Hypothetical Case Study

Hypotheticals

In this section you will be given hypothetical case facts, statutes, and legal arguments made

by the parties. You will then write a Court opinion as if you were a Supreme Court justice.

When writing, remember you should make the decision as current precedent dictates, not as

you feel it should be. The best answers will discuss the entire history of that area of case

law in the lead up to the discussion of the current case law.

DO NOT

draw on your own

opinion, rather follow precedent. Be sure to include the statute, constitutional provision,

legal question, legal reasoning, an outcome, and a doctrine. (look at Ex Parte Quinn 1942)

During the recent Galactic Civil War, President Palpaltine decides to hold captured

rebel soldiers on the ice moon of Hoth. One of these prisoners, Chewbacca, was

captured on the battlefields of Yavin-4, out of uniform sneaking behind enemy lines.

Chewbacca petitions for a writ of

habeas corpus

, arguing that his status as an Amer-

ican citizen entitles him to

habeas

review. President Palpaltine maintains that giving

Chewbacca access to the courts would distract the executive from the war effort by

forcing top commanders to fly half a galaxy away to court. Additionally, sensitive

government war secrets might be revealed in open court. For their part, the Galactic

Senate (Congress) is silent on the matter.



must use book 

Epstein, Lee and Thomas Walker. 2013. Constitutional Law for a Changing America: Insti-

tutional Powers and Constraints. 8th edition. Congressional Quarterly Press: Washington.





here is rubric

Hypothetical:

(10 Points)



Constitutional Provision and Statute

(1)



Legal question

(2)



History of case law

(3)



Relevant precedent

(1.5)



Relevant doctrine from precedent

(2)



Proper holding

(.5)



here is an example of what your hypothetical should look like

Hyp othetical:

Mitt Obama, a presidential candidate, sues Bob Smith, a carto onist whose comic strip sug-

gests Mitt Obama is not particularly smart. Mitt Obama claims Smith's carto on is lib el

under the Don't Criticize Politicians Act of 2013. Smith claims the carto on is a paro dy and

is therefore protected under the First Amendment.

Answer:

Justice Me delivered the Opinion of the Court:

We are asked to decide whether Smith's carto on qualies as lib el under the Don't Criti-

cize Politicians Act of 2013. Ultimately, we must ask whether the Don't Criticize Politicians

Act of 2013 violates the Free Press Clause of the Constitution. We hold that it do es.

This Court has long recognized that a free press is critical to American demo cracy and

that carto ons and paro dies are a prominent feature of said press. At the same time, lib el

is not protected. We rst develop ed a test for lib el in

Sul livan v. NY Times

(1964) and

further rened it in

Hustler v. Falwel l

(1988). Under the

Sul livan/Hustler

test a work is

only lib el if it is published with malice and if the publisher knows it to b e untrue. In this

case, the carto on is a paro dy in the long tradition of American journalism, surely no one

would take it as either displaying malice toward Mitt Obama or as a statement of fact ab out

the candidate's intellectual abilities. We hold in favor of Smith.