- To encourage local economic development, a state offers a significant tax incentive to new residents who start a business within one year of moving to the state. However, to qualify for the benefit, the new resident must have resided in the state for at least 12 continuous months. A woman moves to the state, starts a business after six months, and is denied the tax incentive. She sues, claiming the one-year waiting period is unconstitutional. What is her best argument? Select one.
Answer: The waiting period penalizes her fundamental right to interstate travel and migration, and is not necessary to achieve a compelling state interest.
The correct answer is A. The Supreme Court has established that the right to interstate travel is a fundamental right. Laws that penalize individuals for exercising this right by, for example, imposing durational residency requirements for vital government benefits, are subject to strict scrutiny. While a tax incentive is not as vital as welfare or medical care, a one-year waiting period is a significant penalty on the right to migrate and be treated as an equal citizen. The state would have to show the waiting period is necessary to achieve a compelling interest, a difficult burden to meet. (B) is incorrect because the issue is the substantive classification, not the procedure for determining residency. (C) is a weak argument because the law does not discriminate against out-of-state economic actors, but rather new residents. (D) is plausible, but the right-to-travel argument is stronger because it triggers strict scrutiny, whereas a distinction between new and old residents for most purposes only gets rational basis review.
- A state university, concerned with academic standards, implements a new policy terminating the enrollment of any undergraduate student whose grade point average falls below 2.0 for two consecutive semesters. A student who is dismissed under this policy sues the university. The student claims the policy violates his substantive due process rights by arbitrarily depriving him of his property interest in continued education. What is the probable outcome of the student's substantive due process claim? Select one.
Answer: The student will likely lose, because the policy is an academic standard rationally related to the university's legitimate interest in maintaining educational quality.
The correct answer is C. The Supreme Court has held that there is no fundamental right to education under the Constitution. Therefore, government actions related to education are reviewed under the rational basis test. A substantive due process claim challenging an academic dismissal requires the student to show the action was arbitrary and capricious, with no rational connection to a legitimate academic purpose. A policy requiring a minimum GPA is clearly and rationally related to the university's legitimate interest in maintaining academic standards. (A) is incorrect because there is no fundamental right to education. (B) is incorrect because the irrebuttable presumption doctrine is rarely used and would not apply to a rational academic requirement. (D) describes procedural due process. While the student might have a separate claim for a lack of a hearing (procedural due process), it does not affect the outcome of the substantive due process claim, which challenges the rationality of the rule itself.
- A city enacts a law that bans the sale, possession, and use of all forms of contraception within city limits. The city council's stated reason for the law is to promote public morality and increase the local birth rate. A married couple wishing to use contraception challenges the law in federal court. Which of the following is the most likely outcome? Select one.
Answer: The law will be struck down because it impermissibly burdens the fundamental right of a married couple to use contraception.
The correct answer is B. The Supreme Court established in Griswold v. Connecticut that a fundamental right to privacy, inherent in the Constitution, protects the right of married couples to use contraception. This right was later extended to unmarried individuals in Eisenstadt v. Baird. Because the law infringes upon a fundamental right, it is subject to strict scrutiny. The government must show that the law is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest. The state's interests in promoting morality or increasing the birth rate are not considered compelling enough to justify a complete ban on contraception, which is not a narrowly tailored means to achieve those ends. (A) is incorrect because strict scrutiny, not rational basis review, applies. (C) is an Equal Protection argument, but the stronger challenge is Substantive Due Process because a fundamental right is at issue for everyone. (D) is incorrect because the Privileges or Immunities Clause has been interpreted very narrowly and is not the primary source for this right.
- A state public university requires all students living in dormitories to participate in a mandatory meal plan provided by the university's exclusive contractor. A student who prefers to cook her own food for dietary and financial reasons challenges this requirement. She argues that the university's rule infringes on her 'fundamental right to choose her own food and control her personal budget.' How will a court most likely rule on her constitutional challenge? Select one.
Answer: The court will apply rational basis review and likely uphold the rule because it is rationally related to legitimate interests like ensuring student nutrition and financial stability for its dining services.
The correct answer is C. The asserted right to 'choose one's own food and control one's personal budget' is not a fundamental right recognized under Substantive Due Process. It is an economic and lifestyle choice. Regulations that do not implicate a fundamental right or a suspect classification are subject to rational basis review. Under this highly deferential standard, the rule only needs to be rationally related to a legitimate government interest. The university's interests in ensuring students have access to food, administrative efficiency, and guaranteeing revenue for its dining services are legitimate. The mandatory meal plan is a rational way to achieve these goals. (A) and (B) are incorrect because they apply heightened levels of scrutiny that are not warranted here. (D) is incorrect because a constitutional challenge to a state university's rule is a justiciable controversy, not a political question.
- A state law requires that all candidates for state judge must have at least ten years of experience as a licensed attorney. A person with eight years of experience who wishes to run for judge challenges the law, claiming it violates her fundamental right to be a candidate for public office and her fundamental right to pursue her chosen profession. How will a court likely analyze this law? Select one.
Answer: Applying rational basis review, because states have a strong interest in setting reasonable, non-discriminatory qualifications for public office.
The correct answer is C. The Supreme Court has held that the right to be a candidate is not, by itself, a fundamental right that triggers strict scrutiny. States may impose reasonable, non-discriminatory restrictions designed to ensure candidates are qualified. Likewise, the 'right to pursue a profession' is not a fundamental right under modern Substantive Due Process jurisprudence; regulations on professions are classic examples of economic regulations subject to rational basis review. The ten-year experience requirement is not based on a suspect class (like race or national origin) and is rationally related to the state's legitimate interest in ensuring a competent judiciary. (A) and (B) are incorrect because they misidentify the asserted rights as fundamental. (D) is incorrect because intermediate scrutiny is reserved for classifications based on gender or illegitimacy, which are not present here.
- You are an attorney advising a city that wants to pass an ordinance to curb gang activity. One proposed ordinance would make it illegal for three or more people to congregate in a public place if at least one of them is wearing known gang colors or symbols. The police chief believes this will allow officers to disperse potential troublemakers before crimes occur. What is the most significant constitutional problem with this proposed ordinance under the Fourteenth Amendment? Select one.
Answer: The ordinance likely violates the fundamental right to freedom of association by prohibiting peaceful assembly.
The correct answer is A. The right to peacefully assemble and associate with others is a fundamental right protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. While the government has a compelling interest in preventing crime, this ordinance is not narrowly tailored. It criminalizes association based on appearance (wearing certain colors) rather than on conduct. It sweeps in a great deal of constitutionally protected innocent association. A court would apply strict scrutiny and likely find that the ordinance is overbroad and not the least restrictive means of achieving the city's interest. (B) is a weaker argument because clothing choice is not a suspect classification that would trigger heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. (C) is incorrect because a bill of attainder is a legislative act that inflicts punishment without a judicial trial; this ordinance defines a crime to be adjudicated in court. (D) is incorrect because procedural due process does not require notice before an arrest for a criminal violation.
- A state legislature, concerned that modern society has become too sedentary, passes the 'Physical Fitness Act.' The Act requires every adult resident under the age of 60 to complete and log 150 minutes of moderate-intensity exercise per week. Failure to comply is punishable by a fine. A resident who dislikes exercise challenges the Act, arguing that it violates a fundamental right to personal autonomy and to be free from government-compelled lifestyle choices. How is a court likely to rule on this challenge? Select one.
Answer: The Act will be struck down under strict scrutiny because it infringes on the fundamental right to control one's own body and daily activities.
The correct answer is A. While the Supreme Court has not specifically addressed mandatory exercise, such a law would represent a profound intrusion into personal autonomy and bodily integrity, areas central to the liberty interests protected by Substantive Due Process. It is highly likely a court would recognize a fundamental right to be free from such a direct, government-coerced lifestyle mandate. The law compels an affirmative physical act on every citizen's daily life. As such, it would be subject to strict scrutiny. The state's interest in a healthy populace is legitimate, but this Act is not narrowly tailored and is extremely intrusive. It is unlikely to survive strict scrutiny. (B) and (C) are incorrect because rational basis review is inappropriate for such a significant infringement on personal liberty. (D) is incorrect because the Thirteenth Amendment applies to slavery and conditions that create a state of forced labor for the benefit of another, not to general civic duties or fines for non-compliance with health regulations.
- You are representing a competent, adult client who has been diagnosed with a terminal illness and has six months to live. The client is in constant, severe pain that is not fully managed by palliative care. The client wishes to end their life with medication prescribed by a physician. However, a state law explicitly criminalizes physician-assisted suicide, classifying it as manslaughter. Your client wants to challenge the law, claiming it violates a fundamental right to determine the time and manner of one's own death. What is the likely outcome of a substantive due process challenge to this law? Select one.
Answer: The law will be upheld because the right to physician-assisted suicide is not a fundamental right, and the law is rationally related to legitimate state interests.
The correct answer is C. The Supreme Court, in Washington v. Glucksberg, held that there is no fundamental right to physician-assisted suicide protected by the Due Process Clause. The Court found that the asserted right was not 'deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition.' Because no fundamental right is at stake, the state law is subject only to rational basis review. The state's interests in preserving life, protecting the integrity of the medical profession, and shielding vulnerable groups from coercion are legitimate government interests. The ban on physician-assisted suicide is rationally related to these interests. Therefore, the law will be upheld. (A) and (B) are incorrect because they apply the strict scrutiny standard, which is inappropriate as no fundamental right is implicated. (D) is incorrect because it applies the compelling interest test of strict scrutiny; the state only needs to show a legitimate interest under rational basis review.
- A municipal ordinance makes it a crime for any person to loiter in a public place 'in a manner and under circumstances manifesting the purpose of engaging in drug activity.' The ordinance lists several behaviors that may be considered in determining whether this purpose is manifest, including being a known drug user or acting as a lookout. A man who was standing on a street corner for an hour is arrested under the ordinance and challenges its constitutionality. What is his strongest argument? Select one.
Answer: The ordinance violates substantive due process because it is unconstitutionally vague and fails to provide clear notice of what conduct is prohibited.
The correct answer is A. A key component of Substantive Due Process is that laws must be clear enough for a person of ordinary intelligence to understand what is prohibited. Laws that are too vague are unconstitutional because they fail to provide notice and allow for arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. An ordinance that criminalizes 'manifesting the purpose' of illegal activity is highly subjective and depends on a police officer's interpretation of ambiguous behaviors. This vagueness is a classic due process violation. (B) is a potential consequence but a harder argument to win without evidence of discriminatory intent; the vagueness argument attacks the law on its face. (C) is a plausible argument, as the right to freedom of movement is protected, but the more direct and stronger challenge is vagueness, as the law punishes not just movement but ambiguous 'loitering.' (D) is related, but it misstates the issue; the problem is the vagueness of the defined conduct, which is a substantive, not procedural, flaw.
- A state legislature passed a law requiring all children between the ages of 7 and 16 to attend public schools. The law's stated purpose is to promote social cohesion and ensure a uniform standard of civic education. The law explicitly prohibits private schooling and homeschooling. A group of parents who wish to send their children to a religious private school file a lawsuit to enjoin the law's enforcement. What is the strongest constitutional basis for the parents' challenge? Select one.
Answer: The law violates the parents' fundamental right under the Due Process Clause to direct the upbringing and education of their children.
The correct answer is A. This fact pattern is similar to Pierce v. Society of Sisters, where the Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children. This is a fundamental right. Forcing all children into public schools unreasonably interferes with this liberty. While the state has a legitimate interest in education, this law is not narrowly tailored and is overly intrusive. (B) is also a strong argument, and for these specific parents, it is highly relevant. However, the Substantive Due Process right is broader, protecting all parents' rights to choose private education, whether religious or secular. It is the most encompassing and fundamental basis for the challenge. (C) is incorrect because this classification would be subject to rational basis review and likely upheld if not for the infringement on a fundamental right. (D) is incorrect as states have broad police powers to regulate education.
- A state law prohibits individuals from changing the gender marker on their birth certificate unless they have undergone gender-affirming surgery. An individual who identifies as transgender but has not had, and does not want, surgery for medical reasons, seeks to change their birth certificate to align with their gender identity. They are denied and file a lawsuit challenging the surgery requirement. Which of the following is their strongest constitutional argument? Select one.
