Solution fand fAnswer fGuide: fMiller, fBusiness fLaw fToday, fThe fEssentials fText f& fSummarized fCases f13e, f9780357635346;
Chapter f01: fLegal fand fConstitutional fFoundations fof fBusiness
SolutionandAnswerGuide f f f
Miller, Business Law Today, The Essentials Text & Summarized Cases 13e, 9780357635346;
f f f f f f f f f f f
Chapter 01: Legal and Constitutional Foundations of Business
f f f f f f f f
Table of Contents f f
Critical Thinking Questions in Features .................................................................................. 1
f f f f
Adapting the Law to the Online Environment................................................................................................. 1
f f f f f f
Critical Thinking Questions in Cases ...................................................................................... 2
f f f f
Case 1.1 ............................................................................................................................................................ 2
f
Case 1.2 ............................................................................................................................................................ 3
f
Case 1.3 ............................................................................................................................................................ 3
f
Chapter Review .................................................................................................................. 4
f
Practice and Review ......................................................................................................................................... 4
f f
Practice and Review: Debate This ................................................................................................................... 5
f f f f
Issue Spotters ................................................................................................................................................... 5
f
Business Scenarios and Case Problems ........................................................................................................... 5
f f f f
Critical Thinking and Writing Assignments.................................................................................................... 10
f f f f
Critical Thinking Questions in Appendix Exhibit 1A–3..............................................................11
f f f f f f
Exhibit 1A–3 ................................................................................................................................................... 11
f
Critical Thinking Questions in Features
f f f f
Adapting the Law to the Online Environment
f f f f f f
1. One fobserver fhas fsaid fthat fthe fAmerican flegal fsystem fshould fevaluate fsocial fmedia fcompanies
fbased fon fhow f―they faffect fus f as f citizens, fnot fonly f[on fhow] fthey f affect fus fas fconsumers.‖ fWhat fis
fyour fopinion fof fthis fstatement?
Solution
The fperson fwho fmade fthis fstatement fclearly fsees fa f―citizen‖ fas fhaving fdifferent fmotivations fand
fconcerns fthan fa f―consumer.‖ f Presumably, fa fcitizen f is f mostly fconcerned fwith fthe fgood fof f society fas
fa fwhole, fand ftherefore fwould fbe fopen fto fthe fidea fof fgovernment fregulation fthat frestricted fthe
fnegative finfluence fof fsocial fmedia, fregardless fof fthe fFirst fAmendment. fA f consumer, fby fcontrast,
fwould fbe fprimarily fconcerned fwith fhaving fa fmarketplace fthat foffers fthe fwidest fpossible fvarieties
fof ffreedom f(of fchoice, fof fspeech, fetc.) fand fwould ffor fthat freason fbe fopposed fto fgovernment
fregulation fof fsocial fmedia. fThere fis, fhowever, fan fargument fto fbe fmade fthat fthe fcitizens fthat fmake
fup fa fsociety fbenefit fwhen fthe fmarketplace fof fideas—whether fthey fare fsubjectively
―positive‖ for f―negative‖—is f allowed fto fflourish fin fthe fabsence fof fgovernment fregulation.
2. Tim fCook, fApple‘s fchief foperating fofficer, fhas fsuggested fthat fthe fUnited fStates fCongress fshould
fpass fa flaw flimiting fthe fability fof fApple fand fother ftech fcountries fto fkeep fconsumer fdata fprivate.
fWhy fwould fa fbusiness fexecutive fmake fsuch fa frequest?
© f2022 fCengage. fAll fRights fReserved. fMay fnot fbe fscanned, fcopied for fduplicated, for fposted fto fa fpublicly 1
faccessible
website, fin fwhole for fin fpart.
