|
|
|
Past Hardt Cup Problems |
|
The following materials should give Hardt Cup competitors some
feel for the type and complexity of fact patterns and legal issues
involved in the second and third rounds of the Hardt
Cup Intramural Competition. In addition to the synopses
below, the actual fact patterns used in Rounds Two and Three of
the 2001 and the 2002 Hardt Cup are available (click on the
links along the right). The case citations listed with each problem are for
those cases that supplemented the fact patterns. In
preparing for their oral arguments, competitors are restricted to
the materials provided in the competition packets (i.e., fact
pattern, any supplied exhibits or relevant statutes, and cases).
Competitors should familiarize themselves with not only the
supplied cases, but to extent they are discussed within the
supplied materials, the significant cases cited therein. |
|
To preserve the usefulness of these problems and to protect the
authors' work, please limit distribution to among the Duke Law
School community. |
|
|
2002 HARDT CUP COMPETITION
|
| |
Round Two: Bayside School Dist. v. Terhune (14th Cir. 2002) |
| |
click here for complete fact pattern |
| Synopsis: |
| |
The case of
Bayside School Dist. v. Terhune involves a state’s ability
to provide public funds to private and religious schools as
scholarships for children in a troubled public school
district. Children in low-income families are eligible to
receive up to $2500 in scholarship funds to be used at any
private school that elects to participate within the
geographical confines of the Bayside School District.
Although none have ever elected to participate, public schools
in neighboring suburban districts are also eligible to receive
scholarship funds (which are added to $4500 in regular state
per-pupil funding). Bayside students may also elect to attend
magnet and charter schools that are a part of the Bayside
School District. Loretta Terhune, a parent of children
attending Bayside schools, brings suit alleging that the
scholarship program violates the Establishment Clause. The
District Court found for Terhune. |
| **Bayside v.
Terhune was based on Simmon-Harris v. Zelman, 234
F.3d 945 (6th Cir. 2000), rev'd 122 S.Ct. 2460 (2002). |
| |
| Issue on Appeal: |
| |
Does the scholarship program violate the
Establishment Clause? |
| |
| Cases Provided: |
| |
Committee for Pub. Educ. &
Rel. Liberty v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756 (1973) |
|
Mueller v. Allen, 463 U.S. 388 (1983) |
|
Mitchell v. Helms, 530 U.S. 793 (2000) |
|
|
| |
Round Three: Blue Meadows School Dist. v. Ellis (14th
Cir. 2002) |
| |
click here for complete fact pattern |
| Synopsis: |
| |
The case of Blue Meadows School Dist. v. Ellis
involves a public school's right to subject all students who
choose to participate in any extracurricular activity to
random drug tests. The U.S. Supreme Court, in
Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646 (1995), has allowed schools with demonstrated drug
problems to randomly test students involved in extracurricular
athletics. By demonstrating a special need to relax
traditional Fourth Amendment guarantees, schools might be able
to extend testing programs beyond student-athletes. If a
school can establish such a special need, courts will then
balance the individual student's privacy interests against the
government's interest in limiting drug use by students.
Central to the Supreme Court's determination that drug testing
be allowed for student-athletes was the fact that athletes are
more likely to injure themselves or others if under the
influence of drugs. Furthermore, the Court believed that
student-athletes had a lower expectation of privacy in their
bodies than other students. Since both of these
components are absent from many other extracurricular
activities, it is unclear whether testing may be extended. |
| |
| Issue on Appeal: |
| |
Does the program violate the
students' Fourth Amendment privacy interests? |
| |
| Cases Provided: |
| |
Brooks v. East Chambers
Consol. Ind. School Dist., 730 F. Supp. 759 (S.D. Tex.