Answer: The surgery requirement violates the fundamental right to bodily integrity by coercing an individual into undergoing a major medical procedure to have their identity recognized.
The correct answer is A. The right to bodily integrity, which includes the right to refuse unwanted medical treatment, is a fundamental right protected by Substantive Due Process. By conditioning the recognition of a core aspect of an individual's identity on undergoing an invasive, irreversible surgical procedure, the state is placing an enormous coercive pressure on that individual's medical decision-making. This directly infringes on the right to bodily integrity. The law would therefore be subject to strict scrutiny and is unlikely to be found narrowly tailored to any compelling state interest. (B) is a plausible but weaker argument; while identity is expressive, the core issue is the compelled medical procedure. (C) is incorrect because the challenge is to the substance of the requirement itself, not the lack of a hearing. (D) is incorrect because a state's power over its records is not absolute and must still comply with constitutional limitations, especially when fundamental rights are implicated.
- A city council passed a zoning ordinance that limits the occupancy of any single-family dwelling to no more than three individuals who are not related by blood, marriage, or adoption. The stated purpose of the ordinance is to preserve the quiet, family-oriented character of residential neighborhoods and prevent overcrowding. A grandmother, who lives with her son and two grandsons from another of her children, is cited for violating the ordinance because the grandsons are her son's nephews, not his children. The grandmother challenges the ordinance. Which of the following is her strongest constitutional argument? Select one.
Answer: The ordinance infringes on her fundamental right to keep her extended family together and is not narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest.
The correct answer is B. The Supreme Court has held that the fundamental right to privacy, protected by Substantive Due Process, includes the right to make personal choices regarding family arrangements, including living with extended family members. In Moore v. City of East Cleveland, a similar ordinance was struck down because it impermissibly interfered with this fundamental right. The government's interests in preventing overcrowding and traffic congestion, while legitimate, were not compelling enough to justify such a narrow definition of 'family' that sliced into the extended family unit. Therefore, the ordinance would be subject to strict scrutiny and likely fail. (A) is incorrect because the issue is the substance of the law, not the lack of a pre-deprivation hearing. (C) is incorrect because a zoning regulation is not typically considered a taking unless it deprives the owner of all economically beneficial use of the land. (D) states the standard for rational basis review, which is inappropriate here because a fundamental right is at stake.
- In response to a public health crisis, a state enacts a law mandating that all adults receive a newly developed vaccine. The law provides no exceptions for religious or personal objections. A healthy adult with a sincere philosophical objection to all vaccines challenges the law, asserting a fundamental right to bodily integrity. The state provides evidence that universal vaccination is necessary to achieve herd immunity and protect vulnerable populations. What standard of review will a court most likely apply to this law? Select one.
Answer: A reasonableness test, balancing the individual's liberty interest against the state's interest in public health, as established in Jacobson v. Massachusetts.
When you encounter constitutional challenges to public health measures, especially vaccine mandates, you need to recognize that courts don't apply traditional constitutional scrutiny frameworks. Instead, they follow the established precedent from Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905).
The correct answer is D because Jacobson established a specific reasonableness test for public health regulations. Under this standard, courts balance the individual's liberty interest in bodily autonomy against the state's compelling interest in protecting public health. The state must show that its regulation is reasonable and necessary for public health, while the individual can demonstrate that the regulation is arbitrary or oppressive. This approach recognizes both individual liberty and the government's police power to protect public welfare.
Option A is incorrect because courts have consistently rejected arguments that there's a fundamental right to refuse medical treatment in the public health context, which would trigger strict scrutiny. Option B oversimplifies the analysis—while public health is within state police powers, courts don't simply apply rational basis review without considering individual liberty interests. Option C misapplies intermediate scrutiny, which typically applies to gender classifications or substantially burden fundamental rights; vaccine mandates don't fit this framework.
Remember that Jacobson remains the controlling precedent for vaccine mandate challenges, even over a century later. When you see public health regulations on the bar exam, think *Jacobson*'s reasonableness test rather than the standard tiers of constitutional scrutiny. This specialized framework acknowledges the unique tension between individual liberty and collective health needs.
