1. CELL PHONES –

A restaurant owner has implemented a new policy prohibiting
the use of cell phones in the restaurant by employees or customers. Is that
constitutional?

2. WINE –

Michigan prohibited direct shipment by out-of-state wineries
while New York nominally permitted it for out-of-state wineries that maintain a
New York office, a requirement that no out-of-state winery has met and that the
majority found so financially burdensome for small wineries as to amount to a
prohibition. Are the Michigan and New York laws unconstitutionally
discriminatory against out-of-state wineries?

3. MIDWIFE:

What if people who wish to practice midwifery in New Jersey
first must obtain a midwifery license from the state board of medical
examiners. Candidates for a license must pass an examination of midwifery,
possess good moral character, and receive a diploma from a school of midwifery
or maternity hospital. They also must get a New Jersey-licensed physician to
endorse their application. Alice is a practicing midwife who was not licensed
in New Jersey, sued the state, claiming that its licensing scheme violated due
process. She sought injunctive relief against the scheme’s enforcement. The
federal district court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss and the
plaintiff appealed. The Court of Appeals stated that state restrictions on the
right to practice a profession receive rational basis review rather than higher
scrutiny (the Supreme Court has stated that fundamental rights such as the
right to marry, have children and direct their education and upbringing, enjoy
marital privacy, use contraception, and have an abortion require the government
to show the higher review of compelling government interest to allow such
restriction or regulation).

Who wins and why?

4. 44 LIQUORMART:

A licensed Rhode Island liquor store named 44 Liquor mart
ran a newspaper advertisement containing an implied reference to the bargain
prices at which people could buy its liquor. The Rhode Island Liquor Control
Administrator fined the store $400 for violating the Rhode Island statute
forbidding public price advertising for alcoholic beverages. Who wins and why?