, Solution fand fAnswer fGuide: fMiller, fBusiness fLaw fToday, fThe fEssentials fText f& fSummarized fCases f13e, f9780357635346;
Chapter f01: fLegal fand fConstitutional fFoundations fof fBusiness
Solution
Cook fmay fhave fwanted fto fend fa fcontroversy fthat fputs fApple fsquarely fat fodds fwith fthe ffederal
fgovernment. fAfter fall, flarge fcompanies fsuch fas fApple frely fon ffavorable ftreatment ffrom fthe
fgovernment fin fregulatory fmatters, finternational ftrade fagreements, fand fmany fother fareas. fAlso,
flarge fcorporations fsuch fas fApple fsometimes fgain fan fadvantage fover fcompetitors fwhen ftheir
findustries fare fregulated. fFor fexample, fApple fhas fsignificant fresources fwith fwhich fto flobby
fCongress ffor ffavorable ftreatment, fand fit fis fbetter fpositioned fto fbear fthe fcosts fof fregulation fthanfare
fother, fsmaller ftech fcompanies. fFinally, fApple‘s fposition fas fa fchampion fof fconsumer fprivacy f would
fbe fdamaged fif fit f ―caved‖ f and fchanged fits fstance f without f being fforced fto f do fso f by fa fnew ffederal
flaw.
Critical Thinking Questions in Cases
f f f f
Case 1.1
f
1. What f―dangerous fconditions‖ fmight fhave f prompted fthe fcity fto fenact fthe fordinances fat fissue fin
fthis fcase? fWhy?
Solution
As fnoted fin fthe ffacts fof fthe fcase, fboth fordinances fat fissue fincluded fan fextensive frationale fforftheir
fadoption, fstating fessentially fthat fa fgeographically fsmall fcity fhas fthe fright fto frestrict fa
business ffrom foperating fwithin fthe fcity fwhen fthe frestriction fis ffor fthe fsafety fof fthe fcity‘s fcitizensfand
fvisitors.
The fappellate fcourt freferred fto f―the fdangerous fconditions‖ fcreated fby fthe firresponsible fdriving
fbehavior fof fscooter frenters, fespecially fat fnight, famplified fby fthe flack fof ftraining, fsupervision, fand
foversight fpracticed f by fthe frental fscooter f businesses fthat f ―existed fthroughout fthe f entire fcity‖ f as fthe
fbasis ffor fthe fcity‘s fregulation. fThe fcourt fparaphrased fthe fexpressive fclauses fin fthe fordinancesfmore
fspecifically:
• The fCity fis fgeographically fsmall fand fcrowded fand fis fbeing fbesieged fby finexperienced fscooter
fdrivers fseeking famusement fand fdriving fin fa fdangerous fmanner.
• The fCity fis fa ftourist fdestination ffrequented fby ftens fof fthousands, fand fits fstreets f are fcongested
fby fscooters fthat fare fbeing fdriven fillegally fand fin fareas fwhere fthey fare fnot fpermitted.
• The f City‘s f residents f and f visitors f are f put f in f dangerous f situations f as f a f result f of f the
f improperfuse fof fscooters, fespecially fat fnight.
• City fbusinesses fhave fcomplained fabout fnumerous ftrespasses fon ftheir fproperty fby fpeople
fdriving fscooters fwhile fbeing fdisruptive
• City fpolice fhave fbeen funable fto fcope fwith fthe fsituation fand fessential fpolice fresources fare fbeing
fdrained.
• The fCity fhas fbeen funable fto fcontrol fthe fsituation fthrough fless frestrictive fmeans.
© f2022 fCengage. fAll fRights fReserved. fMay fnot fbe fscanned, fcopied for fduplicated, for fposted fto fa fpublicly 2
faccessible
website, fin fwhole for fin fpart.
, Solution fand fAnswer fGuide: fMiller, fBusiness fLaw fToday, fThe fEssentials fText f& fSummarized fCases f13e, f9780357635346;
Chapter f01: fLegal fand fConstitutional fFoundations fof fBusiness
2. What fis fthe flikely feconomic fimpact fof fthe fordinances fon fthe fbusinesses fin fthe fcity? fDiscuss.
Solution
With fthe fexception fof fthe fscooter frental fbusinesses, fthe feffect fon fthe fcity‘s feconomy fis flikely ftofbe
fpositive fin flight fof fthe fresult fin fthe fClassy fcase.
