30. In this proceeding, does this license holder have a meritorious defense based on the United States Constitution?

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides: «Congress shall make no law. .. abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. .. .»

MBE Tip: When a government restriction on the time, place, and manner of speech is at issue, it is necessary to FIRST make a threshold determination of whether the regulation is content-based or content-neutral.

A regulation is content-based if the government is aiming at the «communicative impact» of the expression, and if it is, it does not matter whether the expression takes place in a public forum or not; in either event, the governmental regulation is presumptively invalid, unless the expression falls in a pre-defined «unprotected category» (which includes, but is not limited to, speech that creates a clear and present danger, constitutes «fighting words,» is obscene, defamatory, and so on).

Content-based regulation of speech is subject to strict scrutiny, meaning the government bears the burden of showing that the regulation is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and is narrowly drawn to achieve this end. By contrast, if the government is aiming at something other than the communicative impact, the action is considered «content-neutral,» even if it has the effect of burdening expression.

Political speech is at the core of protected speech. As such, the government cannot prohibit political speech based on its content. Further, the government cannot condition a right or benefit on an agreement by an individual not to engage in constitutionally-protected speech.

The Supreme Court will not decide a challenge to a government or private action unless the person who is challenging the action has «standing» to raise the issue. A person has standing only if she can demonstrate a concrete stake in the outcome of the controversy. A plaintiff will be able to show a sufficient stake in the controversy only if she can show an injury in fact, caused by the defendant, that will be remedied by a decision in her favor (i.e., causation and redressability).

The Due Process Clause protects not only «substantive» rights, but it also requires that the state act with adequate or fair procedures when it deprives a person of life, liberty or property. However, when the government establishes a broad, mechanical requirement that must be met to be issued a license in a certain profession, a substantive due process analysis will apply. And the Due Process Clause protects a person's freedom to engage in activities that involve fundamental constitutional rights, including the freedom of expression.

The Fifth Amendment prohibits the governmental taking of private property «for public use without just compensation.» As such, both state and federal governments have the right to take private property for public use as long as «just compensation» is paid. When a state merely regulates property use in a manner consistent with the state's designated powers, no compensation needs to be paid, even if the owner's use of his property, or its value, has been substantially diminished. Often, regulations that result in unconstitutional takings occur in cases involving land-use, especially when there has been a denial of all economically viable use of the land.

D is correct. The license holder does have a meritorious defense because imposing such a content-based restriction on political speech is presumptively unconstitutional, and it will not survive strict scrutiny. Political speech is at the heart of protected expression, and unless a regulation restricting such speech is necessary to achieve a compelling interest in a way that is narrowly tailored, it will be found unconstitutional. Here, prohibiting all political candidate bumper stickers on private property is not necessary to achieve the interest of preventing the imputing of political views of taxi drivers onto city council, which has not been shown to be compelling.

A is incorrect. The government may not condition acceptance of the license on the relinquishing the fundamental constitutional right of free speech. He has standing because he has a concrete stake in the controversy, which is, choosing between exercising free speech and making a living by using his license to drive a taxi.

B is incorrect. Even if the license is considered a privilege, this does not allow the government to condition its issuance on the relinquishing of a fundamental constitutional right. Moreover, there is arguably a right (as opposed to a privilege) in the license because the ordinance permits revocation of that license only for «good cause.»

C is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct answer with the wrong reasoning. Although there is a meritorious defense here, it is not based on the Fifth Amendment «Takings» Clause. Just compensation is owed when the government takes a citizen's private property, although this is typically applicable to physical land use cases. Moreover, even when the government restricts the use of property in a way that does not deprive the owner of all economically viable use, it will not be considered a taking, even if the value has been substantially diminished. Here, the economic value of the license to operate a taxi has not been reduced. It is the infringement on free speech that creates the defense, as explained above.