WILLIAM MITCHELL COLLEGE OF LAW
FINAL EXAMINATION
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW POWERS
Professor Jordan
Tuesday, December 20, 1994
1:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m.
Room 301

Standard Exam Instructions and Student Conduct Code

ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS:


1. This is a two hour open book exam consisting of three essay questions. You may spend any amount of time on the questions, however, each questions was designed to be answered in no more forty minutes. Place the test question in the bluebook when you turn in the exam and number your bluebook so that you indicate the total number of bluebooks you have used e.g. 1 of 2, 2 of 2.


2. The questions are equally weighted (33%).


3. Please read the fact pattern carefully and answer the question asked at the end of each fact pattern. Irrelevant material will not improve your grade and in fact may lower your score if it makes your answer inconsistent and/or incoherent.


QUESTION I. (40 min.)


The Black Lung Benefits Act of 1972 was passed by the Congress and provides federal funds to coal miners who have been totally disabled by pneumoconiosis, a respiratory disease commonly found among coal miners. The Department of Labor awards benefits to disabled miners after an administrative hearing which determines a miner's eligibility along with the level of benefits. The Department established a rule allowing a claimant (miner), if s/he desires, be represented by counsel. The Act also provides that if a claimant wins and is represented by counsel s\he is entitled to reasonable attorney's fees payable from federal funds. However, any fee charged by an attorney must be approved by the Department of Labor. The Department has taken the position that all contractual fee agreements between an attorney and client are invalid and the Department has the exclusive authority to set the level of compensation for an attorney representing a claimant.



Hank Crawford is an attorney who graduated from law school in July 1994 and passed the bar exam. He has a struggling tax law practice but heard about the Black Lung Act and is thinking about looking for potential claimants. He knows little about the Act, but he has heard about the regulations governing fees. He believes the Department's regulations will prevent him from being adequately compensated for his services if he chooses to represent claimants. He also contacted a few potential claimants who indicated they might be interested in filing a claim but did not know if they were eligible. Hank explained the fee restrictions to them and how it may affect their ability to find a lawyer who will represent them under the conditions imposed by the department.

Hank hires an attorney who files a complaint in federal district court naming Hank and the potential claimants as plaintiffs. The complaint challenges the constitutionality of the Black Lung Act as a violation of Hank's and the potential claimants' right to due process of law. The government lawyer representing the Department of Labor moves to dismiss the suit on the basis that the court is without jurisdiction to hear the claim.

ASSUME YOU ARE A LAW CLERK WORKING FOR THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGE HEARING THIS CASE. THE JUDGE BELIEVES THE CASE SHOULD BE DISMISSED. SHE TELLS YOU TO DRAFT AN OPINION EXPLAINING WHY THE COURT IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND TO BE SURE TO ADDRESS THE ARGUMENTS THAT

THE PLAINTIFFS WILL ASSERT IN FAVOR OF THE POSITION THAT THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION.



QUESTION II. (40 min.)


Two years ago the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) received a tip from an informant concerning the existence of a group called MALI (Musicians Against Legal Injustice). According to the informant the group is an association composed of 100 musicians who are protesting the twin evils of legal injustice and new age music. The group planned to blow up concert halls around the country where new age music groups played to large audiences of rich and corrupt lawyers with poor musical taste. The FBI in response to the tip began following some of the members of MALI and collecting information concerning the activities of the group. The information collected on individual members included credit histories, secretly tape recorded telephone conversations and videotape recording. Ultimately, the FBI terminated the investigation when it discovered the informant was unreliable and that MALI was simply a peaceful protest group.


Cannonball Adderley is a musician and is a member of MALI. He learned of the FBI investigation and that information was gathered on him and nine other members of the group. He tells the nine other members of the group about the investigation but many of them express the view that they do not feel threatened by the FBI and they don't feel any need to Act. Cannonball then goes to the president of MALI with this information and the president is outraged. Both Cannonball and the president agree to file a suit in federal district court. Cannonball will be one plaintiff and MALI will be the other plaintiff acting on behalf of the other members of MALI who were the subject of the FBI probe. They allege that the activity of the FBI violated their First Amendment right to freedom of speech and that Cannonball and the members of MALI suffered irreparable harm because the FBI possessed information about Cannonball and other members which could be disseminated and result in employers, especially government employers, not hiring them to play at public government-sponsored events. In order to prevent the dissemination of the information the relief requested was that the files be destroyed.


After the case was filed, the FBI entered into an agreement with the National Archives in which all of its files and information on MALI and its members was transferred to the National Archives. Under the agreement with the National Archives the files would be permanently sealed such that no one, not even the FBI, would have access to the information.


ASSUME YOU ARE THE ATTORNEY REPRESENTING THE FBI. AFTER LEARNING OF THE AGREEMENT WITH THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND REVIEWING THE ASSERTIONS OF MALI ON BEHALF OF ITS MEMBERS YOU DECIDE THE COURT LACKS JURISDICTION. PLEASE PRESENT THE ARGUMENTS SUPPORTING YOUR POSITION THAT THE COURT LACKS JURISDICTION ON SOME OR ALL OF THE CLAIMS IN THIS CASE.


QUESTION III. (40 min.)

Louisville, Kentucky, is a city of 500,000 residents located in northern Kentucky. As part of its municipal duties the city is responsible for providing garbage collection service for its residents. Over the past twenty years the city hired various private garbage collection companies to haul garbage. These companies were located either in Louisville, or one mile away across the Ohio river in the state of Indiana. Unfortunately, none of the companies proved to be reliable in providing service. So, three years ago the city decided to collect the garbage. It purchased trucks and hired a work force to accomplish this task. Each residence is charged a set fee for hauling the garbage. Initially the city gave each resident the option of using the city service or a private company, but it subsequently passed an ordinance which allowed residents to use a private company but only if the company charged no less for its services than the city charges to collect the garbage. Thus, a resident could only use the services of a company that charged at least as much as Louisville does to collect the garbage of the residents.


However, since Louisville began to collect its own garbage the garbage companies in Louisville and Indiana have been complaining. They believe that by collecting its own garbage and passing the ordinance Louisville has effectively excluded other garbage companies from the garbage hauling market in Louisville. Louisville has offered a number of incentives to its residents such as not requiring its residents to sort its garbage into recyclable and nonrecyclable garbage. The private companies contend that they cannot offer this service. If the company sorts the garbage this takes extra time and manpower which drives up costs. They have therefore been unable to offer garbage collection rates that are at least as low as Louisville's. Louisville sorts the garbage and operates with little or no profit. However, any losses are simply covered by reallocating funds from other city services. The garbage companies decide to take action when they discover that Louisville is now collecting garbage in neighboring cities at the same rate it charges Louisville customers. However, these cities are not subject to the Louisville ordinance concerning use of the city garbage collection service. These cities use Louisville because of Louisville's low price. These cities are, as a result, canceling their contracts with private Indiana and Louisville garbage collection companies.

ASSUME YOU ARE A LOCAL EXPERT ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. THE INDIANA GARBAGE COMPANIES COME TO YOU FOR SAGE ADVICE ON WHETHER LOUISVILLE'S GARBAGE COLLECTION IN LOUISVILLE AND OTHER CITIES OFFEND THE CONSTITUTION. PLEASE ADVISE THEM ON WHETHER LOUISVILLE HAS VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION.