In response to reports that American teachers were using their own money to provide classroom supplies to their students, Congress appropriated funds for and directed the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education (“Secretary”) to effectuate, the “Help The Teachers Program.” Under that Program the Secretary could grant funds to any school district demonstrating that its teachers were personally spending, on average, more than $50 per year on supplies for their students. The President reluctantly signed the appropriations bill, stating that she believed the U.S. Department of Education was not authorized by the Constitution. Alpha United School District (“AUSD”) is the largest in State X. AUSD provided evidence to Secretary that its teachers spent an average of $500 of personal funds per year equipping their classrooms. Secretary determined that a grant of $10 million would rectify the problem and reduce personal teacher expenditures on supplies to less than $50 per year. Secretary directed AUSD to ensure that the $10 million was used solely for classroom supplies and other closely related administrative costs. Upon receiving such assurances, the $10 million grant was made to AUSD. Subsequently, the President read a study about banning cell phones in elementary and secondary schools. The study concluded that reading and math scores had improved significantly in schools implementing cell phone lock-ups during classes. President signed Executive Order 15666 authorizing Secretary to encourage all school districts in the U.S. to immediately implement cell phone bans during educational hours using lock-ups that would secure the devices from the beginning of classes until dismissal. AUSD’s Board was concerned about safety and communication issues arising from students having their devices locked up all day. AUSD informed Secretary that it would not comply with the Executive Order. As a result, Secretary demanded the claw-back of $5 million from the “Help The Teachers Program” grant. Is the “Help The Teachers Program” constitutional? Discuss fully. What constitutional challenges, if any, can AUSD bring in federal court to the Secretary’s claw-back demand? Is AUSD likely to prevail? Discuss fully.

A federal statute requires any individual or entity owning more than 100 cars to ensure that at least 10 percent of those cars are electric-powered. City X has sued the federal official responsible for enforcing this statute in federal district court, seeking an injunction prohibiting enforcement of the statute on the ground that it is unconstitutional.Should the court grant the injunction?

Which of the following lists provides all of the essential nutrients? 

Receiving a cash reward for exceeding quarterly targets is an example of:

Caderite may be added to bodies of fresh water to prevent the spread of certain parasites. The presence of those parasites threatens the health of the organisms living in rivers and streams throughout the country and imperils the freshwater commercial fishing industry. Caderite is currently mined in only State T.In order to raise needed revenue, Congress recently enacted a statute providing for the imposition of a $100 tax on each ton of Caderite mined in the United States. Because it will raise the cost of Caderite, this tax is likely to reduce the amount of Caderite added to freshwater rivers and streams and, therefore, is likely to have an adverse effect on the interstate freshwater commercial fishing industry. The Caderite producers in State T filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging this tax solely on constitutional grounds.Is this tax constitutional?

A compensation philosophy that aims to pay slightly above competing organizations emphasizes:

An outcome measure purports to assess activity limitations associated with low back pain.  Analysis of that measure establishes that all activities that might be affected by low back pain are indeed included.  This outcome measure demonstrates excellent:

A ____________________ plan rewards employees for meeting or exceeding performance standards, often in groups. (1 word)

A State D law prohibits the withdrawal of groundwater from any well within State D for use in another state. The express purpose of the law is to safeguard the supply of water for State D citizens. Adoption of this State D law followed enactment of a federal statute providing that “the transport of groundwater from one state to another may be restricted or prohibited in accordance with the laws of the state in which the water originates.” An association of water users in neighboring State E has filed suit to have the State D law declared unconstitutional and enjoined on the ground that it violates the negative implications of the Commerce Clause.Which of the following is the best argument supporting a motion to dismiss the lawsuit?

U.S. Senator Mintz made a speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate, in which she asserted that Fabian, a federal civil servant with minor responsibilities, was twice convicted of fraud. In making this assertion, Senator Mintz relied wholly on research done by Carter, her chief legislative assistant. In fact, it was a different man, and not Fabian, who was convicted of these crimes. This mistake was the result of Carter’s carelessness. No legislation affecting the appointment or discipline of civil servants or the program of the federal agency for which Fabian works was under consideration at the time Senator Mintz made her speech. Fabian sued Senator Mintz and Carter for defamation. Both Senator Mintz and Carter move to dismiss the complaint.As a matter of constitutional law, the court hearing this motion should: