.

(3) Any member of NAB that violates the provisions of paragraph (1) shall be permanently expelled from membership in NAB if the scenes broadcasted in violation of paragraph (1) can fairly be said to dehumanize women.

It was known by the NAB Executive Committee and all NAB members that expulsion from NAB automatically triggered a Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") review of the broadcaster, which could result in the suspension or cancellation of the broadcaster's license.

On its evening news show, broadcast station WMCL reported on a local bar that offered live sex shows to its patrons. This bar had just opened up three blocks from a junior high school. WMCL's taped footage of one of the bar's shows aired at 10:30 p.m. The tape depicted a violent rape. Although the violence involved in the bar's show was staged, the sexual acts themselves were real, and in full view of the bar's patrons and, later, WMCL's broadcast audience. Before WMCL ran the tape, the news anchor warned the broadcast audience, "We are about to show a tape of a live sex show at a local bar. The tape shows actual sexual acts and realistically-simulated violence. Children should not be permitted to watch this segment. Sensitive persons who do not wish to watch this segment should turn the TV off or to a different channel until our news is over at 10:35."

Receiving complaints about WMCL's program, NAB held a full hearing on the circumstances and expelled WMCL from membership in NAB under paragraph (3).

WMCL brought an action in federal district court, challenging NAB's policy under the United States Constitution. Please discuss the viability of any issues covered in Constitutional Law Liberties.

QUESTION II (two hours)

Suggested time: 7:30-9:30

Congress enacted 10 U.S.C. § 654, entitled Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces, effective February 28, 1994. Section 654(b) provides, in pertinent part, that a member of the armed services "shall be separated" from the armed services if any one of the following is found:

(1) That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts unless there are further findings . . . that the member has demonstrated that . . . the member does not have a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts.

(2) That the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect, unless there is a further finding . . . that the member has demonstrated that he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts.

(3) That the member has married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex.

Section 654(f)(3)(A) provides that the term "homosexual act" includes "any bodily contact

. . . between members of the same sex for the purpose of satisfying sexual desires."

Section 654(a), the "findings" subsection, states that "[t]he presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability." In Congress, the sponsor of the bill asserted that condemnation of homosexual acts is firmly rooted in Judeo-Christian moral and ethical standards, that homosexual sodomy was a capital crime under Roman law, and that allowing homosexual acts would cast aside thousands of years of moral teaching. The bill included a provision stating that "[i]t is the sense of Congress that . . . the suspension of questioning concerning homosexuality as part of the processing of individuals for accession into the Armed Forces under the interim policy of January 29, 1993, should be continued."

Jane and Bob brought suit in federal district court against William Perry, Secretary of Defense, seeking a declaration that section 654 violates the United States Constitution, and seeking an injunction against its enforcement. Their challenges were against section 654 on its face and as applied to Jane.

In their Complaint, Jane and Bob stated that they are lesbian and gay members of the United States armed services. Although her state of residence does not officially recognize same-sex marriages, Jane and her lover, another woman, registered themselves with the state as domestic partners and consider themselves married. Jane's state allows any two persons to register as domestic partners, and provides domestic partners the same rights as spouses under state laws relating to inheritance, property, and taxation. On March 1, 1994, Jane's commanding officer sent her a Notice entitled "Notification of Administrative Discharge by Reason of Unsuitability Due to Homosexuality." In the Notice, Jane's commanding officer recommended Jane's discharge based on section 654(b)(3).

On March 10, 1994, immediately after Jane and Bob filed their Complaint, Bob also received a Notification of Administrative Discharge by Reason of Unsuitability Due to Homosexuality. In this Notice, Bob's commanding officer recommended that Bob be discharged under section 654(b)(2), on the basis of his declaration in the Complaint that he is a homosexual. Jane and Bob subsequently amended their Complaint to challenge the discharge proceedings against Bob as well as those against Jane.

Do Jane and Bob have any viable claims under the United States Constitution? Please discuss only issues covered in Constitutional Law Liberties. Do not discuss any issues related to gender.



*



GOVT ACTION I

A NOT GOVT OFF PURP

NOT GOVT FUNCTION

Not trad/only

GOVT SUFF INVOLVED?

Requiring?

AG warning

Not specif auth/approv

Suff entwined?

Expul trigs review

Nature/extent of govt's action

Nature/alleged unconstlity

Free expr

DP arb sanctions

A prot by constl rt?

DISC

VAGUENESS

STANDARD

SCENES INV VIOL/CRUEL

Intermingled w/

Sexual activity

Fairly be said to

Dehumanize women

STANDING?

DISC

OVERBREADTH

REACHES PROT EXPR

Non-obscene

Disc

Indecent?

Pat off/sex activ

11 p.m. too late?

Disc

DOESN'T REACH CONDUCT

SUBST OVERBROAD?

DISC

FREE EXPR

TARGET VIOL INDEC EXPR

Content discrim

Most patently off?

EXPUL IF DEHUMANIZE WOMEN

Enhance penalty

For punishable expr

Indianapolis ord

Disc

GENDER DISCRIM

DISC

OTHER