1989), aff'd 930 F.2d 915 (5th Cir. 1991). |
|
Trinidad School
Dist. v. Lopez, 963 P.2d 1095 (S.D. Colo. 1998) |
|
Miller v. Wilkes,
172 F.3d 574 (8th Cir. 1999) |
|
Todd v. Rush County
Schools, 133 F.3d 984 (7th Cir. 1998) |
|
Joy v. Penn-Harris
Madison School Corp., 212 F.3d 1052 (7th Cir. 2000) |
|
|
|
2001 HARDT CUP COMPETITION
|
| |
Round Two:
Angelic Blues Club v. Devil City High School (14th
Cir. 2001) |
| |
click here for complete fact pattern |
| Synopsis: |
| |
The case of Angelic Blues Club v. Devil City High School
involves a public school’s ability to deny religious
organizations access to school facilities based on the content
of their meetings. The Angelic Blues Club, a religious youth
organization, petitioned the Devil City High School for use of
classrooms and the gym after school hours and was denied
access pursuant to a Devil City School District by-law that
prohibits use of the school for religious purposes. The
primary goals of the Angelic Blues Club are to develop strong
values and morals and provide spiritual guidance for young
teenagers. The Club is affiliated with the Church of St.
Battier, a non-denominational organization based on the
internationally recognized religion of Bluedevilism. The
Angelic Blues Club claimed that the denial was based on
unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination and brought this
action against Devil City High School in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Duke. The District
Court found the denial of use to be viewpoint neutral. |
|
**Angelic
Blues Club v. Devil City High School was based on Good
News Club v. Milford Central School, 202 F.3d 502 (2d Cir.
2000), rev'd 533 U.S. 98 (2001). |
| |
| Issue on Appeal: |
| |
Has Devil City High School engaged in unconstitutional
viewpoint discrimination in violation of the free speech
rights of the Angelic Blues Club? |
| |
| Cases Provided: |
| |
Campbell v. St. Tammany Parish School Board,
231 F.3d 937 (5th Cir. 2000) |
|
Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches School Dist.,
508 U.S. 384 (1993) |
|
Good News Club v. Ladue School Dist.,
28 F.3d 1501 (8th Cir. 1994) |
|
Bronx Household v. Community School Dist. #10,
127 F.3d 207 (2d Cir. 1997) |
|
Good News Club v. Milford Central School,
202 F.3d 502 (2d Cir. 2000) |
|
|
| |
Round Three:
United States v. Johnny Rae Johnson (14th
Cir. 2001) |
| |
click here for complete fact pattern |
| Synopsis: |
| |
The case of
United States v. Johnny Rae Johnson involves
the warrantless use of a thermal imager by a policeman to
gather evidence against a suspected marijuana grower. Based
on a tip from a confidential informant, Detective Javert began
investing Johnny Rae Johnson, a local ne’er-do-well. In
addition to reviewing Johnny Rae’s electric bills, Javert used
a thermal imager to scan the outside of Johnny Rae’s house.
The thermal imager indicated that a great deal of heat was
emanating from the house. Based on Javert’s experience, this
indicated the use of the sort of high-powered lamps used to
grow marijuana indoors. Javert obtained a search warrant and
arrested Johnny Rae for growing and distributing marijuana.
In the United States District Court for the District of East
Columbia, Johnny Rae filed a motion to suppress the evidence,
arguing that the use of a thermal imager without a search
warrant was an unreasonable search under the 4th Amendment.
The District Court denied the motion, holding that (1)
warrantless use of a thermal imager did not violate the 4th
Amendment and (2) there was probable cause to issue the search
warrant. The United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourteenth Circuit has granted appeal on the first issue only. |
|
**United States
v. Johnson
was based on United States v. Kyllo, 190 F.3d 1041 (9th
Cir. 1999). |
| |
| Issue on Appeal: |
| |
Does the Fourth
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protect against warrantless
use of a thermal imaging device that monitors heat emissions
from a person’s private residence? |
| |
| Cases Provided: |
| |
United States v. Ishmael,
48 F.3d 850 (5th Cir. 1995) |
|
United States
v. Robinson, 62 F.3d 1325 (11th Cir.
1995) |
|
United States
v. Cusamano, 67 F.3d 1497 (10th Cir.
1995) |
|
State of Washington v.
Young, 867
P.2d 593 (Wash. 1994) |
|
General Info. | Membership
| Hardt Cup | Dean's Cup
| Jessup Cup
Competitions |
Resources | Home
|
|
