Federal Function As State Function
This trap appears as a wrong-answer choice in 1 active question. Spotting how it is built is the repair: read each example's “why it's attractive” before the “why it's wrong.”
Subject distribution
- Constitutional Law1
Example wrong choices
14327_hatteras_ferry_preemption · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice Adirect the removal of the case to federal court, because this suit involves a substantial federal question.
Why it's attractive
Plaintiff pleads a state-law claim; the federal issue is a defense. The well-pleaded complaint rule bars federal question jurisdiction on a federal defense (Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1 (1983)). State courts share concurrent jurisdiction over federal claims absent congressional exclusivity (Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U.S. 455 (1990)). Removal is improper; the choice does not address the question actually being asked of the state court.
Why it's wrong
Plaintiff pleads a state-law claim; the federal issue is a defense. The well-pleaded complaint rule bars federal question jurisdiction on a federal defense (Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1 (1983)). State courts share concurrent jurisdiction over federal claims absent congressional exclusivity (Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U.S. 455 (1990)). Removal is improper; the choice does not address the question actually being asked of the state court.
14327_hatteras_ferry_preemption · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice Bhear the case on its merits and decide for Lydia because, on these facts, a federal agency is interfering with essential state functions.
Why it's attractive
The 'hear on merits' half is correct, which is what makes the distractor attractive. The 'essential state functions' reasoning is a Tenth-Amendment / anti-commandeering bait. It does not apply: the federal statute regulates INTERSTATE common carriers — a federal function under the Commerce Clause — and the Supremacy Clause preempts any state law in direct conflict. There is no 'essential state functions' exception to preemption. Gold Key GK-CONST-PREEMPT-INTERSTATE-01 unlocks this trap. Silver Key SK-CONST-POSTURE-CLASH-01: when two choices share the procedural posture, push to the substantive rule.
Why it's wrong
The 'hear on merits' half is correct, which is what makes the distractor attractive. The 'essential state functions' reasoning is a Tenth-Amendment / anti-commandeering bait. It does not apply: the federal statute regulates INTERSTATE common carriers — a federal function under the Commerce Clause — and the Supremacy Clause preempts any state law in direct conflict. There is no 'essential state functions' exception to preemption. Gold Key GK-CONST-PREEMPT-INTERSTATE-01 unlocks this trap. Silver Key SK-CONST-POSTURE-CLASH-01: when two choices share the procedural posture, push to the substantive rule.
14327_hatteras_ferry_preemption · CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW · Choice Ddismiss the action, because Lydia lacks standing to sue.
Why it's attractive
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992): injury in fact, causation, redressability. Lydia has a direct economic injury (loss of customers), caused by the discontinuance, redressable by an injunction. The choice treats individualized economic harm as defeat of standing; in fact, individualized economic harm is the threshold showing Lujan requires.
Why it's wrong
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992): injury in fact, causation, redressability. Lydia has a direct economic injury (loss of customers), caused by the discontinuance, redressable by an injunction. The choice treats individualized economic harm as defeat of standing; in fact, individualized economic harm is the threshold showing Lujan requires.
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →