Supreme Court Analysis Hypothetical Situation

"The year is 2050. A previously undiscovered sea algae has started to proliferate off the coast of the Dominican Republic. The sea algae can unwittingly be carried by humans on bathing suits and hair etc. Initial evidence indicates that the algae is harmless to adults, but if it touches children under the age of 12, they can become sick, manifesting symptoms such as a rash, shortness of breath, and a fever. At least one child has died. In response to growing concerns about the algae, the Governor of Florida has instituted an emergency order banning flights from the Dominican Republic from landing at any Florida airports. Meanwhile, Congress has passed laws instituting a national mandatory screening at airports for anyone returning from the Dominican Republic. The screening requires all individuals to submit to a strip search and belongings search. The process can take up to 12 hours at the airport. If any algae is identified on the individual, they are then required to quarantine for five days. In addition to the airport regulations, Congress has also mandated limits on overall capacity for Florida beaches, in order to manage the algae spread, in case it has infiltrated Florida coastal waters. Visitors must now make beach reservations through a federal registration process. Consider the following:1. How would the Supreme Court evaluate a lawsuit claiming that Congress cannot point to an enumerated power that allows it to regulate the beaches of Florida?2. How would the Supreme Court evaluate a lawsuit from the federal government seeking to block Florida's flight ban under preemption and Supremacy Clause principles?3. How would the Supreme Court evaluate a lawsuit from an individual seeking to block the mandatory airport screenings and quarantines based on a claim that they violate Due Process and Equal Protection? Within your answers, consider what additional information would be helpful to resolve these inquiries. I.e., Are there certain facts that could tilt the outcome of the lawsuits in a particular direction? For example, would more deaths change the outcome? Or would expanding the ban and the screenings to additional countries influence the outcome? Think critically and creatively about what facts are most relevant to an inquiry about state vs. federal power and about governmental power vs. individual rights."

Full Answer Section

      Additional Information:
  • Severity of the Threat: A significant increase in the number of affected individuals or the severity of the illness could strengthen Congress's argument.
  • Spread of the Algae: If the algae spreads to other states or international waters, it would bolster Congress's claim that the issue has national implications.
  1. Federal Preemption of Florida's Flight Ban
Preemption Doctrine: The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution establishes federal law as the supreme law of the land. If federal law directly conflicts with state law, the federal law preempts the state law.
  • Arguments for Federal Preemption: The federal government could argue that its comprehensive response to the algae crisis, including the airport screenings and beach restrictions, preempts state-level measures like Florida's flight ban.
  • Arguments Against Federal Preemption: Florida could argue that its flight ban is a necessary and proportionate response to a serious public health threat, and that it does not directly conflict with federal law.
Additional Information:
  • Effectiveness of the Federal Response: If the federal government's response is deemed inadequate, it could strengthen Florida's argument for taking additional measures.
  • Economic Impact of the Flight Ban: The economic impact of the ban on Florida's tourism industry could influence the Court's decision.
  1. Individual Rights and Government Power
Due Process and Equal Protection: The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees individuals the right to due process of law, while the Equal Protection Clause prohibits discrimination.
  • Arguments for Individual Rights: Individuals could argue that the mandatory airport screenings and quarantines constitute an unreasonable search and seizure and a deprivation of liberty without due process of law. They could also argue that the screenings and quarantines discriminate against individuals from the Dominican Republic.
  • Arguments for Government Power: The government could argue that the measures are necessary to protect public health and safety, and that they are narrowly tailored to achieve that goal.
Additional Information:
  • Scope of the Screenings and Quarantines: Expanding the screenings and quarantines to other countries or travelers could raise concerns about overreach and potential discrimination.
  • Effectiveness of the Measures: If the screenings and quarantines are shown to be ineffective in preventing the spread of the algae, it could weaken the government's argument.
The Supreme Court's decisions in these cases would likely turn on a careful balancing of individual rights and government power. The Court would need to weigh the severity of the public health threat against the potential infringement on individual liberties.  

Sample Answer

       

1. Congressional Power to Regulate Florida Beaches

The Commerce Clause:

The most likely basis for Congress to regulate Florida beaches would be the Commerce Clause. This clause grants Congress the power to regulate interstate and international commerce.

  • Arguments for Congressional Power: Congress could argue that the algae poses a threat to interstate commerce by potentially spreading to other states and impacting tourism and trade.
  • Arguments Against Congressional Power: Opponents might argue that the regulation of local beaches is primarily a state and local matter, and that Congress has overstepped its authority.