July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

NB12017
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2017 12:48 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby NB12017 » Thu Jul 20, 2017 6:16 pm

RDA2930 wrote:
fratstar1 wrote:Did pretty well on the MBE sim/100 q/50 q (averaging 60-70%) but then got to mpq 5 and 6 of contracts and got like 30% normal ?????? Then did evidence 5 and got 2 below normal (my best subject usually averaging 80%). Kind of afraid I just somehow forgot everything.


I had the same experience with both contracts and evidence. Particularly with evidence, was doing quite well, and my % plummeted for set 5. I am chalking it up to those sets being the hardest of the Barbri sets and trying not to let it psych me out.


It's a shared experience. I haven't talked to a single person who doesn't feel like they've forgotten things they used to know or who hasn't seen odd fluctuations by topic. My simulated MBE barely broke average (for reasons, but still). In contrast, my refresher was what people would consider an "autopass." Yet, my latest Barbri Q sets range between 33%-50%.

Alongside Barbri, I signed up for Adaptibar just to get a feel for the real thing (2013 and before) and my performance was significantly better. That difference between being "exposed" to every minor point of law and being tested on a wide array of topics.

I'm not sure how advisable it is, but I've pretty much shrugged off MBE performance at this point. If I do a set at all, it's with a focus on strategy. Otherwise, I focus on MEE and MPTs. Frankly, where my weaker subjects are concerned, I've found MEEs a lot more helpful.

ConfusedL1
Posts: 251
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2015 6:53 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby ConfusedL1 » Thu Jul 20, 2017 6:20 pm

Well played crim set 6, definitely got me on the accomplice intent question and the larceny by trick/false pretenses needing a clear affirmative representation.

msjdny
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2017 8:40 am

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby msjdny » Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:45 pm

Hi,
I'm wondering if anyone can explain to me how to identify different types of trusts... I never took this course and the outline is so abstract, the more I read it the more confused I am... very much appreciated if someone can give me a briefer on how to identify discretionary trust, spendthrift trust, and support trust when I'm given a question on MEE. Also, I'm guessing a settlor can provide one trust document with different types of trust in it right?

RDA2930
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 7:29 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby RDA2930 » Thu Jul 20, 2017 9:11 pm

msjdny wrote:Hi,
I'm wondering if anyone can explain to me how to identify different types of trusts... I never took this course and the outline is so abstract, the more I read it the more confused I am... very much appreciated if someone can give me a briefer on how to identify discretionary trust, spendthrift trust, and support trust when I'm given a question on MEE. Also, I'm guessing a settlor can provide one trust document with different types of trust in it right?


A discretionary trust will give discretion (of varying degrees—depends on the language of the document) to the trustee. Trustee has the power to decide which beneficiaries will benefit, and how much. E.g., “Trustee, in his sole discretion, will distribute the trust income to my daughters, A and B.”

A spendthrift trust creates restrictions on how someone can transfer their trust interest. A valid spendthrift trust keeps the beneficiary’s creditors from reaching the interest (subject to a few exceptions, which are in the CMR). In general, the spendthrift trust restrains the beneficiary from voluntarily or involuntarily transferring his interest in the trust (but you can’t just forbid involuntary transfer, like creditors getting a lien on it; have to forbid both voluntary and involuntary transfer). E.g., “No part of the income or principal of this trust shall be subject to alienation or assignment by Benficiary.”

A support trust provides for the support of the beneficiary. The trustee usually has some level of discretion (a support trust is usually a type of discretionary trust) in determining what amount of support is necessary or allowed. It can be limited to specific types of support (again, depends on the language of the trust instrument). E.g., “Trust to provide for the comfortable support of Wife, in the amount that Trustee decides in his discretion.”

User avatar
runthetrap1990
Posts: 417
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2014 5:38 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby runthetrap1990 » Fri Jul 21, 2017 11:43 am

RDA2930 wrote:
msjdny wrote:Hi,
I'm wondering if anyone can explain to me how to identify different types of trusts... I never took this course and the outline is so abstract, the more I read it the more confused I am... very much appreciated if someone can give me a briefer on how to identify discretionary trust, spendthrift trust, and support trust when I'm given a question on MEE. Also, I'm guessing a settlor can provide one trust document with different types of trust in it right?


A discretionary trust will give discretion (of varying degrees—depends on the language of the document) to the trustee. Trustee has the power to decide which beneficiaries will benefit, and how much. E.g., “Trustee, in his sole discretion, will distribute the trust income to my daughters, A and B.”

A spendthrift trust creates restrictions on how someone can transfer their trust interest. A valid spendthrift trust keeps the beneficiary’s creditors from reaching the interest (subject to a few exceptions, which are in the CMR). In general, the spendthrift trust restrains the beneficiary from voluntarily or involuntarily transferring his interest in the trust (but you can’t just forbid involuntary transfer, like creditors getting a lien on it; have to forbid both voluntary and involuntary transfer). E.g., “No part of the income or principal of this trust shall be subject to alienation or assignment by Benficiary.”

A support trust provides for the support of the beneficiary. The trustee usually has some level of discretion (a support trust is usually a type of discretionary trust) in determining what amount of support is necessary or allowed. It can be limited to specific types of support (again, depends on the language of the trust instrument). E.g., “Trust to provide for the comfortable support of Wife, in the amount that Trustee decides in his discretion.”


Is it fair to say that, on all three, creditors are prohibited from attaching to trust property? Or is that only the case with spendthrift

RDA2930
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 7:29 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby RDA2930 » Fri Jul 21, 2017 11:51 am

runthetrap1990 wrote:
RDA2930 wrote:
msjdny wrote:Hi,
I'm wondering if anyone can explain to me how to identify different types of trusts... I never took this course and the outline is so abstract, the more I read it the more confused I am... very much appreciated if someone can give me a briefer on how to identify discretionary trust, spendthrift trust, and support trust when I'm given a question on MEE. Also, I'm guessing a settlor can provide one trust document with different types of trust in it right?


A discretionary trust will give discretion (of varying degrees—depends on the language of the document) to the trustee. Trustee has the power to decide which beneficiaries will benefit, and how much. E.g., “Trustee, in his sole discretion, will distribute the trust income to my daughters, A and B.”

A spendthrift trust creates restrictions on how someone can transfer their trust interest. A valid spendthrift trust keeps the beneficiary’s creditors from reaching the interest (subject to a few exceptions, which are in the CMR). In general, the spendthrift trust restrains the beneficiary from voluntarily or involuntarily transferring his interest in the trust (but you can’t just forbid involuntary transfer, like creditors getting a lien on it; have to forbid both voluntary and involuntary transfer). E.g., “No part of the income or principal of this trust shall be subject to alienation or assignment by Benficiary.”

A support trust provides for the support of the beneficiary. The trustee usually has some level of discretion (a support trust is usually a type of discretionary trust) in determining what amount of support is necessary or allowed. It can be limited to specific types of support (again, depends on the language of the trust instrument). E.g., “Trust to provide for the comfortable support of Wife, in the amount that Trustee decides in his discretion.”


Is it fair to say that, on all three, creditors are prohibited from attaching to trust property? Or is that only the case with spendthrift


Replacing prior post I made that had wrong info:

In a discretionary trust (which a support trust usually is), beneficiary's interest is not assignable (and thus not actually reachable by creditors) before the trustee exercises his discretion to make payments to the beneficiary. Creditors are usually allowed to attach the beneficiary's interest, but can't compel the trustee to make a distribution. So theoretically, if the trustee in his discretion decides never to make a distribution, it's unreachable by the creditors (though you might run into a problem there with abuse of discretion). Also, there's a narrow exception where a trustee can be made to release money from the trust if the creditor demanding payment is demanding child support or alimony.

The spendthrift trust situation is a bit different; if it's JUST spendthrift trust and the trustee doesn't have discretion to release money to the beneficiary, creditors of the beneficiary can't reach the unreleased money no matter what. They can get it once it is given to the beneficiary though.

SowhatsNU
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2014 7:15 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby SowhatsNU » Fri Jul 21, 2017 5:20 pm

Anyone understand why Contracts Set 6 Question 11 [Barbri] is an accord and not a modification?

User avatar
vivala
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 2:34 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby vivala » Fri Jul 21, 2017 8:19 pm

Also have a question about Contracts Set 6. In Question 14, I don't understand why the owner had the right to cure. I understand that a seller has a right to cure if he will be able to make the modification by the original time for performance. In this question, that would be December 7. I get that the tailor couldn't possibly sew the button on December 7 because of the holiday so it wouldn't be cured by then, but why does that give the owner until December 8 - after the time for performance - to cure?

