Uworld Questions

Question 1

A private corporation that manufactures automobiles owns land in a rural part of a state on which it developed its headquarters and primary manufacturing plant. To attract workers, the corporation also built and exclusively managed apartment buildings and houses that it leased to its employees and a commercial district with a shopping center, streets, and sidewalks open to the general public. To maintain these properties, the corporation provides police, fire safety, and sanitation services.
A woman who lives in one of the corporation’s apartment buildings wanted to set up a stand on a sidewalk to hand out pamphlets to residents about the negative health effects of automobile emissions. All of the sidewalks contain signs that read: “Private property! No vendor or solicitation of any kind will be permitted without prior written authorization from [the corporation].” The corporation repeatedly denied the woman permission to distribute the pamphlets.
The woman sued the corporation, alleging a violation of her constitutional right to freedom of expression. The corporation argued that the woman could not validly claim that her constitutional rights were violated because there is no government action.
Is the corporation correct?
A. No, because a claim based on a First Amendment violation does not require government action.
B. No, because the corporation performed a traditional government function.
C. Yes, because the corporation is a private entity that is not subject to the Constitution.
D.
Yes, because the government is not involved in the operation of the private corporation’s town.

Answer 1

B. No, because the corporation performed a traditional government function.

Question 2

A couple sued their local school district in state court, arguing that the school district was racially segregated. The court found that the schoo district was largely segregated and that the segregation was intentional. - The court adopted a desegregation order that would combine the students from a neighboring school district and the students in the local school district into one student pool and then reassign the students to achieve a racial balance at each school within the two districts.
The neighboring school district has filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction to block the state court’s desegregation order from going into effect.
What is the proper level of review to determine whether the neighboring school district’s lawsuit will be successful?
. A. Rational basis review, because education is not a fundamental right.
B. Rational basis review, because the state court sought to remedy intentional segregation.
C. Striet serutiny review, because multiple school districts are involved.
D. Strict scrutiny review, because the state court’s order involves a suspect classification.

Answer 2

D. Strict scrutiny review, because the state court’s order involves a suspect classification.

Question 3

In order to ensure the safety of passengers, a state law requires that all bus drivers in the state be 65 years of age or younger. The state relied on a recent study finding that drivers over 65 years of age had poorer eyesight and slower reaction times. A 67-year-old woman wanted to work as a bus driver in the state. The woman applied for a position at a bus company in the state but was denied employment. The company cited the state law requiring that bus drivers be 65 years old or younger as the reason the woman was denied employment. The woman brought a suit to challenge the constitutionality of the state law as a violation of the equal protection clause.
Is the woman likely to prevail?
A. No, because the law is rationally related to a legitimate state interest.
B. No, because the law is substantially related to an important state interest:
C. Yes, because the law is not necessary to achieve a compelling state interest.
* D. Yes, because the law is not substantially related to an important state interest

Answer 3

A. No, because the law is rationally related to a legitimate state interest.

Question 4

Congress enacted a statute that provided a monthly $1,000 stimulus payment to every United States citizen. The purpose of the statute was to reduce economic inequality in the United States and strengthen the national economy. Noncitizens were excluded from the statute because Congress wished to encourage noncitizen residents to become U.S. citizens.
A group of resident noncitizens who were denied the stimulus payment pursuant to the statute brought a suit in federal court challenging the statute on constitutional grounds. The group specifically claims that the statute violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment due process clause.
Is the statute likely constitutional?
A. No, because the statute is not necessary to achieve a compelling government interest.
B. No, because the statute is not substantially related to an important government interest:
C. Yes, because the statute is not arbitrary or unreasonable.
D. Yes, because the statute is not discriminatory.

Answer 4

C. Yes, because the statute is not arbitrary or unreasonable.

Question 5

A teacher, who is a resident noncitizen, applied for employment as a first-grade teacher at a public elementary school. After the teacher passed all certification exams and completed the requisite training courses, he was denied employment. The elementary school explained that the teacher was ineligible for employment pursuant to a state statute that prohibits public elementary schools from hiring noncitizens as teachers.
The teacher has filed an action alleging that the state statute is unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause.
Which of the following best states the burden of persuasion in this action?

