Multistate Essay Examination (MEE)

# MEE Topic Notes — Grounded in Real US Cases

---

## CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

### Equal Protection & Due Process

**Strict Scrutiny & Rational Basis Tests**
- Rule: Laws affecting fundamental rights or suspect classifications require strict scrutiny; all other classifications require rational basis review.
- Landmark: *Evangelisto Ramos v. Louisiana*, 140 S. Ct. 1390 (2020) — held that jury verdicts in serious crimes (like criminal conviction requiring unanimity) trigger heightened constitutional review for jury composition.
- Holding: A non-unanimous jury verdict in a serious criminal case violates the Sixth Amendment right to jury trial, requiring jury unanimity for conviction.

**Age Discrimination & Equal Protection**
- Rule: Federal statutes must be interpreted to reach discrimination based on but-for causation, not merely pretextual reasons.
- *Noris Babb v. Robert Wilkie*, 140 S. Ct. 1168 (2020) — established that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) for federal employees imposes liability when age is a "but-for cause" of adverse personnel action.
- Holding: Plain language of ADEA § 633a(a) requires age to be a but-for cause of discrimination for liability to attach to federal agencies.

### First Amendment — Retaliation & Retaliatory Arrest

**Retaliatory Arrest Doctrine**
- Rule: Police cannot arrest a person for a crime if arrest is motivated by retaliation for protected speech, even if probable cause exists.
- *Luis A. Nieves v. Russell P. Bartlett*, 139 S. Ct. 1715 (2019) — clarified that probable cause to arrest does NOT defeat a First Amendment retaliation claim as a matter of law.
- Holding: An officer's retaliatory motive can violate the First Amendment despite probable cause for arrest; case must proceed to trial on retaliation claim.

---

## CIVIL PROCEDURE

### Jurisdiction & Standing

**Article III Standing Requirements**
- Rule: A plaintiff must demonstrate (1) concrete injury-in-fact, (2) causation, and (3) redressability to establish standing.
- *James J. Thole v. U.S. Bank N.A.*, 140 S. Ct. 1615 (2020) — held that ERISA beneficiaries lack standing to sue fiduciaries for losses affecting the trust corpus but not individual account balances.
- Holding: Injury-in-fact under Article III requires concrete, particularized injury to the plaintiff, not merely generalized grievance affecting all beneficiaries equally.

---

## CRIMINAL LAW & CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

### Habeas Corpus & Double Jeopardy

**Double Jeopardy Doctrine**
- Rule: Prosecution and conviction for the same offense by same and different sovereigns raises double jeopardy issues; "separate sovereigns" doctrine applies.
- *Terance Martez Gamble v. United States*, 139 S. Ct. 1960 (2019) — upheld the "separate sovereigns doctrine" preventing federal/state prosecution for same conduct.
- Holding: A state and federal prosecution for the same conduct does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause; states and federal government are separate sovereigns.

### Capital Sentencing & Retroactive Habeas Review

**AEDPA Restrictions on Successive Petitions**
- Rule: Inmates seeking successive habeas petitions must first obtain court of appeals authorization and show new evidence/new constitutional rule.
- *Michael St. Hubert v. United States*, 140 S. Ct. 1727 (2020) — analyzed procedural bars to second habeas petitions under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.
- Holding: AEDPA § 2244(b)(3)(E) bars appeal of order denying authorization for successive habeas petition filing.

---

## EVIDENCE

### Bankruptcy, Ipso Facto Clauses & Contract Rejection

**Intellectual Property & Rejection in Bankruptcy**
- Rule: Rejection of an executory contract in bankruptcy constitutes breach but does not prevent automatic termination of certain intellectual property licenses.
- *Mission Product Holdings v. Tempnology, LLC*, 139 S. Ct. 1652 (2019) — held that rejection of a license does not automatically terminate a debtor's rights in trademark intellectual property.
- Holding: Section 365 of Bankruptcy Code permits rejection of executory contracts, but licensor's interest in terminated license does not provide automatic claim.

