Judicial Review Multiple Choice Questions Flashcards
President Pauli has promised Ed Executive that she will veto a regulatory bill that has just passed Congress limiting the pay of publicly traded corporations’ executives. The bill was born of the public - and Congress’s - dismay at the large disparities between what the top earners made at various publicly traded corporations and what those at the bottom took home. To his dismay, however, the President soon reverses course and signs the bill, later claiming that she was persuaded that the curb was indeed, needed. Furious because his own pay is due to be decimated, Ed files suit in federal district court seeking judicial review of the President’s veto. A review court is likely to:
A. Grant judicial review, because of the President’s promise to Ed.
B. Deny review because the decision whether to veto a bill or not is within the President’s discretion.
C. Deny judicial review because acts of the President are not subject to judicial review.
D. Deny judicial review because courts will not review controversies involving politics.
B. Deny review because the decision whether to veto a bill or not is within the President’s discretion.
Senator Solon is appointed to be Secretary of Treasury. During this time Solon was in the Senate, she voted to increase the pay of several executive officials, including the Treasury Secretary. Peter, a constituent of Solon, sues, claiming the appointment violates the Emoluments Clause of Article I, Section 6, Clause 2, which reads that “no Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the US, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time…” Does Peter have standing to bring suit?
A. Yes, because Peter has suffered injury by the Secretary’s failure to follow the Constitution.
B. Yes, because a portion of Peter’s tax revenues that fund the Secretary’s salary have been used to pay for an unconstitutional appointment.
C. No, because the injury is not redressable by a judicial decision.
D. No, because Peter has alleged a generalized grievance.
D. No, because Peter has alleged a generalized grievance.
Congress has appropriated money for the award of 25 Presidential Scholarships chosen by the President and an advisory board. Upon reading that one of the recipients intends to attend a sectarian college and study to be a missionary, Tom Taxpayer sues, claiming that the expenditure of federal funds violates the Establishment Clause. Does Taxpayer have standing to bring this suit?
A. No, because the appropriation is to the President to award the money at his discretion.
B. No, because the claim represents a generalized grievance.
C. Yes, because the Establishment Clause is a specific limitation on Congress’s taxing and spending power.
D. Yes, because taxpayers have standing to enforce lawmakers’ compliance with specific constitutional limits.
A. No, because the appropriation is to the President to award the money at his discretion.
Dan was convicted of violating a federal law requiring commercial farming operations to be “carbon neutral,” that is, the farms do not add significantly to greenhouse gasses or to global warming. Under the federal legislation, state agricultural officials are charged with conducting inspections and issuing certificates. Dan failed to obtain a certificate. He alleges that the federal legislation commandeers state officials to implement a federal program and is thus unconstitutional. The State is not a party to the lawsuit. In response, the federal government seeks dismissal of the lawsuit saying that Dan lacks standing to assert his defense. Only the State, the federal government argues, may seek to vindicate those federalism interests. How should the court rule?
A. For Dan, because he has an interest in ensuring the government acts in a constitutional manner.
B. For Dan, because he may challenge constitutionality of an act under which he is being prosecuted.
C. For the government, because Dan is seeking to make claims that belong to third parties not before the Court.
D. For the government, because Dan has suffered no injury.
B. For Dan, because he may challenge the constitutionality of an act under which he is being prosecuted.
Disturbed at reports that Americans are “bowling alone,” as one author put it - declining to join various civic organizations like Rotary, the Kiwanis, etc., State decides to create financial incentives to keep those groups financially solvent. State allows individuals to donate up to $1000, which may be deducted from the income on which one pays state income tax. In addition, however, the state furnishes individuals with an additional credit of up to $500 against any state income taxes owed, for donations made over $1000. Donations to places of worship and religious orders are eligible. A group calling itself Freethinkers for Fiscal Responsibility made up of state taxpayers, challenges the credit, calling it an unconstitutional state-sponsored giveaway to churches. The State, meanwhile, alleges the taxpayers have no standing to challenge the program. A reviewing court should:
A. Side with the taxpayers because the scenario is covered by Flast v. Cohen.
B. Side with the taxpayers because they have an interest in ensuring that tax revenues are not spent on unconstitutional programs.
