UCLA COMM 170 FINAL TEST PREP
QUESTIONS WITH COMPLETE
SOLUTIONS
Four principles and traditions to be discussed demonstrate that the reasons marriage is
fundamental under the Constitution apply with equal force to same-sex couples:
The right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual
autonomy. This abiding connection between marriage and liberty is why Loving
invalidated interracial marriage bans under the due process clause. Like choices
concerning contraception, family relationships, procreation, child rearing, all of which
are protected by the Constitution, decisions concerning marriage are among the most
intimate that an individual can make.
The right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two person union unlike any
other in its importance to the committed individuals. This point was central to Griswold v
connecticut, which held the constitution protects the right of married couples to use
contraception. Lawrence confirmed a dimension of freedom that allows individuals to
engage in intimate association without criminal liability, it does not follow that the
freedom stops there.
It safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of child
rearing, procreation, and education. The marriage laws at issue here thus harm and
humiliate the children of same-sex couples. (stigma of knowing their families are
somehow lesser, significant material costs)
This court's cases and the Nation's traditions make clear that marriage is a keystone of
our social order. EX: taxation, hospital access, medical decision making authority,
adoption rights, etc. the states have contributed to the fundamen
Laws discriminating based on a suspect class such as race, national origin, religion, and
gender (a quasi-suspect class) receive : - Answer- heightened scrutiny.
Drug Testing Cases: - Answer- -Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Association 1989
-National Treasury Union v. Von Raab 1989
-Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton (1995)
-Chandler v. Miller 1997
-Ferguson v. City of Charleston (2001)
-Board of Education of Pottawatomie County v. Earls (2002)
Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Association 1989 - Answer- Program:
Requirement of the Federal Railroad Administration that employees take a breath or
urine test if they are involved in a train accident or other serious incident.
,Court's Holding: The justices ruled, 7-2, that although "federal regulations requiring
employees of private railroads to produce urine samples for chemical testing implicate
the Fourth Amendment, as those tests invade reasonable expectations of privacy." the
program at issue was not unreasonable. The court said the government has a strong
interest in preventing train accidents, some of which had been caused by employees
using drugs and alcohol.
National Treasury Union v. Von Raab 1989 - Answer- Program: Requirements of the
U.S. Customs Bureau that all job applicants be screened for drugs, as well as those
seeking promotions to positions that (1) involve direct drug "interdiction," (2) require
employees to carry weapons, and (3) require employees to handle classified material.
Court's Holding: The justices upheld the program, 5-4, even though it was a
suspicionless program that authorized drug testing without any evidence that a crime
had been committed. The majority found the program reasonable because "the
Government's compelling interests in preventing the promotion of drug users to
positions where they might endanger the integrity of our Nation's borders or the life of
the citizenry outweigh the privacy interests of those who seek promotion to these
positions, who enjoy a diminished expectation of privacy by virtue of the special, and
obvious, physical and ethical demands of the positions."
Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton (1995) - Answer- Supreme Court ruled that
schools may require student athletes to submit to drug testing upon request
Program: School system requirement that students wishing to play sports sign a form
giving consent to drug testing. The school tests all athletes at the beginning of each
season of their sport and randomly thereafter.
Court's Holding: The Court held, 6-3, that random, suspicionless drug testing of
students by public school officials does not violate the Constitution. The Court said that
students have reduced privacy expectations and that "Legitimate privacy expectations
are even less with regard to student athletes. School sports are not for the bashful.
They require 'suiting up' before each practice or event, and showering and changing
afterwards." Moreover, "by choosing to 'go out for the ream,' they voluntarily subject
themselves to a degree of regulation even higher than that imposed on students
generally."
Chandler v. Miller (1997) - Answer- Supreme Court refused to allow Georgia to require
all candidates for state office to pass a urinalysis drug test thirty days before qualifying
for nomination or election (law violated search and seizure clause)
Program: Law passed by Georgia requiring all candidates for public office to take a
urine test as a condition for appearing on the ballot.
, Court's Holding: The justices held, 8-1, that the law violated the Constitution. For the
majority, Ginsburg noted that the Court had upheld drug-testing programs for which the
government presented some "special need," such as the protection of public safety.
