Reference no: EM133203970

Assignment

Please choose one of the following four topics and write a response. Your response should be 700 - 1,000 words.

Question 1. You are a justice on the Supreme Court of SJCC, a new island nation. You are tasked with writing the opinion of the Court in Gray v. Koulter. Gray, the plaintiff, was fired from his position as an accountant at Kromer International, a medical devices company. Gray alleges that Koulter, the owner of the company, fired him because he is a gay man. Gray claims this was a violation of Title VII of the SJCC Civil Rights Act, which provides: "No employer shall discriminate against a person on the basis of sex." At Koulter's request, the SJCC trial dismissed Gray's lawsuit, ruling that Title VII's discrimination prohibition does not apply when an employer discriminates against employees for being gay, because that is not a discrimination "based on sex." The SJCC court of appeal reversed, holding that Title VII's "because of sex" language encompasses discrimination against a person because he or she is gay or lesbian. Koulter has appealed to the SJCC Supreme Court.
Write an opinion for the Court in which you decide which interpretation of Title VII is correct. In writing your opinion, you may cite precedents from United States courts, but you are not bound by those precedents. You should exercise your independent judgment in interpreting and applying the statute in the case.

Question 2. You are a staffer for an influential U.S. senator. She has asked you to evaluate the proposal another staffer has made to abolish the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The senator asks you to write a memo outlining (1) the purpose of the FDA and EPA, i.e., why those agencies exist and what types of regulations they promulgate; and (2) whether you think the FDA and EPA should continue to exist or should be abolished consistent with the other staffer's proposal. In responding to part (2) of the memo, you are free to have a different position as to each of the two agencies. Be sure in your memo to explain why you think each of the two agencies should or should not exist in the federal government. If you believe that either should continue to exist, be sure to support your position with arguments for why that would be better than the alternative of the free market. If you believe that either should be abolished, be sure to support your position with arguments for why the free market would be superior and adequately protect the same interests.

Question 3. You work for a legislator in the new State of Jefferson. She decides that the legislature, not the courts, should decide which contracts are enforceable and which are not. She asks you to write a memo proposing a new set of rules governing contract defenses and enforceability in Jefferson. Write her a memo that states (1) which existing rules in the United States that provide defenses against the enforcement of contracts should be preserved, if any; and (2) which existing rules about enforceability should be abolished, if any. For each contract defense you propose to preserve or abolish, explain why the defense exists and the policy reasons for why you think it should be preserved or abolished.

Question 4. You are a justice on the Supreme Court of SJCC, a new island nation. The nation of SJCC has a Constitution with the same language as the U.S. Constitution, including the Commerce Clause. You have to decide the case of LeGangia v. SJCC. The case arose because the SJCC government prosecuted LeGangia for growing a marijuana plant in her backyard. LaGangia claims that the SJCC law prohibiting the private growing of marijuana is invalid, because the SJCC Commerce Clause does not give Congress the power to pass it. The government responds by asking the SJCC Supreme Court to adopt U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Gonzalez v. Raich, holding that the Commerce Clause grants the federal government power to prohibit private marijuana cultivation.
Write an opinion for the case in which you decide whether the SJCC government's law is valid. Make sure to reference relevant U.S. Supreme Court cases-including Wickard v. Filburn, Gonzalez v. Raich, and NFIB v. Sebelius, along with any other case you choose-and explain whether you think SJCC should adopt the holdings of those cases. Remember, you are not bound by the U.S. Supreme Court decisions. The whole purpose of this assignment is for you to state whether you agree with those decisions, and why or why not. If you agree with them, you should adopt them and explain why. If you don't agree with them, you should reject them as the law of SJCC and explain why.