SolutionVandVAnswerVGuide:VMiller,VBusinessVLawVToday,VTheVEssentialsVTextV&VSummarizedVCasesV13e,V9780357
635346;
ChapterV01:VLegalVandVConstitutionalVFoundationsVofVBusiness
Solution and Answer Guide V V V
Miller,VBusinessVLawVToday,VTheVEssentialsVTextV&VSummarizedVCasesV13e,V9780357635346;VC
hapterV01:VLegalVandVConstitutionalVFoundationsVofVBusiness
TableVofVContents
CriticalVThinkingVQuestionsVinVFeatures ................................................................................ 1
AdaptingVtheVLawVtoVtheVOnlineVEnvironment........................................................................................ 1
CriticalVThinkingVQuestionsVinVCases .................................................................................... 2
CaseV1.1..................................................................................................................................................... 2
CaseV1.2..................................................................................................................................................... 3
CaseV1.3..................................................................................................................................................... 3
ChapterVReview ................................................................................................................. 4
PracticeVandVReview ................................................................................................................................. 4
PracticeVandVReview:VDebateVThis ........................................................................................................... 5
IssueVSpotters............................................................................................................................................ 5
BusinessVScenariosVandVCaseVProblems ................................................................................................... 5
CriticalVThinkingVandVWritingVAssignments ............................................................................................ 10
CriticalVThinkingVQuestionsVinVAppendixVExhibitV1A–3 .......................................................... 11
ExhibitV1A–3 ............................................................................................................................................ 11
CriticalVThinkingVQuestionsVinVFeatures
AdaptingVtheVLawVtoVtheVOnlineVEnvironment
1. OneVobserverVhasVsaidVthatVtheVAmericanVlegalVsystemVshouldVevaluateVsocialVmediaVcompa
niesVbasedVonVhowV―theyVaffectVusVasVcitizens,VnotVonlyV[onVhow]VtheyVaffectVusVasVconsu
mers.‖VWhatVisVyourVopinionVofVthisVstatement?
Solution
TheVpersonVwhoVmadeVthisVstatementVclearlyVseesVaV―citizen‖VasVhavingVdifferentVmotivations
VandVconcernsVthanVaV―consumer.‖VPresumably,VaVcitizenVisVmostlyVconcernedVwithVtheVgood
VofVsocietyVasVaVwhole,VandVthereforeVwouldVbeVopenVtoVtheVideaVofVgovernmentVregulationVt
hatVrestrictedVtheVnegativeVinfluenceVofVsocialVmedia,VregardlessVofVtheVFirstVAmendment.VAVc
onsumer,VbyVcontrast,VwouldVbeVprimarilyVconcernedVwithVhavingVaVmarketplaceVthatVoffersVt
heVwidestVpossibleVvarietiesVofVfreedomV(ofVchoice,VofVspeech,Vetc.)VandVwouldVforVthatVreaso
nVbeVopposedVtoVgovernmentVregulationVofVsocialVmedia.VThereVis,Vhowever,VanVargumentVto
VbeVmadeVthatVtheVcitizensVthatVmakeVupVaVsocietyVbenefitVwhenVtheVmarketplaceVofVideas—
whetherVtheyVareVsubjectively
―positive‖VorV―negative‖—isVallowedVtoVflourishVinVtheVabsenceVofVgovernmentVregulation.
2. TimVCook,VApple‘sVchiefVoperatingVofficer,VhasVsuggestedVthatVtheVUnitedVStatesVCongressVs
houldVpassVaVlawVlimitingVtheVabilityVofVAppleVandVotherVtechVcountriesVtoVkeepVconsumerVd
ataVprivate.VWhyVwouldVaVbusinessVexecutiveVmakeVsuchVaVrequest?
©V2022VCengage.VAllVRightsVReserved.VMayVnotVbeVscanned,VcopiedVorVduplicated,VorVpostedVtoVaVpubl 1
iclyVaccessible
website,VinVwholeVorVinVpart.
