Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
49. Is the ordinance constitutional?
A city passed an ordinance requiring individuals to obtain a license in order to care for children under the age of 12 for pay. City officials who promoted the ordinance said that the licensing process would ensure that child-care workers were adequately regulated for the health and safety of the city's children. To receive a license, the ordinance requires an individual to complete 10 hours of instruction in child care, undergo a background check, and pay a $100 fee. The ordinance affects women disproportionately to men, because female child-care workers far outnumber male child-care workers in the city.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
The Contract Clause under Article I, Section 10 states: «No State shall. .. pass any. .. Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts. . .» This Clause prevents only substantial impairments of contract (i.e., destruction of most or all of a party's rights under a contract). However, not all substantial impairments are invalid. The three-part test under the Contract Clause is to determine whether the legislation: (i) substantially impairs a party's rights under an existing contract; (ii) serves an important and legitimate public interest; and (iii) is a reasonable and narrowly tailored means of protecting that interest.
D is correct. The ordinance is constitutional because, despite the disparate impact of the licensing requirements on women, it need only satisfy the mere rationality standard of review. This is because heightened judicial scrutiny is only triggered when there is a discriminatory purpose, which is not the case here. The purpose of the ordinance is to effectively regulate and protect the health and safety of children. This is a legitimate government objective, and the imposed licensing provisions are rationally related to that end.
A is incorrect. Even if a court were to find (incorrectly) that the ordinance discriminates against women, the appropriate standard of review would require the court to examine whether the ordinance is substantially related to an important government interest (intermediate scrutiny), not whether the ordinance is necessary to serve a compelling government interest (strict scrutiny). As stated above, the ordinance is constitutional because it is rationally related to a legitimate government objective.
B is incorrect. Even if the court were to find that the ordinance violates the freedom of contract because of its infringement on the ability of child care workers to contract for their services via licensing requirements, the correct standard of review would not be strict scrutiny because it is not a fundamental right. Rather, a three-part test would apply, which requires the law to serve an important and legitimate interest that is reasonable and narrowly tailored.
C is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct answer with the wrong reasoning. Although the ordinance is constitutional, it is not because it satisfies (or is required to satisfy) this standard of review. The city is not required to show that the burden imposed by the ordinance is clearly outweighed by an important government objective. The correct standard is mere rationality review, which is satisfied, as explained above.