Applying Constitutional Principles: Integrated Case Scenarios on Power and Rights

How to Apply Constitutional Principles in Real Disputes

This chapter is an application lab: you will practice a repeatable method for analyzing disputes that mix power (who may act, and how) with rights (what government may not do). The goal is not to memorize outcomes, but to build a disciplined habit of identifying the decision-maker, the legal authority claimed, the constitutional constraint, the rights at stake, and the institutional route the dispute will take.

A Repeatable Analysis Format (Use This Every Time)

For each scenario below, write your analysis in the same structure. Treat it like a checklist that prevents you from skipping steps.

1. Actor: Who is acting? (federal/state/local; legislature/executive agency/court; private party?)
2. Power claimed: What kind of authority is being used? (spending, commerce regulation, police power, enforcement, emergency authority, conditions on funding, licensing, etc.)
3. Constitutional constraint: What limits the actor? (separation of powers, federalism limits, procedural requirements, enumerated powers, anti-commandeering, preemption, etc.)
4. Rights at issue (if any): Which individual rights are implicated? (speech, due process, equal protection, etc.)
5. Likely institutional pathway: How does this get decided? (legislation, agency rule, executive order, enforcement action, administrative hearing, state/federal litigation, injunction, appeal)
6. Key missing facts: What facts would change the analysis? (intent, scope, neutrality, alternatives, burden, comparators, notice, hearing timing)
7. Reasoned prediction: What is the most likely outcome and why? State the rule(s) you used, not just your preference.

Step-by-Step Workflow (Practical)

• Step 1: Map the decision chain. Identify who made the rule, who enforces it, and who reviews it.
• Step 2: Classify the government action. Is it a general law, a targeted enforcement, a licensing decision, a benefit condition, or a punishment?
• Step 3: Separate “power” questions from “rights” questions. A government might have power to act but still violate rights; or lack power even if no right is burdened.
• Step 4: Identify the standard you would apply. For example: procedural fairness requirements for due process; classification scrutiny for equal protection; content-based vs content-neutral for speech; federalism doctrines for state/federal conflicts.
• Step 5: Test alternatives and tailoring. Ask whether the government could achieve its goal with less intrusion on rights or less disruption of federal/state roles.
• Step 6: Predict the forum and remedy. Injunction? damages? suppression? declaratory judgment? administrative reversal?

Integrated Case Scenarios (Increasing Complexity)

Each scenario includes a structured analysis template you must fill in. Do not skip categories. If you think a category is “none,” say why.

Scenario 1 (Foundational): City Permit Rule for Demonstrations

A city adopts an ordinance requiring a permit for any public demonstration of more than 25 people in a downtown park. The permit office may deny permits if the event is “likely to cause controversy” or if the office believes police staffing would be “inconvenient.” A local group is denied a permit for a rally criticizing city leadership. The group sues in federal court.

Reflection prompts (write answers):

Continue in our app.

You can listen to the audiobook with the screen off, receive a free certificate for this course, and also have access to 5,000 other free online courses.

Or continue reading below...

Download the app

• Which words in the ordinance create the biggest constitutional risk, and why?
• What additional facts about how permits are granted to other groups would matter?
• If the city rewrote the rule to use objective criteria (time, place, manner), what would you need to check to evaluate it?

Scenario 2 (Power + Procedure): State Agency License Suspension Without a Hearing

A state health agency suspends a restaurant’s operating license immediately after an inspector reports “unsanitary conditions.” The agency provides a written notice but offers no hearing for 45 days. The restaurant claims it is losing its business and that the inspector’s report is mistaken. The agency says immediate action is necessary to protect the public.

Reflection prompts:

• What is the strongest argument that the agency can act first and provide process later?
• What features of the notice (detail, evidence, opportunity to respond) would change your due process analysis?
• How would your analysis change if the agency had offered an informal hearing within 72 hours?

Scenario 3 (Equal Protection + Local Enforcement): Curfew Enforcement Pattern

A city enacts a youth curfew: minors may not be in public spaces after 10 p.m. unless accompanied by a parent or traveling to work. Over six months, 85% of citations are issued in two neighborhoods with different racial demographics than the city overall. Community members allege discriminatory enforcement. The city responds that those neighborhoods have higher complaint calls and that the ordinance is facially neutral.

Reflection prompts:

• What is the difference between disparate impact and discriminatory intent in your reasoning?
• What comparator data would you request to test the city’s explanation?
• How would your analysis change if internal emails showed targeting language?

Scenario 4 (Federalism + Preemption + Speech): State “Platform Neutrality” Law

A state passes a law requiring large social media platforms to carry all political candidates’ posts and forbidding the platforms from labeling posts as “misleading.” The state attorney general may fine platforms for violations. A platform challenges the law, arguing it interferes with editorial discretion and conflicts with federal regulatory choices.

Reflection prompts:

• How do you separate the state’s claimed police power from potential conflicts with federal law?
• What facts about the platform’s function (curation, ranking, labeling) matter to the speech analysis?
• What would you look for to evaluate whether federal law preempts the state law (express, conflict, field)?

Scenario 5 (Separation of Powers + Due Process): Federal Agency “Guidance” With Major Consequences

A federal agency issues a “guidance memo” stating that any hospital receiving federal funds must adopt a specific patient-discharge protocol within 30 days. The memo was not issued through notice-and-comment rulemaking. Inspectors begin citing hospitals for noncompliance and threatening loss of reimbursement. A hospital argues the agency effectively created a binding rule without proper procedure and that the enforcement process is unfair.

Reflection prompts:

• What indicators suggest the memo is “practically binding” rather than merely advisory?
• Which institutional check is most relevant here: Congress, courts, or internal agency process? Explain.
• What additional procedural protections would reduce the due process concern?

Scenario 6 (Integrated): Federal Funding Condition, State Implementation, Individual Rights

Congress creates a grant program for states to improve public safety technology. To receive funds, states must adopt a statewide policy requiring local police to upload body-camera footage of all arrests to a state-managed database within 24 hours. A state accepts the funds and passes a law compelling local departments to comply. A local department objects that the state is forcing it to administer a program it cannot afford. Separately, an arrestee sues, claiming the automatic upload policy violates due process because footage is released to prosecutors immediately but defense access is delayed by 60 days.

Reflection prompts:

• Identify the two separate disputes embedded in this scenario and explain why they require different analyses.
• What facts would matter to whether the funding condition is coercive or a permissible incentive?
• For the arrestee’s claim, what procedural timeline facts (notice, access, preservation, sanctions) would change your due process reasoning?

Scenario 7 (High Complexity): Emergency Order, Legislative Override, and Targeted Enforcement

After a series of coordinated threats against public buildings, a governor declares a state emergency and issues an executive order: (1) prohibits “threatening or inflammatory” speech within 500 feet of government facilities; (2) authorizes state police to detain individuals for up to 72 hours for “investigative screening” if officers believe the person poses a “public safety risk”; (3) directs local governments to enforce the order as a condition of receiving state emergency funds. The state legislature passes a bill narrowing the order, but the governor vetoes it. Several people are detained after chanting harsh slogans outside a courthouse; one detainee is a member of a minority religious group and alleges selective enforcement.

Reflection prompts:

• Separate your analysis into three tracks: (A) separation of powers within the state, (B) speech restrictions, (C) detention procedures and equal protection in enforcement.
• What facts would you need to decide whether the speech rule is content-based or content-neutral in practice?
• What procedural safeguards (timely hearing, counsel access, written reasons) would most affect the detention analysis?
• What evidence would support or undermine a selective enforcement claim?

Reusable “What Would Change My Answer?” Checklist

After each scenario, force yourself to list at least five facts that could change the outcome. Use this menu to avoid vague answers.

• Scope: How broad is the rule (who, where, when)?
• Neutrality: Does it apply evenly, or does it single out a viewpoint/class?
• Discretion: How much unguided discretion does an official have?
• Process timing: Notice before/after; hearing speed; ability to present evidence.
• Comparator evidence: How are similarly situated people treated?
• Government interest: What is the stated goal and what evidence supports it?
• Alternatives: Are there less restrictive means?
• Intergovernmental conflict: Is there preemption, commandeering, or conditional funding pressure?
• Remedy posture: Are you seeking an injunction, damages, suppression, or administrative reversal?

Practice: Turn One Scenario into a Short Legal Memo

Pick any scenario above and write a one-page memo using the headings below. This forces rule-based reasoning and makes your analysis transferable to new fact patterns.

1. Issue(s) Presented (1–3 sentences) 2. Relevant Actors and Authorities 3. Constraints and Standards (power + rights) 4. Application to Key Facts (include uncertainties) 5. Likely Pathway and Remedies 6. Facts That Would Change the Analysis