, SolutionVandVAnswerVGuide:VMiller,VBusinessVLawVToday,VTheVEssentialsVTextV&VSummarizedVCasesV13e,V9780357
635346;
ChapterV01:VLegalVandVConstitutionalVFoundationsVofVBusiness
Solution
CookVmayVhaveVwantedVtoVendVaVcontroversyVthatVputsVAppleVsquarelyVatVoddsVwithVtheVfed
eralVgovernment.VAfterVall,VlargeVcompaniesVsuchVasVAppleVrelyVonVfavorableVtreatmentVfrom
VtheVgovernmentVinVregulatoryVmatters,VinternationalVtradeVagreements,VandVmanyVotherVare
as.VAlso,VlargeVcorporationsVsuchVasVAppleVsometimesVgainVanVadvantageVoverVcompetitorsVw
henVtheirVindustriesVareVregulated.VForVexample,VAppleVhasVsignificantVresourcesVwithVwhichVt
oVlobbyVCongressVforVfavorableVtreatment,VandVitVisVbetterVpositionedVtoVbearVtheVcostsVofVre
gulationVthanVareVother,VsmallerVtechVcompanies.VFinally,VApple‘sVpositionVasVaVchampionVofV
consumerVprivacyVwouldVbeVdamagedVifVitV―caved‖VandVchangedVitsVstanceVwithoutVbeingVfor
cedVtoVdoVsoVbyVaVnewVfederalVlaw.
CriticalVThinkingVQuestionsVinVCases
CaseV1.1
1. WhatV―dangerousVconditions‖VmightVhaveVpromptedVtheVcityVtoVenactVtheVordinancesVatViss
ueVinVthisVcase?VWhy?
Solution
AsVnotedVinVtheVfactsVofVtheVcase,VbothVordinancesVatVissueVincludedVanVextensiveVrationaleV
forVtheirVadoption,VstatingVessentiallyVthatVaVgeographicallyVsmallVcityVhasVtheVrightVtoVrestric
t Va
businessVfromVoperatingVwithinVtheVcityVwhenVtheVrestrictionVisVforVtheVsafetyVofVtheVcity‘sVciti
zensVandVvisitors.
TheVappellateVcourtVreferredVtoV―theVdangerousVconditions‖VcreatedVbyVtheVirresponsibleVdrivi
ngVbehaviorVofVscooterVrenters,VespeciallyVatVnight,VamplifiedVbyVtheVlackVofVtraining,Vsupervis
ion,VandVoversightVpracticedVbyVtheVrentalVscooterVbusinessesVthatV―existedVthroughoutVtheVe
ntireVcity‖VasVtheVbasisVforVtheVcity‘sVregulation.VTheVcourtVparaphrasedVtheVexpressiveVclause
sVinVtheVordinancesVmoreVspecifically:
• TheVCityVisVgeographicallyVsmallVandVcrowdedVandVisVbeingVbesiegedVbyVinexperiencedVsco
oterVdriversVseekingVamusementVandVdrivingVinVaVdangerousVmanner.
• TheVCityVisVaVtouristVdestinationVfrequentedVbyVtensVofVthousands,V andVitsVstreetsVareVcon
gestedVbyVscootersVthatVareVbeingVdrivenVillegallyVandVinVareasVwhereVtheyVareVnotVpermitt
ed.
• TheVCity‘sVresidentsVandVvisitorsVareVputVinVdangerousVsituationsVasVaVresultVofVtheVimprop
erV useVofVscooters,VespeciallyVatVnight.
• CityVbusinessesVhaveVcomplainedVaboutVnumerousVtrespassesVonVtheirVpropertyVbyVpeopleV
drivingVscootersVwhileVbeingVdisruptive
• CityVpoliceVhaveVbeenVunableVtoVcopeVwithVtheVsituationVandVessentialVpoliceVresourcesVar
eVbeingVdrained.
• TheVCityVhasVbeenVunableVtoVcontrolVtheVsituationVthroughVlessVrestrictiveVmeans.
©V2022VCengage.VAllVRightsVReserved.VMayVnotVbeVscanned,VcopiedVorVduplicated,VorVpostedVtoVaVpubl 2
iclyVaccessible
website,VinVwholeVorVinVpart.
, SolutionVandVAnswerVGuide:VMiller,VBusinessVLawVToday,VTheVEssentialsVTextV&VSummarizedVCasesV13e,V9780357
635346;
ChapterV01:VLegalVandVConstitutionalVFoundationsVofVBusiness
2. WhatVisVtheVlikelyVeconomicVimpactVofVtheVordinancesVonVtheVbusinessesVinVtheVcity?VDiscuss.
Solution
WithVtheVexceptionVofVtheVscooterVrentalVbusinesses,VtheVeffectVonVtheVcity‘sVeconomyVisVlike
lyVtoVbeVpositiveVinVlightVofVtheVresultVinVtheVClassyVcase.