- A state legislature, concerned about the stability of families, enacted a statute requiring any person with outstanding child support obligations exceeding $10,000 to obtain a court order demonstrating their ability to meet current and future obligations before receiving a marriage license. A man subject to this law, who wishes to marry, files a suit in federal court challenging the statute's constitutionality. What is the likely outcome of this challenge? Select one.
Answer: The statute will be struck down because it directly and substantially interferes with the fundamental right to marry and is not narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest.
The correct answer is C. The Supreme Court has recognized that the right to marry is a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. While the state has a compelling interest in ensuring parents support their children, this statute directly and substantially interferes with the right to marry for a specific class of people. The law is not narrowly tailored because it bars marriage entirely for those who cannot get a court order, rather than using less restrictive means like wage garnishment to collect child support. Therefore, it is unlikely to survive strict scrutiny. (A) is incorrect because laws infringing on a fundamental right are subject to strict scrutiny, not rational basis review. (B) is incorrect because the right to marry is a well-established fundamental right. (D) is incorrect because while there might be an equal protection issue, classifications based on wealth are subject to rational basis review, not strict scrutiny. The stronger argument is the Substantive Due Process claim based on the fundamental right to marry.
- To combat a housing shortage, a city passes an ordinance that requires owners of any residential property with more than four bedrooms to rent at least two of the bedrooms to individuals from a city-managed waiting list at a government-controlled rate. An elderly couple who owns a five-bedroom house and wishes to use the extra rooms for hobbies and visiting family challenges the ordinance. Which constitutional provision provides the strongest basis for their challenge? Select one.
Answer: The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, because the ordinance constitutes a physical invasion of their property without just compensation.
The correct answer is B. This ordinance forces a property owner to accept a physical occupation of their property by a third party (the tenant). The Supreme Court has held that any permanent physical occupation of property authorized by the government is a per se taking, requiring just compensation, regardless of the public interest it serves. This is one of the strongest protections for property owners. (A) is a weaker argument. While a privacy interest in the home exists, a Substantive Due Process challenge to a property regulation would likely be evaluated under rational basis review and fail. The right to be free from physical invasion is a more specific and powerful right under the Takings Clause. (C) is incorrect because owners of large homes are not a suspect class, so the law would be upheld under rational basis review on equal protection grounds. (D) is incorrect because the Contracts Clause primarily applies to existing contracts, not the general right to enter into future contracts.
- A competent adult is brought to a hospital unconscious after a severe accident. The patient's wallet contains a signed and witnessed declaration stating, 'Under no circumstances do I consent to a blood transfusion, for any reason.' The patient loses a massive amount of blood, and the treating physician determines that a blood transfusion is necessary to save the patient's life. The hospital administration petitions a court for an order to authorize the transfusion. What is the likely outcome? Select one.
Answer: The court will deny the order because a competent adult has a fundamental liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment.
The correct answer is B. The Supreme Court has held that a competent person has a fundamental right, rooted in the liberty interest of the Due Process Clause, to refuse unwanted medical treatment, including life-sustaining treatment. This right is an aspect of bodily integrity. A clear, advance directive made while competent is the best evidence of the patient's wishes. The state's general interest in preserving life typically yields to a competent individual's specific and clear refusal of treatment. (A) is incorrect because the state's interest, while compelling, is not absolute and does not automatically override a competent individual's fundamental right. (C) is incorrect because the relevant factor is the patient's competence at the time the directive was made, not their state at the time of treatment. (D) is incorrect because the right to refuse medical treatment is not dependent on a religious justification; it is a liberty interest applicable to all competent adults.
- A state law criminalizes the act of sodomy only when performed by same-sex couples, but not when performed by opposite-sex couples. The stated justification is the promotion of traditional morality. A man prosecuted under this law challenges its constitutionality. What is the strongest basis for his challenge? Select one.
Answer: The law violates the Equal Protection Clause because it impermissibly discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation without a rational basis.
When you encounter constitutional challenges involving different treatment of same-sex versus opposite-sex couples, focus on equal protection analysis and the level of scrutiny courts apply to sexual orientation classifications.
