Please complete the EP and DP Constitutional Analysis questions in reference to the Bad Frog Case.

EP and DP Constitutional Analysis 1. What are the facts? 2. What rule/law/action is being reviewed for constitutionality? 3. Does the Constitution even apply in this case? What court has jurisdiction and why? 5. What does law/rule/action regulate or impact? (what type of rights for DP type of class for EP) 6. Which Constitutional Clause applies and why? 7. What STANDARD OF REVIEW applies? Why? 8. What Level of govt. OBJECTIVE needed to justify law/rule?why? 9. What is the required (FIT) of the rule/law to accomplishment of objective? 10. Is the law Constitutional? Does it meet the needed Objective and FIT? (means - end test) 11. Business Recommendation to make rule/law legal? 12. What are the requirements for procedural due process?SPOTLIGHT on Beer Labels Case 5.3 Bad Frog Brewery, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 134 F.3d 87 (1998). BACKGROUND AND FACTS Bad Frog Brewery, Inc., makes and sells alcoholic beverages. Some of the beverages feature labels that display a drawing of a frog making the gesture generally known as "giving the finger." Bad Frog's authorized New York distributor, Renaissance Beer Company, applied to the New York State Liquor Authority (NYSLA) for brand label approval, as required by state law before the bee could be sold in New York. The NYSLA denied the application, in part, because "the label could appear in grocery and conve nience stores, with obvious exposure on the shelf to children of tender age." Bad Frog filed a suit in a federal district court against the NYSLA, asking for, among other things, an injunction against the denial of the application. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the NYSLA. Bad Frog appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE COURT Jon O. NEWMAN, Circuit Judge: * * * * * * * To support its asserted power to ban Bad Frog's labels [NYSLA advances] * * * the State interest in "protecting children from vulgar and profane advertising" * * * . CASE 5.3 CONTINUED This interest is] substantial * * * . States have a compelling interest in protecting the physical and psychological wellbeing of minors * * * . [Emphasis added.] * * * NYSLA endeavors to advance the state interest in preventing exposure of children to vulgar displays by taking only the limited step of barring such displays from the labels of alcoholic beverages. In view of the wide currency of vulgar displays throughout contemporary society, including comic books targeted directly at children, barring such displays from labels for alcoholic bev- erages cannot realistically be expected to reduce children's exposure to such displays to any significant degree. [Emphasis added.] * * * If New York decides to make a substantial effort to insulate children from vulgar displays in some significant sphere of activity, at least with respect to materials likely to be seen by children, NYSLA's label prohibition might well be found to make a justifiable contri- bution to the material advancement of such an effort, but its currently isolated response to the perceived problem, applicable only to labels on a product that children cannot purchase, does not suffice. * * * A state must demonstrate that its commercial speech limitation is part of a substantial effort to advance a valid state interest, not merely the removal of a few grains of offensive sand from a beach of vulgarity. * * * * * * * Even if we were to assume that the state materially advances its asserted interest by shielding children from viewing the Bad Frog labels, it is plainly excessive to prohibit the labels from all use, including placement on bottles displayed in bars and taverns where parental supervision of children is to be expected. Moreover, to whatever extent NYSLA is concerned that children will be harmfully exposed to the Bad Frog labels when wandering without parental supervision around grocery and convenience stores where beer is sold, that concern could be less intrusively dealt with by placing restrictions on the permissible loca- tions where the appellant's products may be displayed within such stores. DECISION AND REMEDY The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the judgment of the district court and remanded the case for the entry of a judgment in favor of Bad Frog. The NYSLA's ban on the use of the labels lacked a "reasonable fit" with the state's interest in shielding minors from vulgarity. In addition, the NYSLA had not adequately considered alternatives to the ban. WHAT IF THE FACTS WERE DIFFERENT? If Bad Frog had sought to use the offensive label to market toys instead of beer, would the court's ruling likely have been the same? Why or why not? THE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT DIMENSION Whose interests are advanced by the banning of certain types of advertising