TheVanswerVtoVtheVpreviousVquestionVcontainsVtheVreasonsVinVsupportVofVthisVoutlook.VWithV
aVbanVonVmotorizedVscooters,VtheV―smallVandVcrowded‖VcityVisVnotVlikelyVtoVbeV―besiegedVb
yVinexperiencedVscooterVdriversVseekingVamusementVandVdrivingVinVaVdangerousVmanner.‖VT
heVstreets,VfilledVwithV―tensVofVthousands‖VofVtouristsVwillVnotVbeV―congestedVbyVscootersVt
hatVareVbeingVdrivenVillegallyVandVinVareasVwhereVtheyVareVnotVpermitted.‖VResidentsVandVvis
itorsVwillVnotVbeV―putVinVdangerousVsituationsVasVaVresultVofVtheVimproperVuseVofVscooters,Ve
speciallyVatVnight.‖VThereVwillVbeVanVendVtoVtheV―numerousVtrespasses‖VonVbusinessVpropert
yV―byVpeopleVdrivingVscootersVwhileVbeingVdisruptive.‖VAndV―essentialVpoliceVresources‖VwillV
notVbeV―drained,‖VatVleastVnotVbyVirresponsibleVscooterVdriversVandVriders.VAllVofVwhichVbod
esVwellVforVbusiness.
CaseV1.2
1. IfVthisVcaseVhadVinvolvedVaVsmall,VprivateVretailVbusinessVthatVdidVnotVadvertiseVnationally,V
wouldVtheVresultVhaveVbeenVtheVsame?VWhyVorVwhyVnot?
Solution
ItVisVnotVlikelyVthatVtheVresultVinVthisVcaseVwouldVhaveVbeenVdifferentVevenVifVtheVfactsVhadVin
volvedVaVsmall,VprivateVretailVbusinessVthatVdidVnotVadvertiseVnationally.VTheVintendedVimpact
VofVtheVdecisionVinVHeartVofVAtlantaVwasVtoVupholdVtheVconstitutionalityVofVtheVCivilVRightsVAc
tVofV1964VandVtheVpowerVofVCongressVtoVregulateVinterstateVcommerceVtoVstopVlocalVdiscrimi
natoryVpractices.VInVtheVSupremeVCourt‘sVopinion,V―TheVpowerVofVCongressVtoVpromoteVinter
stateVcommerceValsoVincludesVtheVpowerVtoVregulateVtheVlocalVincidentsVthereof,VincludingVloc
alVactivitiesVinVbothVtheVStatesVofVoriginVandVdestination,VwhichVmightVhaveVaVsubstantialVand
VharmfulVeffectVuponVthat
commerce.‖
Thus,VifVtheVcaseVhadVinvolvedVaVsmall,VlocalVretailVbusiness,VtheVCourtVwouldVhaveVfoundVpa
rticipationVinVinterstateVcommerceVbasedVonVtheVuseVofVaVphone,VorVaVFacebookVpageV(orVoth
erVWebVpresence),VorVsalesVtoVcustomersVwhoVtraveledVacrossVstateVlines—
or,VasVinVWickardVv.
Filburn,VparticipationVmightVhaveVbeenVbasedVonVanyVtransactionVthatVmightVotherwiseVhaveVo
ccurredVinVinterstateVcommerce.
CaseV1.3
1. WhoseVinterestsVareVadvancedVbyVtheVbanningVofVcertainVtypesVofVadvertising?
Solution
TheVgovernment‘sVinterestsVareVadvancedVwhenVcertainVadsVareVbanned.VForVexample,VinVtheV
BadVFrogVcase,VtheVcourtVacknowledged,VbyVadvisingVtheVstateVtoVrestrictVtheVlocationsVwher
eVcertainVadsVcouldVbeVdisplayed,VthatVbanningVofV―vulgarVandVprofane‖VadvertisingVfromVchil
dren‘sVsight
arguablyVadvancedVtheVstate‘sVinterestVinVprotectingVchildrenVfromVthoseVads.
©V2022VCengage.VAllVRightsVReserved.VMayVnotVbeVscanned,VcopiedVorVduplicated,VorVpostedVtoVaVpubl 3
iclyVaccessible
website,VinVwholeVorVinVpart.