I also understand the softening of the rule where if the seller reasonably believed that the nonconforming good would be acceptable to the buyer, he is allowed reasonable time - even after the original time for performance - to cure. But that rule says you infer whether the seller's belief was reasonable based on (i) trade practices or prior dealings, or (ii) the seller could not have known of the defect despite proper business conduct. But nothing in this problem said that the customer had ever dealt with the owner, that it was a normal trade practice to sell coats without buttons, or that the seller couldn't have discovered the missing button.

I don't see why the perfect tender rule should be excused here, so I picked (A). Can someone please explain why it's (B)?

User avatar
EzraFitz
Posts: 729
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 10:42 am

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby EzraFitz » Fri Jul 21, 2017 8:38 pm

vivala wrote:Also have a question about Contracts Set 6. In Question 14, I don't understand why the owner had the right to cure. I understand that a seller has a right to cure if he will be able to make the modification by the original time for performance. In this question, that would be December 7. I get that the tailor couldn't possibly sew the button on December 7 because of the holiday so it wouldn't be cured by then, but why does that give the owner until December 8 - after the time for performance - to cure?

I also understand the softening of the rule where if the seller reasonably believed that the nonconforming good would be acceptable to the buyer, he is allowed reasonable time - even after the original time for performance - to cure. But that rule says you infer whether the seller's belief was reasonable based on (i) trade practices or prior dealings, or (ii) the seller could not have known of the defect despite proper business conduct. But nothing in this problem said that the customer had ever dealt with the owner, that it was a normal trade practice to sell coats without buttons, or that the seller couldn't have discovered the missing button.

I don't see why the perfect tender rule should be excused here, so I picked (A). Can someone please explain why it's (B)?

Well, even though the seller said the tailor couldn't be back until the 8th, they still had the chance to cure. They could have hired another tailor, or figured something out for the next day.

Also, as to the button missing, it seems like they're trying to get at common sense principles. If a coat is missing a button that could be sewed on in 30 seconds, it's highly likely that in that industry, such a defect is something that should be allowed to be cured within a reasonable time.

User avatar
esrom55
Posts: 269
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 4:43 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby esrom55 » Fri Jul 21, 2017 8:57 pm

SowhatsNU wrote:Anyone understand why Contracts Set 6 Question 11 [Barbri] is an accord and not a modification?


Is that the one where they moved up the date of completion by 2 weeks?

User avatar
EzraFitz
Posts: 729
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 10:42 am

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby EzraFitz » Fri Jul 21, 2017 9:14 pm

esrom55 wrote:
SowhatsNU wrote:Anyone understand why Contracts Set 6 Question 11 [Barbri] is an accord and not a modification?


Is that the one where they moved up the date of completion by 2 weeks?

It's the diamond ring one. The big difference comes down to whether or not the promise is conditional. Because the essential second deal was "if you give me the $2500 and the diamond ring THEN I will consider the $5000 debt paid." I very very highly doubt that a question on the real thing would have both modification and accord answers for a question like that.

RDA2930
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 7:29 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby RDA2930 » Fri Jul 21, 2017 9:35 pm

What standard is used for a government restricting speech in a non-public forum--one that is not "thrown open" (e.g., the classrooms open to extracurricular groups that is always used) but is completely non-public? Is it rational basis or even less than that?

User avatar
EzraFitz
Posts: 729
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 10:42 am

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby EzraFitz » Fri Jul 21, 2017 9:38 pm

RDA2930 wrote:What standard is used for a government restricting speech in a non-public forum--one that is not "thrown open" (e.g., the classrooms open to extracurricular groups that is always used) but is completely non-public? Is it rational basis or even less than that?

Rational basis even if content-based. Just can't be viewpoint based.

User avatar
cricketlove00
Posts: 1271
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:59 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby cricketlove00 » Fri Jul 21, 2017 9:44 pm

RDA2930 wrote:What standard is used for a government restricting speech in a non-public forum--one that is not "thrown open" (e.g., the classrooms open to extracurricular groups that is always used) but is completely non-public? Is it rational basis or even less than that?


Non public forum restrictions must be viewpoint neutral and reasonably related to a legitimate government purpose.

RDA2930
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 7:29 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby RDA2930 » Fri Jul 21, 2017 9:50 pm

EzraFitz wrote:Rational basis even if content-based. Just can't be viewpoint based.



cricketlove00 wrote:Non public forum restrictions must be viewpoint neutral and reasonably related to a legitimate government purpose.