The fanswer fto fthe fprevious fquestion fcontains fthe freasons fin fsupport fof fthis foutlook. fWith fa fbanfon
fmotorized f scooters, fthe f―small fand fcrowded‖ fcity fis fnot flikely fto f be f―besieged f by finexperienced
fscooter fdrivers fseeking famusement fand fdriving fin fa fdangerous fmanner.‖ fThe fstreets, ffilled fwith
f―tens f of fthousands‖ fof ftourists f will fnot f be f―congested f by f scooters fthat f are
being fdriven fillegally fand fin fareas fwhere fthey fare fnot fpermitted.‖ fResidents fand fvisitors fwill fnot
fbe f―put fin f dangerous fsituations fas fa fresult fof fthe f improper fuse fof fscooters, f especially f at fnight.‖
fThere f will f be fan f end fto fthe f―numerous ftrespasses‖ fon f business f property f―by f people f driving
scooters fwhile fbeing fdisruptive.‖ fAnd f―essential fpolice fresources‖ fwill fnot fbe f―drained,‖ fat fleast
fnot fby firresponsible fscooter fdrivers fand friders. fAll fof fwhich fbodes fwell ffor fbusiness.
Case 1.2
f
1. f If fthis fcase fhad finvolved fa fsmall, fprivate fretail fbusiness fthat fdid fnot fadvertise fnationally, fwouldfthe
fresult fhave fbeen fthe fsame? fWhy for fwhy fnot?
Solution
It fis fnot flikely fthat fthe fresult fin fthis fcase fwould fhave fbeen fdifferent feven fif fthe ffacts fhad finvolvedfa
fsmall, fprivate fretail fbusiness fthat fdid fnot fadvertise fnationally. fThe fintended fimpact fof fthe fdecision
fin fHeart fof fAtlanta fwas fto fuphold fthe fconstitutionality fof fthe fCivil fRights fAct fof f1964 fandfthe fpower
fof fCongress fto fregulate finterstate fcommerce fto fstop flocal fdiscriminatory fpractices. fIn fthe fSupreme
fCourt‘s fopinion, f―The f power fof fCongress fto f promote f interstate fcommerce falso fincludes fthe fpower
fto fregulate fthe flocal fincidents fthereof, fincluding flocal factivities fin fboth fthe fStates fof forigin fand
fdestination, fwhich fmight fhave fa fsubstantial fand fharmful feffect fupon fthat
commerce.‖
Thus, fif fthe fcase fhad finvolved fa fsmall, flocal fretail fbusiness, fthe fCourt fwould fhave ffound fparticipation
fin finterstate fcommerce fbased fon fthe fuse fof fa fphone, for fa fFacebook fpage f(or fotherfWeb fpresence), for
fsales fto fcustomers fwho ftraveled facross fstate flines—or, fas fin fWickard fv.
Filburn, fparticipation fmight fhave fbeen fbased fon fany ftransaction fthat fmight fotherwise fhave
foccurred fin finterstate fcommerce.
Case 1.3
f
1. Whose finterests fare fadvanced fby fthe fbanning fof fcertain ftypes fof fadvertising?
Solution
The fgovernment‘s finterests fare fadvanced fwhen fcertain fads fare fbanned. fFor fexample, fin fthe fBad
fFrog fcase, fthe fcourt facknowledged, fby fadvising fthe fstate fto frestrict fthe flocations fwhere fcertain
fads fcould fbe f displayed, fthat f banning fof f―vulgar f and f profane‖ fadvertising ffrom fchildren‘s fsight
farguably fadvanced fthe fstate‘s finterest fin fprotecting fchildren ffrom fthose fads.
