7. Earth Vision is a Christian nonprofit organization that offered employment to Ms. Adams as an Information Technology technician, but later rescinded that job offer upon learning of Ms. Adams' same-sex marriage. Earth Vision did so pursuant to a policy that reflects its sincerely held religious belief that marriage is a Biblical covenant between a man and a woman. Ms. Adams filed the instant lawsuit, claiming that Earth Vision unlawfully discriminated against her in violation of the Washington Law Against Discrimination ("WLAD") for sex, sexual orientation, and marital status discrimination, which incudes a prohibition against discrimination in employment based on gender and/or sexual orientation. The church has filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that compliance with the law violates its right to free exercise of religion. How should the court rule on the Church's defense? A. In favor of the church because a religious institution has the right to select its own employees without government interference.

B. In favor of the church because the failure to allow the church to rescind the applicant's job offer fails strict scrutiny.

C. In favor of the applicant because Ministerial exception does not shield employers from state anti-discrimination laws.

D. In favor of the applicant because an Information Technology technician is not involved in the church's core religious mission.

8. A State X law makes it illegal to use cartoon characters in advertisements for any tobacco products because of its concern that such advertisements will contribute to minors using tobacco products, which is prohibited by law. A tobacco company, DownUnder Smoking, that is based in Australia uses a Kangaroo cartoon figure in its advertisements because it believes that customers will associate a Kangaroo with Australia. One such advertisement was shown on TV on a station that broadcast to California, among other places. DownUnder Smoking was charged with violation of the State X law. DownUnder Smoking argues in defense that it engaged in conduct protected under the First Amendment. How should the court rule? A. For DownUnder Smoking because the government cannot prove that the law is narrowly tailored to further a compelling state interest.

B. For DownUnder Smoking because it uses the Kangaroo for reasons wholly separate from appealing to minors.

C. For the State because the advertisement is not entitled to First Amendment protection.

D. For the state because the regulation is narrowly tailored to serve a substantial governmental interest.

9. Hagar was a candidate for school board president. She was running against a candidate who was facing a corruption investigation related to taking bribes in exchange for better grades for students. Hagar had previously been convicted of fraud, but she believed that the records for that conviction had been expunged. During a campaign speech, she stated that "she is the choice for honesty because she has never taken any bribe nor committed any fraud in her life." State X has a law that that makes it unlawful to "intentionally make a false statement for purpose of influencing voters in any public election." State X charges Hagar with violating the law. Hagar asserts a defense that the law is unconstitutional under the First Amendment. How should the court rule? A. In favor of Hagar because the regulation fails strict scrutiny.

B. In favor of Hagar because the state cannot establish actual malice.

C. In favor of the State because false speech has no protection under the First Amendment.

D. In favor of the State because it has a rational basis to prohibit false speech in an election.

10. In the runup to an election that included a proposition restricting LGBT reading material to minors, an organization, Love4All, supporting LGBT rights created a video celebrating LGBT relationships. It included several adults engaging in same-sex romantic and sexual activity. The video was shown in a very conservative town dominated by a religion that believes LBGT relationships are an affront to God's laws. The President of Love4All was charged with violating the town's obscenity statute, which prohibits the distribution of material considered obscenity. The jury was properly instructed on the definition of obscenity as set forth in federal case law. The jury found in favor of the state and the President was convicted. If the President of Love4All wishes to raise a First Amendment defense on appeal, what is the best argument? A. The video does not appeal to the prurient interest in sex.

B. The video is not patently offensive

C. The video has serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value

D. The regulation is a content-based restriction on speech. 11. A group seeking to raise awareness of female mortality during birth made a demonstration across the street from the white house. The group put out a number of folding chairs, and put a photo on each that depicted a women who had died in childbirth in the last year. After a half hour that including speeches and pictures of the demonstration, the group put the chairs away and left. The President has recently suffered criticism for not sufficiently funding pre-natal and birth care for women. After learning of the protest, the President ordered the participants to be charged with violating a statute that prohibits erecting any furniture or structures within 100 feet of the White House. The group members have raised the defense based on the First Amendment free speech rights. How should the court rule? A. For the group protestors because the government lacks a sufficiently important government interest and the incidental restriction on First Amendment freedoms is greater than essential to further than interest

B. For the group protestors because the government's action is not necessary to further a compelling government interest

C. For the government because the government's regulation concerned conduct and not speech

D. For the government because the group's activities in this context fall outside first amendment protection 12. An anti-abortion protest was held outside a hospital that provided for reproductive care. The group made speeches and carried signs communicating their message that life begins and conception and all abortion is murder. When a doctor exited the maternity ward at the hospital, a protestor named Ronald pointed at the doctor and said "There's one of the murderers now! Let's go get him and beat her until she knows what it feels like to have their life in the hands of someone else." Right after Ronald made the statement, a police officer arrested him for solicitation of assault. In the ensuing court case, Ronald asserts that his speech was protected by the First Amendment. How should the court rule? A. For Ronald because no one acted on the statements he made.

B. For Ronald because he was engaging in political advocacy

C. For the government because he was advocating a violation of law

D. For the government because he urged the crowd to beat her while she was in its presence.

13. A state law provides some funding for public parks on a per capita basis from general state revenues, which primarily come from the state income and sales taxes. The law also provides that any additional funding must come from locally levied real estate taxes. This results in a large disparity in funding for public parks because some localities have significantly higher property values than others. Moreover, generally racial minorities tends to be more represented in localities with lower property values. Hispanic residents of a city with low real estate values, and thus low real estate tax revenue, have challenged the law on the ground that it violates the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause. Which of the following best states the burden of persuasion in this action? A. The state must show that the law is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest.

B. The government must show that the law is substantially related to an important interest.

C. The residents must demonstrate that the law is not rationally related to any legitimate state interest.

D. The residents must demonstrate that the law is not substantially related to an important state interest.