, SolutionVandVAnswerVGuide:VMiller,VBusinessVLawVToday,VTheVEssentialsVTextV&VSummarizedVCasesV13e,V9780357
635346;
ChapterV01:VLegalVandVConstitutionalVFoundationsVofVBusiness
2. IfVBadVFrogVhadVsoughtVtoVuseVtheVoffensiveVlabelVtoVmarketVtoysVinsteadVofVbeer,Vwou
ldVtheVcourt‘sVrulingVlikelyVhaveVbeenVtheVsame?VExplainVyourVanswer.
Solution
ProbablyVnot.VTheVreasoningVunderlyingVtheVcourt‘sVdecisionVinVtheVcaseVwas,VinVpart,VthatV―t
heVState‘sVprohibitionVofVtheVlabelsV.V.V.VdoesVnotVmateriallyVadvanceVitsVassertedVinterestsVin
VinsulatingVchildrenVfromVvulgarityV.V.V.VandVisVnotVnarrowlyVtailoredVtoVtheVinterestVconcernin
g
children.‖VTheVcourt‘sVreasoningVwasVsupportedVinVpartVbyVtheVfactVthatVchildrenVcannotVbuyV
beer.VIfVtheVlabelsVadvertisedVtoys,Vhowever,VtheVcourt‘sVreasoningVmightVhaveVbeenVdiffere
nt.
ChapterVReview
PracticeVandVReview
AVstateVlegislatureVenactedVaVstatuteVthatVrequiredVanyVmotorcycleVoperatorVorVpassengerVonV
theVstate‘sVhighwaysVtoVwearVaVprotectiveVhelmet.VJimVAlderman,VaVlicensedVmotorcycleVopera
tor,VsuedVtheVstateVtoVblockVenforcementVofVtheVlaw.VAldermanVassertedVthatVtheVstatuteVviol
atedVtheVequalVprotectionVclauseVbecauseVitVplacedVrequirementsVonVmotorcyclistsVthatVwereV
notVimposedVonVotherVmotorists.VUsingVtheVinformationVpresentedVinVtheVchapter,VanswerVthe
VfollowingVquestions.
1. WhyVdoesVthisVstatuteVraiseVequalVprotectionVissuesVinsteadVofVsubstantiveVdueVprocessVconcerns?
Solution
WhenVaVlawVorVactionVlimitsVtheVlibertyVofVsomeVpersonsVbutVnotVothers,VitVmayVviolateVtheVe
qualVprotectionVclause.VHere,VbecauseVtheVlawVappliesVonlyVtoVmotorcycleVoperatorsVandVpass
engers,VitVraisesVequalVprotectionVissues.
2. WhatVareVtheVthreeVlevelsVofVscrutinyVthatVtheVcourtsVuseVinVdeterminingVwhetherVaVlawVvi
olatesVtheVequalVprotectionVclause?
Solution
TheVthreeVlevelsVofVscrutinyVthatVcourtsVapplyVtoVdetermineVwhetherVtheVlawVorVactionVviolate
sVequalVprotectionVareV(1)VstrictVscrutinyV(ifVfundamentalVrightsVareVatVstake),V(2)Vintermedia
te
scrutinyV(inVcasesVinvolvingVdiscriminationVbasedVonVgenderVorVlegitimacy),VandV(3)VtheV―ration
alVbasis‖VtestV(inVmattersVofVeconomicVorVsocialVwelfare).
3. WhichVlevelVofVscrutinyVorVtestVwouldVapplyVtoVthisVsituation?VWhy?
Solution
TheVcourtVwouldVlikelyVapplyVtheVrationalVbasisVtest,VbecauseVtheVstatuteVregulatesVaVmatter
VofVsocialVwelfareVbyVrequiringVhelmets.VSimilarVtoVseat-
beltVlawsVandVspeedVlimits,VaVhelmetVstatuteVinvolvesVtheVstate‘sVattemptVtoVprotectVtheVwelf
areVofVitsVcitizens.VThus,VtheVcourtVwouldVconsiderVitVaVmatterVaVsocialVwelfareVandVrequireVt
hatVitVbeVrationallyVrelatedVtoVaVlegitimateVgovernmentVobjective.
©V2022VCengage.VAllVRightsVReserved.VMayVnotVbeVscanned,VcopiedVorVduplicated,VorVpostedVtoVaVpubl 4
iclyVaccessible
website,VinVwholeVorVinVpart.