The strongest challenge here is that the law violates equal protection by discriminating based on sexual orientation without adequate justification. After Lawrence v. Texas (2003), laws criminalizing same-sex sodomy while permitting identical conduct by opposite-sex couples cannot survive even rational basis review. The Supreme Court found that moral disapproval alone is not a legitimate government interest sufficient to justify discriminatory treatment. This makes D correct—the classification lacks a rational basis.
A is tempting because Lawrence did establish privacy protections for consensual adult sexual conduct, but the equal protection argument is stronger here since the law explicitly treats similarly situated people differently based solely on sexual orientation.
B fails because the Establishment Clause requires government endorsement of religion, not merely laws that align with religious views. Secular moral justifications, even if insufficient, don't automatically create Establishment Clause violations.
C misapplies Obergefell, which established marriage equality but doesn't directly address criminalization of sexual conduct. The right to marry and the right to engage in intimate conduct are related but distinct constitutional protections.
Strategy tip: On constitutional law questions involving LGBTQ+ rights, distinguish between privacy-based arguments (Lawrence), marriage rights (Obergefell), and equal protection claims. Equal protection is typically strongest when laws explicitly classify based on sexual orientation, while privacy arguments work better for broadly applicable restrictions on intimate conduct.
- A state law requires that all motorcycle riders and passengers wear a helmet that meets federal safety standards. A motorcycle rider who is a member of a religion that requires its adherents to wear a special turban at all times challenges the law. He argues the law violates his fundamental right to free exercise of religion and his liberty interest in personal appearance and autonomy. The state defends the law as a public health measure designed to reduce traffic fatalities and healthcare costs. How will a court most likely rule? Select one.
Answer: The law will be upheld because it is a neutral law of general applicability that does not target religion and is rationally related to a legitimate state interest.
The correct answer is B. This question involves both a Free Exercise claim and a Substantive Due Process claim (liberty interest in personal appearance). The Supreme Court has held that there is no fundamental right to operate a motorcycle without a helmet; this is a lifestyle choice subject to rational basis review. The law is clearly rationally related to the legitimate state interests of safety and reducing public costs. Regarding the Free Exercise claim, under Employment Division v. Smith, a neutral law of general applicability that incidentally burdens religious practice is subject only to rational basis review. Since the helmet law applies to all riders and does not target religion, it will be upheld. (A) and (D) incorrectly apply strict scrutiny. (C) is incorrect because the right to 'bodily autonomy' has not been extended to cover the choice of whether to wear safety equipment while engaging in a regulated activity like driving on public roads.
- You are representing a client who was convicted of a felony 20 years ago and has since completed his sentence and parole. A state law permanently disenfranchises all individuals with a past felony conviction. Your client wishes to register to vote and challenges the law, arguing that it violates a fundamental right to vote. The state argues that ensuring the 'purity of the ballot box' is a legitimate state interest. What is the likely outcome of the constitutional challenge? Select one.
Answer: The law will be upheld because Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment has been interpreted to explicitly permit states to disenfranchise individuals for participation in 'rebellion, or other crime.'
When you encounter questions about voting rights and felony disenfranchisement, you need to understand the unique constitutional framework that applies. While voting is generally considered a fundamental right triggering strict scrutiny, felony disenfranchisement has explicit constitutional authorization.
The correct answer is D because Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains a crucial exception. This provision explicitly allows states to deny voting rights for "participation in rebellion, or other crime." The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted this language to permit felony disenfranchisement laws, even permanent ones. This constitutional text creates an exception to the usual fundamental rights analysis that would apply to voting restrictions.
Answer A incorrectly applies strict scrutiny analysis. While voting is fundamental, the Fourteenth Amendment's explicit exception for criminal disenfranchisement means courts don't apply the usual strict scrutiny test to felony voting restrictions.
Answer B misapplies Eighth Amendment doctrine. The Supreme Court has never found felony disenfranchisement to constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Civil disabilities following conviction are generally not considered "punishment" under Eighth Amendment analysis.
Answer C reaches the right outcome but uses wrong reasoning. While states do have broad authority over voter qualifications, the specific issue here isn't about rational basis review—it's about the explicit constitutional permission in Section 2.
Remember this key distinction: felony disenfranchisement is one area where the usual fundamental rights analysis doesn't apply because the Constitution explicitly permits it. Look for this exception whenever you see voting rights questions involving criminal convictions.