© f2022 fCengage. fAll fRights fReserved. fMay fnot fbe fscanned, fcopied for fduplicated, for fposted fto fa fpublicly 3
faccessible
website, fin fwhole for fin fpart.
, Solution fand fAnswer fGuide: fMiller, fBusiness fLaw fToday, fThe fEssentials fText f& fSummarized fCases f13e, f9780357635346;
Chapter f01: fLegal fand fConstitutional fFoundations fof fBusiness
2. If fBad fFrog fhad fsought fto fuse fthe foffensive flabel fto fmarket ftoys finstead fof fbeer, fwould fthe
fcourt‘s fruling flikely fhave fbeen fthe fsame? fExplain fyour fanswer.
Solution
Probably fnot. fThe freasoning funderlying fthe fcourt‘s fdecision fin fthe fcase fwas, fin fpart, fthat f―the
fState‘s fprohibition fof fthe flabels f. f. f. fdoes fnot fmaterially fadvance fits fasserted finterests fin finsulating
fchildren ffrom fvulgarity f. f. f. fand fis fnot fnarrowly ftailored fto fthe finterest fconcerning
children.‖ fThe fcourt‘s freasoning fwas fsupported fin fpart fby fthe ffact fthat fchildren fcannot fbuy fbeer.fIf
fthe flabels fadvertised ftoys, fhowever, fthe fcourt‘s freasoning fmight fhave fbeen fdifferent.
Chapter Review f
Practice and Review
f f
A fstate flegislature fenacted fa fstatute fthat frequired fany fmotorcycle foperator for fpassenger fon fthe
fstate‘s fhighways fto fwear fa fprotective fhelmet. fJim fAlderman, fa flicensed fmotorcycle foperator, fsued
fthe fstate fto fblock fenforcement fof fthe flaw. fAlderman fasserted fthat fthe fstatute fviolated fthe fequal
fprotection f clause f because fit f placed frequirements fon fmotorcyclists f that fwere fnot fimposed fon fother
fmotorists. fUsing fthe finformation fpresented fin fthe fchapter, fanswer fthe f following fquestions.
1. Why fdoes fthis fstatute fraise fequal fprotection fissues finstead fof fsubstantive fdue fprocess fconcerns?
Solution
When fa flaw for faction flimits fthe fliberty fof fsome fpersons fbut fnot fothers, fit fmay fviolate fthe fequal
fprotection fclause. fHere, fbecause fthe flaw fapplies fonly fto fmotorcycle foperators fand fpassengers, fit
fraises fequal fprotection fissues.
2. What fare fthe fthree flevels fof fscrutiny fthat fthe fcourts fuse fin fdetermining fwhether fa flaw fviolates
fthe fequal fprotection fclause?
Solution
The fthree flevels fof fscrutiny fthat fcourts fapply fto fdetermine fwhether fthe flaw for faction fviolates
fequal fprotection fare f(1) fstrict fscrutiny f(if ffundamental frights fare fat fstake), f(2) fintermediate
fscrutiny f(in fcases f involving f discrimination f based f on fgender for flegitimacy), fand f(3) fthe f―rational
fbasis‖ ftest f(in fmatters fof feconomic for fsocial fwelfare).
3. Which flevel fof fscrutiny for ftest fwould fapply fto fthis fsituation? fWhy?
Solution
The fcourt fwould flikely fapply fthe frational fbasis ftest, fbecause fthe fstatute fregulates fa fmatter fof
fsocial fwelfare fby frequiring fhelmets. fSimilar fto fseat-belt flaws fand fspeed flimits, fa fhelmet fstatute
finvolves fthe fstate‘s fattempt fto fprotect fthe fwelfare fof fits fcitizens. fThus, fthe fcourt fwould fconsiderfit fa
fmatter fa fsocial fwelfare fand frequire fthat fit fbe frationally frelated fto fa flegitimate fgovernment
fobjective.
© f2022 fCengage. fAll fRights fReserved. fMay fnot fbe fscanned, fcopied for fduplicated, for fposted fto fa fpublicly 4
faccessible
website, fin fwhole for fin fpart.
Chapter f01: fLegal fand fConstitutional fFoundations fof fBusiness
SolutionandAnswerGuide f f f
Miller, Business Law Today, The Essentials Text & Summarized Cases 13e, 9780357635346;
f f f f f f f f f f f
Chapter 01: Legal and Constitutional Foundations of Business
f f f f f f f f
Table of Contents f f
Critical Thinking Questions in Features .................................................................................. 1
f f f f
Adapting the Law to the Online Environment................................................................................................. 1
f f f f f f
Critical Thinking Questions in Cases ...................................................................................... 2
f f f f
Case 1.1 ............................................................................................................................................................ 2
f
Case 1.2 ............................................................................................................................................................ 3
f
Case 1.3 ............................................................................................................................................................ 3
f
Chapter Review .................................................................................................................. 4
f
Practice and Review ......................................................................................................................................... 4
f f
Practice and Review: Debate This ................................................................................................................... 5
f f f f
Issue Spotters ................................................................................................................................................... 5
f
Business Scenarios and Case Problems ........................................................................................................... 5
f f f f
Critical Thinking and Writing Assignments.................................................................................................... 10
f f f f
Critical Thinking Questions in Appendix Exhibit 1A–3..............................................................11
f f f f f f
Exhibit 1A–3 ................................................................................................................................................... 11
f
Critical Thinking Questions in Features
f f f f
Adapting the Law to the Online Environment
f f f f f f
1. One fobserver fhas fsaid fthat fthe fAmerican flegal fsystem fshould fevaluate fsocial fmedia fcompanies
fbased fon fhow f―they faffect fus f as f citizens, fnot fonly f[on fhow] fthey f affect fus fas fconsumers.‖ fWhat fis
fyour fopinion fof fthis fstatement?
Solution
The fperson fwho fmade fthis fstatement fclearly fsees fa f―citizen‖ fas fhaving fdifferent fmotivations fand
fconcerns fthan fa f―consumer.‖ f Presumably, fa fcitizen f is f mostly fconcerned fwith fthe fgood fof f society fas
fa fwhole, fand ftherefore fwould fbe fopen fto fthe fidea fof fgovernment fregulation fthat frestricted fthe
fnegative finfluence fof fsocial fmedia, fregardless fof fthe fFirst fAmendment. fA f consumer, fby fcontrast,
fwould fbe fprimarily fconcerned fwith fhaving fa fmarketplace fthat foffers fthe fwidest fpossible fvarieties
fof ffreedom f(of fchoice, fof fspeech, fetc.) fand fwould ffor fthat freason fbe fopposed fto fgovernment
fregulation fof fsocial fmedia. fThere fis, fhowever, fan fargument fto fbe fmade fthat fthe fcitizens fthat fmake
fup fa fsociety fbenefit fwhen fthe fmarketplace fof fideas—whether fthey fare fsubjectively
―positive‖ for f―negative‖—is f allowed fto fflourish fin fthe fabsence fof fgovernment fregulation.
2. Tim fCook, fApple‘s fchief foperating fofficer, fhas fsuggested fthat fthe fUnited fStates fCongress fshould
fpass fa flaw flimiting fthe fability fof fApple fand fother ftech fcountries fto fkeep fconsumer fdata fprivate.
fWhy fwould fa fbusiness fexecutive fmake fsuch fa frequest?
© f2022 fCengage. fAll fRights fReserved. fMay fnot fbe fscanned, fcopied for fduplicated, for fposted fto fa fpublicly 1
faccessible
website, fin fwhole for fin fpart.
, Solution fand fAnswer fGuide: fMiller, fBusiness fLaw fToday, fThe fEssentials fText f& fSummarized fCases f13e, f9780357635346;
Chapter f01: fLegal fand fConstitutional fFoundations fof fBusiness
Solution
Cook fmay fhave fwanted fto fend fa fcontroversy fthat fputs fApple fsquarely fat fodds fwith fthe ffederal
fgovernment. fAfter fall, flarge fcompanies fsuch fas fApple frely fon ffavorable ftreatment ffrom fthe
fgovernment fin fregulatory fmatters, finternational ftrade fagreements, fand fmany fother fareas. fAlso,
flarge fcorporations fsuch fas fApple fsometimes fgain fan fadvantage fover fcompetitors fwhen ftheir
findustries fare fregulated. fFor fexample, fApple fhas fsignificant fresources fwith fwhich fto flobby
fCongress ffor ffavorable ftreatment, fand fit fis fbetter fpositioned fto fbear fthe fcosts fof fregulation fthanfare
fother, fsmaller ftech fcompanies. fFinally, fApple‘s fposition fas fa fchampion fof fconsumer fprivacy f would
fbe fdamaged fif fit f ―caved‖ f and fchanged fits fstance f without f being fforced fto f do fso f by fa fnew ffederal
flaw.
Critical Thinking Questions in Cases
f f f f
Case 1.1
f
1. What f―dangerous fconditions‖ fmight fhave f prompted fthe fcity fto fenact fthe fordinances fat fissue fin
fthis fcase? fWhy?
Solution
As fnoted fin fthe ffacts fof fthe fcase, fboth fordinances fat fissue fincluded fan fextensive frationale fforftheir
fadoption, fstating fessentially fthat fa fgeographically fsmall fcity fhas fthe fright fto frestrict fa
business ffrom foperating fwithin fthe fcity fwhen fthe frestriction fis ffor fthe fsafety fof fthe fcity‘s fcitizensfand
fvisitors.
The fappellate fcourt freferred fto f―the fdangerous fconditions‖ fcreated fby fthe firresponsible fdriving
fbehavior fof fscooter frenters, fespecially fat fnight, famplified fby fthe flack fof ftraining, fsupervision, fand
foversight fpracticed f by fthe frental fscooter f businesses fthat f ―existed fthroughout fthe f entire fcity‖ f as fthe
fbasis ffor fthe fcity‘s fregulation. fThe fcourt fparaphrased fthe fexpressive fclauses fin fthe fordinancesfmore
fspecifically:
• The fCity fis fgeographically fsmall fand fcrowded fand fis fbeing fbesieged fby finexperienced fscooter
fdrivers fseeking famusement fand fdriving fin fa fdangerous fmanner.
• The fCity fis fa ftourist fdestination ffrequented fby ftens fof fthousands, fand fits fstreets f are fcongested
fby fscooters fthat fare fbeing fdriven fillegally fand fin fareas fwhere fthey fare fnot fpermitted.
• The f City‘s f residents f and f visitors f are f put f in f dangerous f situations f as f a f result f of f the
f improperfuse fof fscooters, fespecially fat fnight.
• City fbusinesses fhave fcomplained fabout fnumerous ftrespasses fon ftheir fproperty fby fpeople
fdriving fscooters fwhile fbeing fdisruptive
• City fpolice fhave fbeen funable fto fcope fwith fthe fsituation fand fessential fpolice fresources fare fbeing
fdrained.
• The fCity fhas fbeen funable fto fcontrol fthe fsituation fthrough fless frestrictive fmeans.
© f2022 fCengage. fAll fRights fReserved. fMay fnot fbe fscanned, fcopied for fduplicated, for fposted fto fa fpublicly 2
faccessible
website, fin fwhole for fin fpart.
, Solution fand fAnswer fGuide: fMiller, fBusiness fLaw fToday, fThe fEssentials fText f& fSummarized fCases f13e, f9780357635346;
Chapter f01: fLegal fand fConstitutional fFoundations fof fBusiness
2. What fis fthe flikely feconomic fimpact fof fthe fordinances fon fthe fbusinesses fin fthe fcity? fDiscuss.
Solution
With fthe fexception fof fthe fscooter frental fbusinesses, fthe feffect fon fthe fcity‘s feconomy fis flikely ftofbe
fpositive fin flight fof fthe fresult fin fthe fClassy fcase.