635346;
ChapterV01:VLegalVandVConstitutionalVFoundationsVofVBusiness
Solution and Answer Guide V V V
Miller,VBusinessVLawVToday,VTheVEssentialsVTextV&VSummarizedVCasesV13e,V9780357635346;VC
hapterV01:VLegalVandVConstitutionalVFoundationsVofVBusiness
TableVofVContents
CriticalVThinkingVQuestionsVinVFeatures ................................................................................ 1
AdaptingVtheVLawVtoVtheVOnlineVEnvironment........................................................................................ 1
CriticalVThinkingVQuestionsVinVCases .................................................................................... 2
CaseV1.1..................................................................................................................................................... 2
CaseV1.2..................................................................................................................................................... 3
CaseV1.3..................................................................................................................................................... 3
ChapterVReview ................................................................................................................. 4
PracticeVandVReview ................................................................................................................................. 4
PracticeVandVReview:VDebateVThis ........................................................................................................... 5
IssueVSpotters............................................................................................................................................ 5
BusinessVScenariosVandVCaseVProblems ................................................................................................... 5
CriticalVThinkingVandVWritingVAssignments ............................................................................................ 10
CriticalVThinkingVQuestionsVinVAppendixVExhibitV1A–3 .......................................................... 11
ExhibitV1A–3 ............................................................................................................................................ 11
CriticalVThinkingVQuestionsVinVFeatures
AdaptingVtheVLawVtoVtheVOnlineVEnvironment
1. OneVobserverVhasVsaidVthatVtheVAmericanVlegalVsystemVshouldVevaluateVsocialVmediaVcompa
niesVbasedVonVhowV―theyVaffectVusVasVcitizens,VnotVonlyV[onVhow]VtheyVaffectVusVasVconsu
mers.‖VWhatVisVyourVopinionVofVthisVstatement?
Solution
TheVpersonVwhoVmadeVthisVstatementVclearlyVseesVaV―citizen‖VasVhavingVdifferentVmotivations
VandVconcernsVthanVaV―consumer.‖VPresumably,VaVcitizenVisVmostlyVconcernedVwithVtheVgood
VofVsocietyVasVaVwhole,VandVthereforeVwouldVbeVopenVtoVtheVideaVofVgovernmentVregulationVt
hatVrestrictedVtheVnegativeVinfluenceVofVsocialVmedia,VregardlessVofVtheVFirstVAmendment.VAVc
onsumer,VbyVcontrast,VwouldVbeVprimarilyVconcernedVwithVhavingVaVmarketplaceVthatVoffersVt
heVwidestVpossibleVvarietiesVofVfreedomV(ofVchoice,VofVspeech,Vetc.)VandVwouldVforVthatVreaso
nVbeVopposedVtoVgovernmentVregulationVofVsocialVmedia.VThereVis,Vhowever,VanVargumentVto
VbeVmadeVthatVtheVcitizensVthatVmakeVupVaVsocietyVbenefitVwhenVtheVmarketplaceVofVideas—
whetherVtheyVareVsubjectively
―positive‖VorV―negative‖—isVallowedVtoVflourishVinVtheVabsenceVofVgovernmentVregulation.
2. TimVCook,VApple‘sVchiefVoperatingVofficer,VhasVsuggestedVthatVtheVUnitedVStatesVCongressVs
houldVpassVaVlawVlimitingVtheVabilityVofVAppleVandVotherVtechVcountriesVtoVkeepVconsumerVd
ataVprivate.VWhyVwouldVaVbusinessVexecutiveVmakeVsuchVaVrequest?
©V2022VCengage.VAllVRightsVReserved.VMayVnotVbeVscanned,VcopiedVorVduplicated,VorVpostedVtoVaVpubl 1
iclyVaccessible
website,VinVwholeVorVinVpart.