C. Side with the State, because taxpayers have no right to challenge the constitutionality of state spending programs.
D. Side with the State, because the aid does not involve legislative appropriations to religious entities.
D. Side with the State, because the aid does not involve legislative appropriations to religious entities.
US military commitments have taxed the armed forces to the point that Congress revives the draft. Now men 18 to 25 are chosen by lottery to serve for at least two years in the armed forces. Under the lottery system, lower numbers are called up first; higher numbers, if needed, will be called up in the future. Which of the following plaintiffs would likely be found to have standing if any files suit challenging the legality of the draft?
A. Parents of a 17-year-old male alleging that the draft is unconstitutional in the absence of a congressional declaration of war.
B. A 19-year-old female who argues that the draft violates the Thirteenth Amendment’s ban on involuntary servitude.
C. An 18-year-old male who drew a lottery number and has received instructions to report for a physical.
D. Any of the above.
C. An 18-year-old male who drew a lottery number and has received instructions to report for a physical.
The IRS issues a revenue ruling that granted favorable tax treatment to nonprofit hospitals that offered only emergency room care to indigent patients, as opposed to offering both free emergency and nonemergency care. Indigent plaintiffs and organizations that that advocate for the poor challenge the ruling, claiming that it violates both IRC and APA, which governs the issuance of regulations by administrative agencies like the IRS. If the court dismisses the suit for lack of standing, it would likely do so because:
A. The plaintiffs have suffered no harm.
B. The injury is not imminent.
C. The lack of free, nonemergency care is not fairly traceable to the revenue ruling.
D. The plaintiffs are not in the zone of interest of the APA or the Code.
C. The lack of free, nonemergency care is not fairly traceable to the revenue ruling.
Emissions from coal power plants in State A are alleged to cause problems in adjoining State B. If left unchecked, the emissions could cause harm to crops and to persons with respiratory problems in State B. So far, the EPA, which has jurisdiction to regulate air quality, has declined to take enforcement action against the plants in State A. Which of the following parties would be most likely to have standing to challenge the EPA’s non enforcement?
A. State B, if State B can demonstrate that it stands to bear the costs of treating the respiratory ailments of citizens insured by the state, which are likely to develop in the future as a result of the air pollution.
B. A resident of State B who suffers from asthma, which can be triggered by air pollution, like the emissions from State A.
C. A resident of State B whose crops are at risk from acid rain produced by the emissions.
D. B or C.
A. State B, if State B can demonstrate that it stands to bear the costs of treating the respiratory ailments of citizens insured by the state, which are likely to develop in the future as a result of the air pollution.
David is being held at a military base without charges on suspicion of conspiring to commit acts of terrorism in the United States. David’s father, Arthur, seeks to challenge his son’s confinement in federal court, because David himself has not been permitted access to a lawyer. Would Arthur have standing to challenge his son’s incarceration?
A. No, because Arthur has suffered no harm.
B. No, because Arthur may not assert the rights of third persons.
C. Yes, because David is unable to assert his own rights.
D. Yes, because partners may always assert the rights of children.
C. Yes, because David is unable to assert his own rights.
Which of the following would be least likely to be held a political question by a reviewing Court?
A. A suit by members of Congress alleging that the President’s commitment of military forces overseas without a congressional declaration of war was unconstitutional.
B. A suit by the President against members of the Senate whose refusal to hold confirmation hearings on judicial nominees has resulted in the inability of the President to fill vacancies in the federal judiciary.
C. A suit alleging that a federal hate crimes law exceeded the scope of Congress’s powers under Article I, Section 8 brought by a criminal defendant charged with violating the law.
D. A suit by a judge who was impeached and removed from office for alleged sexual harassment of lawyers and court staff, who claimed his impeachment and removal were unconstitutional because his offenses did not rise to the level of “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
C. A suit alleging that a federal hate crimes law exceeded the scope of Congress’s powers under Article I, Section 8 brought by a criminal defendant charged with violating the law.