Thanks!

User avatar
vivala
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 2:34 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby vivala » Fri Jul 21, 2017 10:02 pm

EzraFitz wrote:
vivala wrote:Also have a question about Contracts Set 6. In Question 14, I don't understand why the owner had the right to cure. I understand that a seller has a right to cure if he will be able to make the modification by the original time for performance. In this question, that would be December 7. I get that the tailor couldn't possibly sew the button on December 7 because of the holiday so it wouldn't be cured by then, but why does that give the owner until December 8 - after the time for performance - to cure?

I also understand the softening of the rule where if the seller reasonably believed that the nonconforming good would be acceptable to the buyer, he is allowed reasonable time - even after the original time for performance - to cure. But that rule says you infer whether the seller's belief was reasonable based on (i) trade practices or prior dealings, or (ii) the seller could not have known of the defect despite proper business conduct. But nothing in this problem said that the customer had ever dealt with the owner, that it was a normal trade practice to sell coats without buttons, or that the seller couldn't have discovered the missing button.

I don't see why the perfect tender rule should be excused here, so I picked (A). Can someone please explain why it's (B)?

Well, even though the seller said the tailor couldn't be back until the 8th, they still had the chance to cure. They could have hired another tailor, or figured something out for the next day.

Also, as to the button missing, it seems like they're trying to get at common sense principles. If a coat is missing a button that could be sewed on in 30 seconds, it's highly likely that in that industry, such a defect is something that should be allowed to be cured within a reasonable time.


I guess I was annoyed because it seems like you had to make a lot of assumptions to get to (B). I've also abandoned common sense because it's usually wrong but it wasn't in this case. Thanks for your reply!

User avatar
EzraFitz
Posts: 729
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 10:42 am

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby EzraFitz » Fri Jul 21, 2017 10:26 pm

vivala wrote:
EzraFitz wrote:
vivala wrote:Also have a question about Contracts Set 6. In Question 14, I don't understand why the owner had the right to cure. I understand that a seller has a right to cure if he will be able to make the modification by the original time for performance. In this question, that would be December 7. I get that the tailor couldn't possibly sew the button on December 7 because of the holiday so it wouldn't be cured by then, but why does that give the owner until December 8 - after the time for performance - to cure?

I also understand the softening of the rule where if the seller reasonably believed that the nonconforming good would be acceptable to the buyer, he is allowed reasonable time - even after the original time for performance - to cure. But that rule says you infer whether the seller's belief was reasonable based on (i) trade practices or prior dealings, or (ii) the seller could not have known of the defect despite proper business conduct. But nothing in this problem said that the customer had ever dealt with the owner, that it was a normal trade practice to sell coats without buttons, or that the seller couldn't have discovered the missing button.

I don't see why the perfect tender rule should be excused here, so I picked (A). Can someone please explain why it's (B)?

Well, even though the seller said the tailor couldn't be back until the 8th, they still had the chance to cure. They could have hired another tailor, or figured something out for the next day.

Also, as to the button missing, it seems like they're trying to get at common sense principles. If a coat is missing a button that could be sewed on in 30 seconds, it's highly likely that in that industry, such a defect is something that should be allowed to be cured within a reasonable time.


I guess I was annoyed because it seems like you had to make a lot of assumptions to get to (B). I've also abandoned common sense because it's usually wrong but it wasn't in this case. Thanks for your reply!

Yeah, it was a silly question (I only picked B because I assumed that anything is possible in that day (e.g. could convince the tailor to come in) in between). The bar is definitely crushing my ability to just think simply and logically. Everything is all convoluted now.

bballbb02
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2016 8:45 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby bballbb02 » Fri Jul 21, 2017 11:03 pm

Are grounds of government buildings/courthouses public forums?? And what about classrooms and the sides of city buses and buildings?? Confusing

RDA2930
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 7:29 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby RDA2930 » Fri Jul 21, 2017 11:12 pm

bballbb02 wrote:Are grounds of government buildings/courthouses public forums?? And what about classrooms and the sides of city buses and buildings?? Confusing

Sidewalks and streets in front of public buildings/sidewalks and streets in general are traditional public forums. The actual grounds of a government building are not (e.g., the steps of a courthouse).

