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.