, SolutionVandVAnswerVGuide:VMiller,VBusinessVLawVToday,VTheVEssentialsVTextV&VSummarizedVCasesV13e,V9780357
635346;
ChapterV01:VLegalVandVConstitutionalVFoundationsVofVBusiness
Solution
CookVmayVhaveVwantedVtoVendVaVcontroversyVthatVputsVAppleVsquarelyVatVoddsVwithVtheVfed
eralVgovernment.VAfterVall,VlargeVcompaniesVsuchVasVAppleVrelyVonVfavorableVtreatmentVfrom
VtheVgovernmentVinVregulatoryVmatters,VinternationalVtradeVagreements,VandVmanyVotherVare
as.VAlso,VlargeVcorporationsVsuchVasVAppleVsometimesVgainVanVadvantageVoverVcompetitorsVw
henVtheirVindustriesVareVregulated.VForVexample,VAppleVhasVsignificantVresourcesVwithVwhichVt
oVlobbyVCongressVforVfavorableVtreatment,VandVitVisVbetterVpositionedVtoVbearVtheVcostsVofVre
gulationVthanVareVother,VsmallerVtechVcompanies.VFinally,VApple‘sVpositionVasVaVchampionVofV
consumerVprivacyVwouldVbeVdamagedVifVitV―caved‖VandVchangedVitsVstanceVwithoutVbeingVfor
cedVtoVdoVsoVbyVaVnewVfederalVlaw.
CriticalVThinkingVQuestionsVinVCases
CaseV1.1
1. WhatV―dangerousVconditions‖VmightVhaveVpromptedVtheVcityVtoVenactVtheVordinancesVatViss
ueVinVthisVcase?VWhy?
Solution
AsVnotedVinVtheVfactsVofVtheVcase,VbothVordinancesVatVissueVincludedVanVextensiveVrationaleV
forVtheirVadoption,VstatingVessentiallyVthatVaVgeographicallyVsmallVcityVhasVtheVrightVtoVrestric
t Va
businessVfromVoperatingVwithinVtheVcityVwhenVtheVrestrictionVisVforVtheVsafetyVofVtheVcity‘sVciti
zensVandVvisitors.
TheVappellateVcourtVreferredVtoV―theVdangerousVconditions‖VcreatedVbyVtheVirresponsibleVdrivi
ngVbehaviorVofVscooterVrenters,VespeciallyVatVnight,VamplifiedVbyVtheVlackVofVtraining,Vsupervis
ion,VandVoversightVpracticedVbyVtheVrentalVscooterVbusinessesVthatV―existedVthroughoutVtheVe
ntireVcity‖VasVtheVbasisVforVtheVcity‘sVregulation.VTheVcourtVparaphrasedVtheVexpressiveVclause
sVinVtheVordinancesVmoreVspecifically:
• TheVCityVisVgeographicallyVsmallVandVcrowdedVandVisVbeingVbesiegedVbyVinexperiencedVsco
oterVdriversVseekingVamusementVandVdrivingVinVaVdangerousVmanner.
• TheVCityVisVaVtouristVdestinationVfrequentedVbyVtensVofVthousands,V andVitsVstreetsVareVcon
gestedVbyVscootersVthatVareVbeingVdrivenVillegallyVandVinVareasVwhereVtheyVareVnotVpermitt
ed.
• TheVCity‘sVresidentsVandVvisitorsVareVputVinVdangerousVsituationsVasVaVresultVofVtheVimprop
erV useVofVscooters,VespeciallyVatVnight.
• CityVbusinessesVhaveVcomplainedVaboutVnumerousVtrespassesVonVtheirVpropertyVbyVpeopleV
drivingVscootersVwhileVbeingVdisruptive
• CityVpoliceVhaveVbeenVunableVtoVcopeVwithVtheVsituationVandVessentialVpoliceVresourcesVar
eVbeingVdrained.
• TheVCityVhasVbeenVunableVtoVcontrolVtheVsituationVthroughVlessVrestrictiveVmeans.
©V2022VCengage.VAllVRightsVReserved.VMayVnotVbeVscanned,VcopiedVorVduplicated,VorVpostedVtoVaVpubl 2
iclyVaccessible
website,VinVwholeVorVinVpart.
, SolutionVandVAnswerVGuide:VMiller,VBusinessVLawVToday,VTheVEssentialsVTextV&VSummarizedVCasesV13e,V9780357
635346;
ChapterV01:VLegalVandVConstitutionalVFoundationsVofVBusiness
2. WhatVisVtheVlikelyVeconomicVimpactVofVtheVordinancesVonVtheVbusinessesVinVtheVcity?VDiscuss.
Solution
WithVtheVexceptionVofVtheVscooterVrentalVbusinesses,VtheVeffectVonVtheVcity‘sVeconomyVisVlike
lyVtoVbeVpositiveVinVlightVofVtheVresultVinVtheVClassyVcase.
