Reference no: EM133192293

Case Description

The Baker family resides at 1234567 Jump Street in Meadowbrook Indiana. Mr. Baker is an insurance salesman. Ms. Baker after earning her M.D. degree from IUN decided to enroll in the MBA program also at that same university. If not in class she can be found at home. One day during the summer of 2015, while at home, two men dressed in black knocked on the Baker's front door. Ms. Baker answered and greeted them. The men in black invited themselves into the home. Ms. Baker was somewhat taken back at their intrusive behavior. As a result, she said, "What do you guys want?" The men in black responded as follows: "We heard that you are planning on getting pregnant". Ms. Baker retorted, "That's none of your business and furthermore, I resent that comment." The men in black then told Ms. Baker that congress had just passed a law that made it illegal to become pregnant.

Ms. Baker finally cooled off and told the men in black that they were joking and that she would discuss the situation with her mother who lives in III-in-noise. The Bakers were planning a trip to III-in-noise that evening and she so informed the men in black at which point the men in black said, "You guys are not going anywhere." "If you attempt to leave Indiana for any reason, you will be arrested". By this time, Ms. Baker was furious. She said, "Listen, I just took a course in constitutional law taught by Professor Conover and my husband and I are going to retain him to sue you. The men in black then broke out laughing and replied, "You must be kidding, Conover, we know him, he's a clown." " He got his law degree from the back of a matchbook cover while on vacation in Idaho." Ms. Baker was becoming more upset by the minute.

Finally, she told the men in black that she had to get to the polls before closing so that she could vote for Donald Trump. Again, the men in black refused to let her leave her home to vote. As a result of that denial, Trump lost the election. At this point, Ms. Baker was so mad that she almost did something that she might have regretted later. She told the men in black that she was going to hold a town hall meeting next Tuesday and let everyone know about their absurd behavior. That really shook up the men in black so much so that they got and injunction prohibiting assembly for the purpose of Ms. Baker speaking badly, as Glen Beck would say, against the men in black. As an aside, to supplement his income, Mr. Baker drives a 45 ft. flatbed from Meadobrook, Indiana to Chicago every night as a second job after leaving his office. The Bakers do not own a car. Instead, they always travel in the flatbed. The flatbed has straight mudguards. Last week, Ill-in-noise passed a law requiring all flatbeds traveling in III-in-noise to be equipped with contoured mudguards.

Question. Have any of the Baker's constitutional rights been violated? If so, which or what one(s)? If said rights have been violated, what are those right(s) known as? What standard(s) will the court use to determine if said right(s) have or have not been violated.

Are any other constitutional right(s) or issues been raised in the above diatribe? If so, please identify the same. If other constitutional issues have been raised, what standard(s) will the court use to determine the status of those rights or issues?