55. Which of the following statements is an INACCURATE description of the state's law as applied to the letter carriers?

A bill of attainder is a legislative act that inflicts punishment without a judicial trial upon individuals who are designated either by name or in terms of past conduct. Past conduct acts to define who those particular persons are. Both the federal and state governments are prohibited from passing bills of attainder.

A law is void for vagueness if it does not provide individuals with fair and reasonable notice of the boundaries between lawful and unlawful conduct, in violation of the Due Process Clause.

The federal government is essentially immune from state regulatory interference. Sometimes a federal employee will be free of state regulation while acting in the course of his federal duties. See, e.g., Johnson v. Maryland, 254 U.S. 51 (1920) (reversing the conviction of a post office employee for driving a truck without a state license).

It is presumptively unconstitutional for the government to place burdens on speech because of its content. To justify such content-based regulation of speech, the government must show that the regulation is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and narrowly drawn to achieve that end, or that the speech falls under an unprotected category of speech, which includes any speech that creates a clear and present danger of imminent lawless action or constitutes «fighting words.»

A is correct. This is an inaccurate description of the state's law as applied to the letter carriers because a bill of attainder requires criminalization of certain named individuals or past conduct without a trial, and here, the law proscribes specific conduct that anyone engages in going forward.

B is incorrect. The statutory prohibition against «seditious propaganda» would be unconstitutional under the void for vagueness doctrine, especially since the prohibition inhibits speech, a context in which the void-for-vagueness doctrine has a special bite. Thus, it is accurate to say that the statute is void for vagueness.

C is incorrect. Federal employees are immune from state laws that interfere with their obligation to carry out an authorized function, such as the U.S. letter carriers here. It is accurate to say that the state statute may not be applied to the letter carriers, as employees of a federal instrumentality carrying out an authorized function.

D is incorrect. The state law violates the constitutionally protected freedom of speech because it prohibits subversive speech (a content-based restriction) without any evidence of a compelling state interest or a showing that it is unprotected speech, such as inciting imminent lawless action. As such, it is accurate to say that the statute unconstitutionally abridges rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.