Classrooms are not public forums unless they are "thrown open" by the government (usually this is done by allowing extracurricular groups to meet in them after school hours).

Not sure about sides of a city-owned bus but pretty sure they aren't public forums since that's likely either 1) advertising and/or 2) government speech.

User avatar
TheWalrus
Posts: 1085
Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby TheWalrus » Fri Jul 21, 2017 11:20 pm

RDA2930 wrote:
bballbb02 wrote:Are grounds of government buildings/courthouses public forums?? And what about classrooms and the sides of city buses and buildings?? Confusing

Sidewalks and streets in front of public buildings/sidewalks and streets in general are traditional public forums. The actual grounds of a government building are not (e.g., the steps of a courthouse).

Classrooms are not public forums unless they are "thrown open" by the government (usually this is done by allowing extracurricular groups to meet in them after school hours).

Not sure about sides of a city-owned bus but pretty sure they aren't public forums since that's likely either 1) advertising and/or 2) government speech.


And what's the difference in standard?

User avatar
crumb cake
Posts: 380
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2015 7:36 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby crumb cake » Fri Jul 21, 2017 11:53 pm

TheWalrus wrote:
RDA2930 wrote:
bballbb02 wrote:Are grounds of government buildings/courthouses public forums?? And what about classrooms and the sides of city buses and buildings?? Confusing

Sidewalks and streets in front of public buildings/sidewalks and streets in general are traditional public forums. The actual grounds of a government building are not (e.g., the steps of a courthouse).

Classrooms are not public forums unless they are "thrown open" by the government (usually this is done by allowing extracurricular groups to meet in them after school hours).

Not sure about sides of a city-owned bus but pretty sure they aren't public forums since that's likely either 1) advertising and/or 2) government speech.


And what's the difference in standard?


Public forums: (1) content neutral, (2) narrowly tailored to further an important government interest, and (3) regulation must leave open alternative channels of communication.

Limited public forums or non-public forums: (1) viewpoint neutral, and (2) rationally related to a legitimate interest.

Others please correct me if this is wrong.

User avatar
EzraFitz
Posts: 729
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 10:42 am

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby EzraFitz » Fri Jul 21, 2017 11:55 pm

TheWalrus wrote:
RDA2930 wrote:
bballbb02 wrote:Are grounds of government buildings/courthouses public forums?? And what about classrooms and the sides of city buses and buildings?? Confusing

Sidewalks and streets in front of public buildings/sidewalks and streets in general are traditional public forums. The actual grounds of a government building are not (e.g., the steps of a courthouse).

Classrooms are not public forums unless they are "thrown open" by the government (usually this is done by allowing extracurricular groups to meet in them after school hours).

Not sure about sides of a city-owned bus but pretty sure they aren't public forums since that's likely either 1) advertising and/or 2) government speech.


And what's the difference in standard?

The city buses are limited public forums, so the restrictions need be only viewpoint neutral and rational basis. This is why it's ok for them to allow no political ads at all on city buses (but they couldn't say only Democrat ads or only Republican ads).

Designated public forums and public forums have the same standard. Strict Scrutiny for content-based restrictions, intermediate (time/place/manner, important gov't interest, narrowly tailored, alternate channels open) for content neutral restrictions.

RDA2930
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 7:29 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby RDA2930 » Sat Jul 22, 2017 10:03 am

EzraFitz wrote:
TheWalrus wrote:
RDA2930 wrote:
bballbb02 wrote:Are grounds of government buildings/courthouses public forums?? And what about classrooms and the sides of city buses and buildings?? Confusing

Sidewalks and streets in front of public buildings/sidewalks and streets in general are traditional public forums. The actual grounds of a government building are not (e.g., the steps of a courthouse).

Classrooms are not public forums unless they are "thrown open" by the government (usually this is done by allowing extracurricular groups to meet in them after school hours).

Not sure about sides of a city-owned bus but pretty sure they aren't public forums since that's likely either 1) advertising and/or 2) government speech.


And what's the difference in standard?

The city buses are limited public forums, so the restrictions need be only viewpoint neutral and rational basis. This is why it's ok for them to allow no political ads at all on city buses (but they couldn't say only Democrat ads or only Republican ads).

Designated public forums and public forums have the same standard. Strict Scrutiny for content-based restrictions, intermediate (time/place/manner, important gov't interest, narrowly tailored, alternate channels open) for content neutral restrictions.


Thanks, this is helpful.