Here, Georgia was seeking to protect its "image," which is insufficient to justify the law.
"However well-meant, the candidate drug test Georgia has devised diminishes personal
privacy for a symbol's sake. The Fourth Amendment shields society against that state
action."
Ferguson v. City of Charleston (2001) - Answer- Program: State hospital policy of
conducting drug tests on obstetrical patients and turning the results (if positive) over to
law enforcement agents.
Court's Holding: " The justices held, 6-3, that the policy violated the Constitution.
According to the majority, "Respondents argue in essence that their ultimate purpose--
namely, protecting the health of both mother and child-- is a beneficent one. In
Chandler, however, we did not simply accept the State's invocation of a 'special need.'
Instead, we carried out a 'close review' of the scheme at issue before concluding that
the need in question was not 'special,' as that term has been defined in our cases. In
this case, a review of the... policy plainly reveals that the purpose actually served by the
hospital searches is "ultimately indistinguishable from the general interest in crime
control.'"
-violation of the 4th amendment if patient did not consent
Board of Education of Pottawatomie County v. Earls (2002) - Answer- Program: School
district policy requiring all middle and high school students to consent to urinalysis
testing for drugs in order to participate in any extracurricular activity.
Court's Holding: The Court found, 5-4, that the school policy was a reasonable means of
furthering the school's important interest in preventing and deterring drug use among its
students and that the invasion of the students' privacy was not significant.
Privacy in the Information Age cases: - Answer- -Doe vs Reed 2010
-City of Ontario, California v. Quon 2010
Doe vs Reed (2010) - Answer- The court considered a challenge to the public release of
petitions (including the signers' names and addresses) supporting a ballot referendum
that would have overturned a state law expanding the rights of same-sex domestic
partners.
The court held (8-1) that the release of the petitions did not violate the First amendment
rights of the signers because the state has an important interest in preserving the
integrity of the electoral process.
City of Ontario, California v. Quon (2010) - Answer- The court considered whether the
city had infringed on police officer's privacy rights under the 4th amendment when it
QUESTIONS WITH COMPLETE
SOLUTIONS
Four principles and traditions to be discussed demonstrate that the reasons marriage is
fundamental under the Constitution apply with equal force to same-sex couples:
The right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual
autonomy. This abiding connection between marriage and liberty is why Loving
invalidated interracial marriage bans under the due process clause. Like choices
concerning contraception, family relationships, procreation, child rearing, all of which
are protected by the Constitution, decisions concerning marriage are among the most
intimate that an individual can make.
The right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two person union unlike any
other in its importance to the committed individuals. This point was central to Griswold v
connecticut, which held the constitution protects the right of married couples to use
contraception. Lawrence confirmed a dimension of freedom that allows individuals to
engage in intimate association without criminal liability, it does not follow that the
freedom stops there.
It safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of child
rearing, procreation, and education. The marriage laws at issue here thus harm and
humiliate the children of same-sex couples. (stigma of knowing their families are
somehow lesser, significant material costs)
This court's cases and the Nation's traditions make clear that marriage is a keystone of
our social order. EX: taxation, hospital access, medical decision making authority,
adoption rights, etc. the states have contributed to the fundamen
Laws discriminating based on a suspect class such as race, national origin, religion, and
gender (a quasi-suspect class) receive : - Answer- heightened scrutiny.
Drug Testing Cases: - Answer- -Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Association 1989
-National Treasury Union v. Von Raab 1989
-Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton (1995)
-Chandler v. Miller 1997
-Ferguson v. City of Charleston (2001)
-Board of Education of Pottawatomie County v. Earls (2002)
Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Association 1989 - Answer- Program:
Requirement of the Federal Railroad Administration that employees take a breath or
urine test if they are involved in a train accident or other serious incident.
,Court's Holding: The justices ruled, 7-2, that although "federal regulations requiring
employees of private railroads to produce urine samples for chemical testing implicate
the Fourth Amendment, as those tests invade reasonable expectations of privacy." the
program at issue was not unreasonable. The court said the government has a strong
interest in preventing train accidents, some of which had been caused by employees
using drugs and alcohol.