The fanswer fto fthe fprevious fquestion fcontains fthe freasons fin fsupport fof fthis foutlook. fWith fa fbanfon
fmotorized f scooters, fthe f―small fand fcrowded‖ fcity fis fnot flikely fto f be f―besieged f by finexperienced
fscooter fdrivers fseeking famusement fand fdriving fin fa fdangerous fmanner.‖ fThe fstreets, ffilled fwith
f―tens f of fthousands‖ fof ftourists f will fnot f be f―congested f by f scooters fthat f are
being fdriven fillegally fand fin fareas fwhere fthey fare fnot fpermitted.‖ fResidents fand fvisitors fwill fnot
fbe f―put fin f dangerous fsituations fas fa fresult fof fthe f improper fuse fof fscooters, f especially f at fnight.‖
fThere f will f be fan f end fto fthe f―numerous ftrespasses‖ fon f business f property f―by f people f driving
scooters fwhile fbeing fdisruptive.‖ fAnd f―essential fpolice fresources‖ fwill fnot fbe f―drained,‖ fat fleast
fnot fby firresponsible fscooter fdrivers fand friders. fAll fof fwhich fbodes fwell ffor fbusiness.
Case 1.2
f
1. f If fthis fcase fhad finvolved fa fsmall, fprivate fretail fbusiness fthat fdid fnot fadvertise fnationally, fwouldfthe
fresult fhave fbeen fthe fsame? fWhy for fwhy fnot?
Solution
It fis fnot flikely fthat fthe fresult fin fthis fcase fwould fhave fbeen fdifferent feven fif fthe ffacts fhad finvolvedfa
fsmall, fprivate fretail fbusiness fthat fdid fnot fadvertise fnationally. fThe fintended fimpact fof fthe fdecision
fin fHeart fof fAtlanta fwas fto fuphold fthe fconstitutionality fof fthe fCivil fRights fAct fof f1964 fandfthe fpower
fof fCongress fto fregulate finterstate fcommerce fto fstop flocal fdiscriminatory fpractices. fIn fthe fSupreme
fCourt‘s fopinion, f―The f power fof fCongress fto f promote f interstate fcommerce falso fincludes fthe fpower
fto fregulate fthe flocal fincidents fthereof, fincluding flocal factivities fin fboth fthe fStates fof forigin fand
fdestination, fwhich fmight fhave fa fsubstantial fand fharmful feffect fupon fthat
commerce.‖
Thus, fif fthe fcase fhad finvolved fa fsmall, flocal fretail fbusiness, fthe fCourt fwould fhave ffound fparticipation
fin finterstate fcommerce fbased fon fthe fuse fof fa fphone, for fa fFacebook fpage f(or fotherfWeb fpresence), for
fsales fto fcustomers fwho ftraveled facross fstate flines—or, fas fin fWickard fv.
Filburn, fparticipation fmight fhave fbeen fbased fon fany ftransaction fthat fmight fotherwise fhave
foccurred fin finterstate fcommerce.
Case 1.3
f
1. Whose finterests fare fadvanced fby fthe fbanning fof fcertain ftypes fof fadvertising?
Solution
The fgovernment‘s finterests fare fadvanced fwhen fcertain fads fare fbanned. fFor fexample, fin fthe fBad
fFrog fcase, fthe fcourt facknowledged, fby fadvising fthe fstate fto frestrict fthe flocations fwhere fcertain
fads fcould fbe f displayed, fthat f banning fof f―vulgar f and f profane‖ fadvertising ffrom fchildren‘s fsight
farguably fadvanced fthe fstate‘s finterest fin fprotecting fchildren ffrom fthose fads.
© f2022 fCengage. fAll fRights fReserved. fMay fnot fbe fscanned, fcopied for fduplicated, for fposted fto fa fpublicly 3
faccessible
website, fin fwhole for fin fpart.