TheVanswerVtoVtheVpreviousVquestionVcontainsVtheVreasonsVinVsupportVofVthisVoutlook.VWithV
aVbanVonVmotorizedVscooters,VtheV―smallVandVcrowded‖VcityVisVnotVlikelyVtoVbeV―besiegedVb
yVinexperiencedVscooterVdriversVseekingVamusementVandVdrivingVinVaVdangerousVmanner.‖VT
heVstreets,VfilledVwithV―tensVofVthousands‖VofVtouristsVwillVnotVbeV―congestedVbyVscootersVt
hatVareVbeingVdrivenVillegallyVandVinVareasVwhereVtheyVareVnotVpermitted.‖VResidentsVandVvis
itorsVwillVnotVbeV―putVinVdangerousVsituationsVasVaVresultVofVtheVimproperVuseVofVscooters,Ve
speciallyVatVnight.‖VThereVwillVbeVanVendVtoVtheV―numerousVtrespasses‖VonVbusinessVpropert
yV―byVpeopleVdrivingVscootersVwhileVbeingVdisruptive.‖VAndV―essentialVpoliceVresources‖VwillV
notVbeV―drained,‖VatVleastVnotVbyVirresponsibleVscooterVdriversVandVriders.VAllVofVwhichVbod
esVwellVforVbusiness.
CaseV1.2
1. IfVthisVcaseVhadVinvolvedVaVsmall,VprivateVretailVbusinessVthatVdidVnotVadvertiseVnationally,V
wouldVtheVresultVhaveVbeenVtheVsame?VWhyVorVwhyVnot?
Solution
ItVisVnotVlikelyVthatVtheVresultVinVthisVcaseVwouldVhaveVbeenVdifferentVevenVifVtheVfactsVhadVin
volvedVaVsmall,VprivateVretailVbusinessVthatVdidVnotVadvertiseVnationally.VTheVintendedVimpact
VofVtheVdecisionVinVHeartVofVAtlantaVwasVtoVupholdVtheVconstitutionalityVofVtheVCivilVRightsVAc
tVofV1964VandVtheVpowerVofVCongressVtoVregulateVinterstateVcommerceVtoVstopVlocalVdiscrimi
natoryVpractices.VInVtheVSupremeVCourt‘sVopinion,V―TheVpowerVofVCongressVtoVpromoteVinter
stateVcommerceValsoVincludesVtheVpowerVtoVregulateVtheVlocalVincidentsVthereof,VincludingVloc
alVactivitiesVinVbothVtheVStatesVofVoriginVandVdestination,VwhichVmightVhaveVaVsubstantialVand
VharmfulVeffectVuponVthat
commerce.‖
Thus,VifVtheVcaseVhadVinvolvedVaVsmall,VlocalVretailVbusiness,VtheVCourtVwouldVhaveVfoundVpa
rticipationVinVinterstateVcommerceVbasedVonVtheVuseVofVaVphone,VorVaVFacebookVpageV(orVoth
erVWebVpresence),VorVsalesVtoVcustomersVwhoVtraveledVacrossVstateVlines—
or,VasVinVWickardVv.
Filburn,VparticipationVmightVhaveVbeenVbasedVonVanyVtransactionVthatVmightVotherwiseVhaveVo
ccurredVinVinterstateVcommerce.
CaseV1.3
1. WhoseVinterestsVareVadvancedVbyVtheVbanningVofVcertainVtypesVofVadvertising?
Solution
TheVgovernment‘sVinterestsVareVadvancedVwhenVcertainVadsVareVbanned.VForVexample,VinVtheV
BadVFrogVcase,VtheVcourtVacknowledged,VbyVadvisingVtheVstateVtoVrestrictVtheVlocationsVwher
eVcertainVadsVcouldVbeVdisplayed,VthatVbanningVofV―vulgarVandVprofane‖VadvertisingVfromVchil
dren‘sVsight
arguablyVadvancedVtheVstate‘sVinterestVinVprotectingVchildrenVfromVthoseVads.
©V2022VCengage.VAllVRightsVReserved.VMayVnotVbeVscanned,VcopiedVorVduplicated,VorVpostedVtoVaVpubl 3
iclyVaccessible
website,VinVwholeVorVinVpart.