National Treasury Union v. Von Raab 1989 - Answer- Program: Requirements of the
U.S. Customs Bureau that all job applicants be screened for drugs, as well as those
seeking promotions to positions that (1) involve direct drug "interdiction," (2) require
employees to carry weapons, and (3) require employees to handle classified material.
Court's Holding: The justices upheld the program, 5-4, even though it was a
suspicionless program that authorized drug testing without any evidence that a crime
had been committed. The majority found the program reasonable because "the
Government's compelling interests in preventing the promotion of drug users to
positions where they might endanger the integrity of our Nation's borders or the life of
the citizenry outweigh the privacy interests of those who seek promotion to these
positions, who enjoy a diminished expectation of privacy by virtue of the special, and
obvious, physical and ethical demands of the positions."
Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton (1995) - Answer- Supreme Court ruled that
schools may require student athletes to submit to drug testing upon request
Program: School system requirement that students wishing to play sports sign a form
giving consent to drug testing. The school tests all athletes at the beginning of each
season of their sport and randomly thereafter.
Court's Holding: The Court held, 6-3, that random, suspicionless drug testing of
students by public school officials does not violate the Constitution. The Court said that
students have reduced privacy expectations and that "Legitimate privacy expectations
are even less with regard to student athletes. School sports are not for the bashful.
They require 'suiting up' before each practice or event, and showering and changing
afterwards." Moreover, "by choosing to 'go out for the ream,' they voluntarily subject
themselves to a degree of regulation even higher than that imposed on students
generally."
Chandler v. Miller (1997) - Answer- Supreme Court refused to allow Georgia to require
all candidates for state office to pass a urinalysis drug test thirty days before qualifying
for nomination or election (law violated search and seizure clause)
Program: Law passed by Georgia requiring all candidates for public office to take a
urine test as a condition for appearing on the ballot.
, Court's Holding: The justices held, 8-1, that the law violated the Constitution. For the
majority, Ginsburg noted that the Court had upheld drug-testing programs for which the
government presented some "special need," such as the protection of public safety.
Here, Georgia was seeking to protect its "image," which is insufficient to justify the law.
"However well-meant, the candidate drug test Georgia has devised diminishes personal
privacy for a symbol's sake. The Fourth Amendment shields society against that state
action."
Ferguson v. City of Charleston (2001) - Answer- Program: State hospital policy of
conducting drug tests on obstetrical patients and turning the results (if positive) over to
law enforcement agents.
Court's Holding: " The justices held, 6-3, that the policy violated the Constitution.
According to the majority, "Respondents argue in essence that their ultimate purpose--
namely, protecting the health of both mother and child-- is a beneficent one. In
Chandler, however, we did not simply accept the State's invocation of a 'special need.'
Instead, we carried out a 'close review' of the scheme at issue before concluding that
the need in question was not 'special,' as that term has been defined in our cases. In
this case, a review of the... policy plainly reveals that the purpose actually served by the
hospital searches is "ultimately indistinguishable from the general interest in crime
control.'"
-violation of the 4th amendment if patient did not consent
Board of Education of Pottawatomie County v. Earls (2002) - Answer- Program: School
district policy requiring all middle and high school students to consent to urinalysis
testing for drugs in order to participate in any extracurricular activity.
Court's Holding: The Court found, 5-4, that the school policy was a reasonable means of
furthering the school's important interest in preventing and deterring drug use among its
students and that the invasion of the students' privacy was not significant.
Privacy in the Information Age cases: - Answer- -Doe vs Reed 2010
-City of Ontario, California v. Quon 2010
Doe vs Reed (2010) - Answer- The court considered a challenge to the public release of
petitions (including the signers' names and addresses) supporting a ballot referendum
that would have overturned a state law expanding the rights of same-sex domestic
partners.
The court held (8-1) that the release of the petitions did not violate the First amendment
rights of the signers because the state has an important interest in preserving the
integrity of the electoral process.
City of Ontario, California v. Quon (2010) - Answer- The court considered whether the
city had infringed on police officer's privacy rights under the 4th amendment when it