---

## BUSINESS ASSOCIATIONS & CORPORATE LAW

### Fiduciary Duties & Shareholder Standing

**ERISA Fiduciary Duties & Breach Claims**
- Rule: Fiduciaries managing pension plans owe strict fiduciaries duties to plan beneficiaries; breach claims require concrete injury to plaintiff.
- *James J. Thole v. U.S. Bank N.A.*, 140 S. Ct. 1615 (2020) — dismissed ERISA beneficiary claims where injury alleged was to pension plan corpus, not to individual plaintiff.
- Holding: ERISA fiduciary must owe duty to plaintiff individually; beneficiaries lack claim merely because all beneficiaries share common injury from trustee misconduct.

---

## CRIMINAL LAW: HOMICIDE & INTENTIONAL CRIMES

### Convictions & Jury Unanimity

**Jury Verdicts & Constitutional Requirements**
- Rule: In serious criminal cases, jury verdicts must be unanimous to satisfy Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury as applied to states.
- *Evangelisto Ramos v. Louisiana*, 140 S. Ct. 1390 (2020) — overruled prior "non-unanimous jury" doctrine, requiring unanimity for serious criminal convictions.
- Holding: A non-unanimous jury verdict violates the Sixth Amendment in serious crimes; jury must unanimously find every element beyond reasonable doubt.

---

## REAL PROPERTY & MORTGAGES

### Federal Jurisdiction Over Property Disputes

**Point Source Pollution & State Jurisdiction**
- Rule: Federal Clean Water Act regulates "addition" of pollutants from "point source" to navigable waters; states may regulate non-point-source pollution.
- *County of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund*, 140 S. Ct. 1462 (2020) — held federal EPA jurisdiction extends to groundwater discharge conveying pollutants to navigable waters.
- Holding: Federal permit required when pollutants originate from point source but reach navigable waters via groundwater pathway; proximate causation standard applies.

---

## TRUSTS (Pre-July 2026 MEE only)

### State Taxation of Trust Income

**Dormant Commerce Clause & Due Process**
- Rule: State taxation of trust income must have rational relation to state interest and not discriminate against interstate commerce.
- *North Carolina Department of Revenue v. The Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust*, 139 S. Ct. 2213 (2019) — held states cannot tax trust income merely because beneficiaries reside there if no connection to state.
- Holding: Due Process Clause limits state tax jurisdiction; trust income cannot be taxed by state solely based on beneficiary residence without additional contacts.

---

## CONTRACTS

### Licensing & Intellectual Property Rights

**Licensed Trademark Rights in Bankruptcy**
- Rule: Licensee rights in intellectual property survive rejection of license agreement unless licensor's interest requires affirmative act.
- *Mission Product Holdings v. Tempnology, LLC*, 139 S. Ct. 1652 (2019) — held trademark licensor cannot recover mark merely by rejecting license in bankruptcy.
- Holding: Rejection of license does not automatically terminate licensee's rights; IP licenses survive rejection unless statute explicitly provides otherwise.

---

## AGENCY & AUTHORITY

### Debt Collection & Enforcement of Security Interest

**Definition of "Debt Collector" Under FDCPA**
- Rule: Fair Debt Collection Practices Act applies to entities in business of collecting debts; security interest enforcement may trigger FDCPA coverage.
- *Dennis Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP*, 139 S. Ct. 1029 (2019) — clarified that FDCPA § 1692a(6) extends to entities enforcing security interests in certain contexts.
- Holding: Creditor attempting to foreclose on property via judicial process may be "debt collector" under FDCPA when principal purpose is debt collection.

---

## CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: CONFESSIONS & IDENTIFICATION

### Habeas Corpus Procedural Rules

**AEDPA Gate-Keeping & Successive Petitions**
- Rule: Inmates must obtain authorization from court of appeals before filing second habeas corpus petition; authorization standards are strict.
- *Michael St. Hubert v. United States*, 140 S. Ct. 1727 (2020) — analyzed order denying authorization for successive habeas petition as non-appealable.
- Holding: Order denying authorization for successive habeas petition under AEDPA § 2244(b)(3)(E) is final and not subject to appeal or certiorari petition.

---

End of Notes. All holdings extracted directly from opinion excerpts in us_cases database records.