, SolutionVandVAnswerVGuide:VMiller,VBusinessVLawVToday,VTheVEssentialsVTextV&VSummarizedVCasesV13e,V9780357
635346;
ChapterV01:VLegalVandVConstitutionalVFoundationsVofVBusiness
2. IfVBadVFrogVhadVsoughtVtoVuseVtheVoffensiveVlabelVtoVmarketVtoysVinsteadVofVbeer,Vwou
ldVtheVcourt‘sVrulingVlikelyVhaveVbeenVtheVsame?VExplainVyourVanswer.
Solution
ProbablyVnot.VTheVreasoningVunderlyingVtheVcourt‘sVdecisionVinVtheVcaseVwas,VinVpart,VthatV―t
heVState‘sVprohibitionVofVtheVlabelsV.V.V.VdoesVnotVmateriallyVadvanceVitsVassertedVinterestsVin
VinsulatingVchildrenVfromVvulgarityV.V.V.VandVisVnotVnarrowlyVtailoredVtoVtheVinterestVconcernin
g
children.‖VTheVcourt‘sVreasoningVwasVsupportedVinVpartVbyVtheVfactVthatVchildrenVcannotVbuyV
beer.VIfVtheVlabelsVadvertisedVtoys,Vhowever,VtheVcourt‘sVreasoningVmightVhaveVbeenVdiffere
nt.
ChapterVReview
PracticeVandVReview
AVstateVlegislatureVenactedVaVstatuteVthatVrequiredVanyVmotorcycleVoperatorVorVpassengerVonV
theVstate‘sVhighwaysVtoVwearVaVprotectiveVhelmet.VJimVAlderman,VaVlicensedVmotorcycleVopera
tor,VsuedVtheVstateVtoVblockVenforcementVofVtheVlaw.VAldermanVassertedVthatVtheVstatuteVviol
atedVtheVequalVprotectionVclauseVbecauseVitVplacedVrequirementsVonVmotorcyclistsVthatVwereV
notVimposedVonVotherVmotorists.VUsingVtheVinformationVpresentedVinVtheVchapter,VanswerVthe
VfollowingVquestions.
1. WhyVdoesVthisVstatuteVraiseVequalVprotectionVissuesVinsteadVofVsubstantiveVdueVprocessVconcerns?
Solution
WhenVaVlawVorVactionVlimitsVtheVlibertyVofVsomeVpersonsVbutVnotVothers,VitVmayVviolateVtheVe
qualVprotectionVclause.VHere,VbecauseVtheVlawVappliesVonlyVtoVmotorcycleVoperatorsVandVpass
engers,VitVraisesVequalVprotectionVissues.
2. WhatVareVtheVthreeVlevelsVofVscrutinyVthatVtheVcourtsVuseVinVdeterminingVwhetherVaVlawVvi
olatesVtheVequalVprotectionVclause?
Solution
TheVthreeVlevelsVofVscrutinyVthatVcourtsVapplyVtoVdetermineVwhetherVtheVlawVorVactionVviolate
sVequalVprotectionVareV(1)VstrictVscrutinyV(ifVfundamentalVrightsVareVatVstake),V(2)Vintermedia
te
scrutinyV(inVcasesVinvolvingVdiscriminationVbasedVonVgenderVorVlegitimacy),VandV(3)VtheV―ration
alVbasis‖VtestV(inVmattersVofVeconomicVorVsocialVwelfare).
3. WhichVlevelVofVscrutinyVorVtestVwouldVapplyVtoVthisVsituation?VWhy?
Solution
TheVcourtVwouldVlikelyVapplyVtheVrationalVbasisVtest,VbecauseVtheVstatuteVregulatesVaVmatter
VofVsocialVwelfareVbyVrequiringVhelmets.VSimilarVtoVseat-
beltVlawsVandVspeedVlimits,VaVhelmetVstatuteVinvolvesVtheVstate‘sVattemptVtoVprotectVtheVwelf
areVofVitsVcitizens.VThus,VtheVcourtVwouldVconsiderVitVaVmatterVaVsocialVwelfareVandVrequireVt
hatVitVbeVrationallyVrelatedVtoVaVlegitimateVgovernmentVobjective.
©V2022VCengage.VAllVRightsVReserved.VMayVnotVbeVscanned,VcopiedVorVduplicated,VorVpostedVtoVaVpubl 4
iclyVaccessible
website,VinVwholeVorVinVpart.