, Solution fand fAnswer fGuide: fMiller, fBusiness fLaw fToday, fThe fEssentials fText f& fSummarized fCases f13e, f9780357635346;
Chapter f01: fLegal fand fConstitutional fFoundations fof fBusiness
2. If fBad fFrog fhad fsought fto fuse fthe foffensive flabel fto fmarket ftoys finstead fof fbeer, fwould fthe
fcourt‘s fruling flikely fhave fbeen fthe fsame? fExplain fyour fanswer.
Solution
Probably fnot. fThe freasoning funderlying fthe fcourt‘s fdecision fin fthe fcase fwas, fin fpart, fthat f―the
fState‘s fprohibition fof fthe flabels f. f. f. fdoes fnot fmaterially fadvance fits fasserted finterests fin finsulating
fchildren ffrom fvulgarity f. f. f. fand fis fnot fnarrowly ftailored fto fthe finterest fconcerning
children.‖ fThe fcourt‘s freasoning fwas fsupported fin fpart fby fthe ffact fthat fchildren fcannot fbuy fbeer.fIf
fthe flabels fadvertised ftoys, fhowever, fthe fcourt‘s freasoning fmight fhave fbeen fdifferent.
Chapter Review f
Practice and Review
f f
A fstate flegislature fenacted fa fstatute fthat frequired fany fmotorcycle foperator for fpassenger fon fthe
fstate‘s fhighways fto fwear fa fprotective fhelmet. fJim fAlderman, fa flicensed fmotorcycle foperator, fsued
fthe fstate fto fblock fenforcement fof fthe flaw. fAlderman fasserted fthat fthe fstatute fviolated fthe fequal
fprotection f clause f because fit f placed frequirements fon fmotorcyclists f that fwere fnot fimposed fon fother
fmotorists. fUsing fthe finformation fpresented fin fthe fchapter, fanswer fthe f following fquestions.
1. Why fdoes fthis fstatute fraise fequal fprotection fissues finstead fof fsubstantive fdue fprocess fconcerns?
Solution
When fa flaw for faction flimits fthe fliberty fof fsome fpersons fbut fnot fothers, fit fmay fviolate fthe fequal
fprotection fclause. fHere, fbecause fthe flaw fapplies fonly fto fmotorcycle foperators fand fpassengers, fit
fraises fequal fprotection fissues.
2. What fare fthe fthree flevels fof fscrutiny fthat fthe fcourts fuse fin fdetermining fwhether fa flaw fviolates
fthe fequal fprotection fclause?
Solution
The fthree flevels fof fscrutiny fthat fcourts fapply fto fdetermine fwhether fthe flaw for faction fviolates
fequal fprotection fare f(1) fstrict fscrutiny f(if ffundamental frights fare fat fstake), f(2) fintermediate
fscrutiny f(in fcases f involving f discrimination f based f on fgender for flegitimacy), fand f(3) fthe f―rational
fbasis‖ ftest f(in fmatters fof feconomic for fsocial fwelfare).
3. Which flevel fof fscrutiny for ftest fwould fapply fto fthis fsituation? fWhy?
Solution
The fcourt fwould flikely fapply fthe frational fbasis ftest, fbecause fthe fstatute fregulates fa fmatter fof
fsocial fwelfare fby frequiring fhelmets. fSimilar fto fseat-belt flaws fand fspeed flimits, fa fhelmet fstatute
finvolves fthe fstate‘s fattempt fto fprotect fthe fwelfare fof fits fcitizens. fThus, fthe fcourt fwould fconsiderfit fa
fmatter fa fsocial fwelfare fand frequire fthat fit fbe frationally frelated fto fa flegitimate fgovernment
fobjective.
© f2022 fCengage. fAll fRights fReserved. fMay fnot fbe fscanned, fcopied for fduplicated, for fposted fto fa fpublicly 4
faccessible
website, fin fwhole for fin fpart.
