February 2019 Bar Exam Megathread

For (1), I made the "she could reduce to a fine" argument, emphasizing her continued improvement and the fact that she would likely be in full compliance very soon. But I also argued that she could plausibly dispute whether or not she was responsible for the teacher hired by the last owner and whether or not "supervision" was required to comply with the diet/allergy issue. In other words, I argued that either was enough of a dispute to satisfy the "mere possibility" standard, since the case they gave talked about triable disputes for the first element as well.

For irreparable harm, I talked about her lost income, possible defaults and so on, but emphasized how she'd lose the government grant and clients - especially the probability that she'd never be able to reopen even if she got the license back - all of which could be avoided by just enjoining the license-revocation until she's able to challenge it on the merits.

Which leads to the third issue. I basically just argued that all of those harms to her would clearly outweigh the harm to the agency, both in their administrative efforts and in their goals.

I thought the last element - public interest - was the easiest imo. Statutory goals were to satisfy an identified community need, and to help working/low-income parents. Her daycare center did all that in spades, and she had parents backing her up for it. I addressed how the counterargument would be that the kids' health was also a statutory goal, but just reemphasized how she's almost entirely in compliance at this point, how no child's safety has actually been compromised here, and how the kids' health, in fact, would be undermined by revoking her license (because the parent mentioned how they were worried about feeding their kids if the center closed).

I also analogized to the case given regarding the ease-of-enforcement issue. If court grants injunction here, there will be no difficulty identifying whether it's been violated. Either the agency revokes her license, or they don't. Same dichotomy as in the case given.

Anyone else have thoughts/critiques? Did I totally fuck somethin up?

/r/LawSchool Thread Parent