A state law provides some funding for public schools on a per-student basis from general state revenues, which primarily come from the state income and sales taxes. The law also provides that all other public monies used to support public schools in the state come from locally levied real estate taxes. This results in a large disparity in per-student funding among the state’s many public school districts because some districts have higher property values per student than other districts. Public school students who claim to be disadvantaged by this school funding law have challenged the law solely on the ground that it violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.  Which of the following best states the burden of persuasion in this action? 

To encourage the growth of its population, a state established a program that awards $1,000 to the parents of each child born within the state, provided that at the time of the child’s birth the mother and father are U.S. citizens.A husband and wife are aliens who are permanent residents of the United States and have resided in the state for three years. When their first child was born two months ago, the husband and wife applied for and were denied the $1,000 award by state officials on the sole ground that they are not U.S. citizens. The husband and wife filed suit in federal court, contending that their exclusion from the award program is unconstitutional. No federal statute addresses this question.In this case, the court should hold that the exclusion of aliens from the state award program is:

A housing development contained one-, two-, and three-bedroom units. All units were suitable for occupancy, and the developers of the project filed the appropriate documents, including a Declaration of Restrictions that limited ownership and occupancy of the units to families or to groups of unrelated adults of not more than three in number. Each deed to the individual units also contained the restriction.One of the two-bedroom units was purchased by a woman and her boyfriend. They immediately moved into the unit with another unmarried couple who were friends of theirs. Other unit owners brought suit against the woman and her boyfriend to enjoin the occupancy by the other couple.If the other unit owners prevail, what will likely be the reason?

A housing development contained one-, two-, and three-bedroom units. All units were suitable for occupancy, and the developers of the project filed the appropriate documents, including a Declaration of Restrictions that limited ownership and occupancy of the units to families or to groups of unrelated adults of not more than three in number. Each deed to the individual units also contained the restriction.One of the two-bedroom units was purchased by a woman and her boyfriend. They immediately moved into the unit with another unmarried couple who were friends of theirs. Other unit owners brought suit against the woman and her boyfriend to enjoin the occupancy by the other couple.If the other unit owners prevail, what will likely be the reason?

A city council passed an ordinance providing: “No person may contribute more than $100 annually to any group organized for the specific purpose of supporting or opposing referenda to be voted on by the city electorate or regularly engaging in such activities.” If the ordinance is challenged in federal court, how should the court rule on the constitutionality of this ordinance?

A state legislature passed a law requiring all employers operating in the state’s oil and natural gas fields to give preference in hiring to residents of that state. The bill banned the hiring of nonresidents unless no other qualified person could be found to fill an oilfield or natural gas field position. Under prevailing economic conditions, which included a substantial decline in petroleum prices, the statute was tantamount to a total ban on hiring of nonresidents because there were so many unemployed oil and gas workers and little new exploration was taking place.The plaintiff was an experienced oilfield worker who was denied a job in the state because his permanent residence was in another state, even though he had worked in many states and foreign countries and his qualifications were better than anyone else applying for the job. The sole reason given for not hiring the plaintiff was the preferential hiring statute favoring state residents. The plaintiff filed suit in federal district court challenging the statute.Who should prevail?

Following a scandal that received substantial attention in the press, Ames revised its probate code to prohibit inheritance by adult adoptees if the testator had disinherited his natural children. Julius, a wealthy Ames citizen, had a natural son from whom he had been estranged for many years; he had no other heirs. To prevent his substantial estate from passing to his son, Julius adopted Octavius, an adult with whom Julius was quite close. Julius then made a will naming Octavius as his heir and disinheriting his natural son. After the will was executed, Ames’s law was passed. What is Julius’s strongest argument against the constitutionality of the Ames inheritance law?

Mothers Against Drug Addiction (MADA) is an organization of women. It lobbies the government about drug policy. The organization argues that addiction harms families (mothers in particular), and not just the individual drug user. Their appeals are often, though not always, based on personal stories told by members who have felt the effects of addiction in their families. Fred, a man who supports MADA’s mission, wishes to join the organization. MADA rejects his application, however, because, according to the organization’s rules, only females are eligible to join. Fred sues MADA for violating the state’s anti-discrimination law, which prohibits groups (including MA-DA) from discriminating on the ground of sex. MADA admits that it is discriminating against Fred because of his sex and that the discrimination violates the statute. It argues, however, that it has the right under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to discriminate. Will MADA succeed in its constitutional argument?

The State of Ames prohibits the sale of “obscene” material, defined by statute as any material “that, considered as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, and lacking serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific merit, depicts sex in a patently offensive manner according to contemporary community standards.” Bill Bookseller is convicted of violating Ames’s ordinance for selling “Girls Gone Crazy” videos in his bookstore, which feature amateurs posing nude for a video crew. Bill appeals his conviction. A court of appeals would likely:

A state law imposes penalties for “any public statement containing false or misleading information about a service or product.” An airline falsely claimed in an advertisement that its competitor had an inferior safety record. The claim was based on erroneous information, found on the website of a nonprofit consumer advocacy group, that the airline assumed to be true. The airline was charged under the state law for making a false statement. No federal statute applies. Which of the following best supports the airline in a defense based on the First Amendment?