Not to belabor the point, but I thought if there was a content-based restriction in a public/designated public forum, it automatically failed. Is that just because strict scrutiny is impossible for the gov't to meet? So it "automatically" fails but not really because ~theoretically~ the gov't could show narrowly tailored to compelling interest? Just trying to figure out the applicable rules in case this comes up on an essay.

ConfusedL1
Posts: 251
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2015 6:53 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby ConfusedL1 » Sat Jul 22, 2017 11:08 am

RDA2930 wrote:
EzraFitz wrote:
TheWalrus wrote:
RDA2930 wrote:
bballbb02 wrote:Are grounds of government buildings/courthouses public forums?? And what about classrooms and the sides of city buses and buildings?? Confusing

Sidewalks and streets in front of public buildings/sidewalks and streets in general are traditional public forums. The actual grounds of a government building are not (e.g., the steps of a courthouse).

Classrooms are not public forums unless they are "thrown open" by the government (usually this is done by allowing extracurricular groups to meet in them after school hours).

Not sure about sides of a city-owned bus but pretty sure they aren't public forums since that's likely either 1) advertising and/or 2) government speech.


And what's the difference in standard?

The city buses are limited public forums, so the restrictions need be only viewpoint neutral and rational basis. This is why it's ok for them to allow no political ads at all on city buses (but they couldn't say only Democrat ads or only Republican ads).

Designated public forums and public forums have the same standard. Strict Scrutiny for content-based restrictions, intermediate (time/place/manner, important gov't interest, narrowly tailored, alternate channels open) for content neutral restrictions.


Thanks, this is helpful.

Not to belabor the point, but I thought if there was a content-based restriction in a public/designated public forum, it automatically failed. Is that just because strict scrutiny is impossible for the gov't to meet? So it "automatically" fails but not really because ~theoretically~ the gov't could show narrowly tailored to compelling interest? Just trying to figure out the applicable rules in case this comes up on an essay.


Limited public forums are tricky because content restriction CAN be improper based on the forum's intended purpose/use. So, if the government says "this school space is open for students to debate whatever just come on down" they can't later go back and regulate the hell out of it based on content just because there's a new issue they don't like.

Re automatically failing, yes. I don't think there's a single case where a content restriction was compelling enough, but others correct me if I'm wrong on that.

Brian_Wildcat
Posts: 48
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 8:44 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby Brian_Wildcat » Sat Jul 22, 2017 11:35 am

ConfusedL1 wrote:
RDA2930 wrote:
EzraFitz wrote:
TheWalrus wrote:
RDA2930 wrote:
bballbb02 wrote:Are grounds of government buildings/courthouses public forums?? And what about classrooms and the sides of city buses and buildings?? Confusing

Sidewalks and streets in front of public buildings/sidewalks and streets in general are traditional public forums. The actual grounds of a government building are not (e.g., the steps of a courthouse).

Classrooms are not public forums unless they are "thrown open" by the government (usually this is done by allowing extracurricular groups to meet in them after school hours).

Not sure about sides of a city-owned bus but pretty sure they aren't public forums since that's likely either 1) advertising and/or 2) government speech.


And what's the difference in standard?

The city buses are limited public forums, so the restrictions need be only viewpoint neutral and rational basis. This is why it's ok for them to allow no political ads at all on city buses (but they couldn't say only Democrat ads or only Republican ads).

Designated public forums and public forums have the same standard. Strict Scrutiny for content-based restrictions, intermediate (time/place/manner, important gov't interest, narrowly tailored, alternate channels open) for content neutral restrictions.


Thanks, this is helpful.

Not to belabor the point, but I thought if there was a content-based restriction in a public/designated public forum, it automatically failed. Is that just because strict scrutiny is impossible for the gov't to meet? So it "automatically" fails but not really because ~theoretically~ the gov't could show narrowly tailored to compelling interest? Just trying to figure out the applicable rules in case this comes up on an essay.


Limited public forums are tricky because content restriction CAN be improper based on the forum's intended purpose/use. So, if the government says "this school space is open for students to debate whatever just come on down" they can't later go back and regulate the hell out of it based on content just because there's a new issue they don't like.

Re automatically failing, yes. I don't think there's a single case where a content restriction was compelling enough, but others correct me if I'm wrong on that.



The school would be a designated public forum in that case and would be subject to the same rules as a public forum.




Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests