WILLIAM MITCHELL COLLEGE OF LAW
FINAL EXAMINATION
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW--POWERS
Professor Kenneth Kirwin
Monday, December 13, 1993 - 6:30-9:30 p.m.
3 Hours - Closed Book, Open 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 Boyum) 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 three questions, each worth a specified percentage.
You may use any written, typed, or word-processed materials you have prepared, but not any
books or printed or photo-copied materials.
Although all three questions in this exam are based upon a common fact situation, the answer to
each question will be graded separately. Therefore, make sure that your answer to a question
includes only material that responds to that question and not another question. Also, make
sure that the answer stands by itself and does not rely upon or refer to anything included in your
answer to another question.
Similarly, although the facts may suggest issues of Civil Procedure or Constitutional Law--Liberties, please confine your answers to Constitutional Law--Powers issues, i.e., matters
addressed in class or in the reading assignments for our Constitutional Law--Powers course.
You will have three hours to complete the exam. After studying the common fact situation,
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.
Good luck!
COMMON FACT SITUATION FOR ALL QUESTIONS
[NOTE: Following are facts common to all three questions in this exam. Although these facts
may suggest issues of Constitutional Law--Liberties, the questions following it are confined to
Constitutional Law--Powers issues. Please make sure that your answer to each question includes
only material that responds to that question.]
Although the federal government currently is considering a potential federal statute providing
universal health care coverage, because the problem is so critical the legislature of the State of
Mitchell decided to deal with the problem at the state level. It enacted the Mitchell Universal
Health Care Act ("the Act"), effective on April 1, 1993.
Section 464 of the Act provides that every employer employing more than 100 employees must
participate in either Option A or Option B:
Option A: The employer offers each employee a choice of at least three private health care plans
meeting certain minimum requirements (for example, a plan operated by an insurance company, a
plan operated by a health maintenance organization (HMO), or a plan operated by the employer
itself). If an employee declines to choose, the employer enrolls the employee in the least
expensive plan offered. The employer pays, on behalf of each employee, an amount equal to 50%
of the premium of the least expensive plan offered.
Option B: The employer enrolls each employee in the Mitchell State Basic Health Plan, operated
by the Mitchell State Health Department. The employer and the employee each pay 50% of the
premium. The total premium will not exceed the cost of the least expensive private plan that
meets the specified minimum requirements. The Mitchell State Basic Health Plan is available only
to employers for their employees; it may not be purchased by individuals.
Section 406(27) provides that the Mitchell State Health Department, charged with administering
the Act, will make recommendations to the governor and legislature before December 1, 1994, as
to how seasonal workers and their employers may be brought under the provisions of the Act,
with particular attention to the financial impact on seasonal workers and their employers. Until
this study is completed and the legislature takes affirmative action, section 464 does not apply to
seasonal workers or their employers. Section 402(22) specifies:
"Seasonal worker" means any person (a) employed in food processing, agricultural production,
agricultural harvesting, plantation Christmas tree planting, and tree planting on timber land; (b)
whose current employment is expected to last six months or less; and (c) whose residence 30 days
before commencing the employment was outside of the county where the person is employed.
The effect of sections 402(22) and 406(27) is to deny coverage to migrant workers. The Act
covers almost all other employees, whether temporary or year-round. The legislature's official
position was that the exclusion of migrant workers is one of practicality: the very nature of the
seasonal employment cycle and conditions makes providing coverage under an employer-based
health care system a complicated matter. However, there may have been other reasons.
Legislators in agricultural districts insisted on the exemption for their farmer-rancher constituents
in exchange for their votes in favor of the bill. It might be noted that while people of Hispanic
descent represent about 4% of Mitchell's population, they represent about 90% of the state's
migrant worker population.
QUESTION #1 (45%)
(Suggested time: 6:30-7:50)
Does the Act violate the parts of the federal constitution studied in our Constitutional Law
Powers course? (Please discuss only Constitutional Law--Powers issues, not Constitutional Law--Liberties issues).
QUESTION #2 (45%)
(Suggested time: 7:50-9:10)
On September 1, 1993, Anita Alvarez, Bonita Baez, and Carlos Chavez filed a federal district
court lawsuit against the Mitchell State Department of Health and its director, Nora Nightengale.
Alvarez, an Arizona resident, worked for Presidio Produce Company at its vegetable canning
plant during the months of June, July, and August of each of the past ten years. Baez, a resident
and citizen of Mexico, worked at that plant from June through August of 1993. Chavez resided
in the State of Mitchell's Jefferson County on September 1, 1993, but moved to Adams County on
December 1, 1993.
Presidio has 200 year-round employees and has additional employees during the peak canning
months of June, July, and August. Its canning plant is located in Mitchell's Adams County. All
three Plaintiffs alleged that they plan to work at that plant from June 1 through August 31, 1994
and would be subject to the Act's seasonal worker exclusion.
Plaintiffs seek both past and future relief. For past relief, each Plaintiff seeks payment of the
difference between (1) the amount that it would have cost him or her to secure comparable
coverage from June 1 through August 31, 1993 and (2) the amount the Plaintiff would have had
to pay if covered by the Act.
For future relief, Plaintiffs seek an injunction against the operation of the Act unless and until it is
expanded to cover seasonal workers equally with all other workers in the State of Mitchell.
As alternative future relief if the Act is not enjoined, Plaintiffs request that Defendants make
future payments of the difference between (1) the amount that it will cost each Plaintiff while
working for Presidio to secure his or her own comparable coverage after June 1, 1994 and (2) the
amount each Plaintiff would have paid if covered by the Act.
Please discuss the extent to which the federal district court should allow each Plaintiff to press his
or her claims and obtain the requested relief if the Act violates the federal Constitution.
QUESTION # 3 (10%)
(Suggested time: 9:10-9:30)
Please discuss the extent to which the issues and results regarding Baez in Questions I and II
would be different if there were an agreement between the United States and Mexico forbidding
employment discrimination against each other's citizens?
*****************************************************************
AT 9:30, PLEASE MAKE SURE YOUR EXAM NUMBER IS ON EACH BLUEBOOK, PUT
EXAM (UNFOLDED) INTO BLUEBOOKS, AND PUT BLUEBOOKS INTO THE BOX.
HAVE A NICE VACATION!