A. The state must demonstrate that the citizenship requirement is rationally related to a legitimate state interest.
B. The state must demonstrate that the citizenship requirement is the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling government interest.
C. The teacher must demonstrate that the citizenship requirement is not narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest.
D. The teacher must demonstrate that the citizenship requirement is not rationally related to a legitimate state interest.

Answer 5

D. The teacher must demonstrate that the citizenship requirement is not rationally related to a legitimate state interest.

Question 6

A state adopted a policy that required 15% of all new state police officers to be from racial minority groups. The purpose of the policy was to help redress the historical discrimination against racial minority groups in society at large and to help them achieve economic parity with other groups in society. An applicant for an open position as a state police officer who is not a racial minority was denied employment. The applicant has filed suit in federal court, arguing that the state policy violates the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause.
How will the federal court likely rule?
A. The policy is constitutional, because it is intended to remedy historical race-based discrimination.
B. The policy is constitutional, because it is rationally related to a legitimate government interest.
C. The policy is unconstitutional, because it is intended to remedy a general societal injustice.
D. The policy is unconstitutional, because it is not substantially related to an important government interest.

Answer 6

C. The policy is unconstitutional, because it is intended to remedy a general societal injustice.

Question 7

A city that owns a public park uses government funds to hire park rangers and sanitation services to maintain the park. During hours when the park is closed, the city allows private parties to reserve sections of the park for private events. No park ranger or sanitation services are available after hours.
A private group reserved the baseball field at the park to host a baseball tournament. The tournament was meant to raise funds for homeless shelters in the United States and was open to the general public. However, because the group wanted to focus on homelessness in the United States, all participants in the tournament were required to be U.S. citizens.
A baseball player who is not a U.S. citizen wanted to play in the tournament but was refused entry based on his citizenship status.
The baseball player sued the private group in the appropriate court for violating his equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The group moved to dismiss the action on the basis that there was no state action.
Is the group likely to succeed in its motion to dismiss?

A. No, because the city has created a mutually beneficial relationship with the private group.
B. No, because the eity is intertwined in the private group’s management and control of the tournament:
C. Yes, because private actors cannot be sued for violating the Constitution.
D. Yes, because the city is not significantly involved in the private group’s activities.

Answer 7

D. Yes, because the city is not significantly involved in the private group’s activities.

Question 8

A state-run hospital that employed both men and women as registered nurses gave its patients a survey to inquire about the quality of care that they received. The survey results indicated a low score in “kind and compassionate care.” The hospital director conducted an investigation and discovered that many of the patients who reported a low score in this category had a male registered nurse assigned to them. As a result of these findings, the hospital sought to increase the quality of care patients received by initiating a new hiring policy that required all registered nurses be female.
A male registered nurse who had been employed by the hospital for many years was fired due to this new policy. The male nurse challenged the constitutionality of the policy as a violation of his right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Is the male nurse likely to prevail?

A. No, because the policy is constitutional as a form of benign discrimination based on gender.
B. No, because the policy seeks to address the important government interest of increasing the quality of care for patients in the hospital.
C. Yes, because the regulation is motivated by animosity towards male registered nurses.
D. Yes, because the regulation is not substantially related to increasing the quality of care for patients in the hospital.

Answer 8

D. Yes, because the regulation is not substantially related to increasing the quality of care for patients in the hospital.

Question 9

A state has long operated a male-only law school in a large metropolitan area. The law school is prestigious and is nationally recognized for producing excellent lawyers. The state’s reason for the male-only admissions policy is that the school has traditionally been all male, and the state also operates a female-only law school in the same metropolitan area. The all-female law school is respected locally but lacks the national recognition that the all-male law school has.
An applicant who was born as a female but identifies as a male applied to the all-male school because he satisfied all the admissions requirements other than his biological sex and wanted to be associated with the school’s exceptional national reputation. However, he was denied admission based on his sex at birth.
If the applicant sues the school and alleges that its male-only admissions policy violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, will he likely be successful?

A. No, because the all-male admissions policy is rationally related to a legitimate government interest of preserving tradition.
B. No, because the state operates a female only law school in the same metropolitan area that is respected locally.
C. Yes, because the all-male admissions policy is not necessary to achieve a compelling state interest.
D. Yes, because the all-male admissions policy is not substantially related to an important governmental interest.

Answer 9

D. Yes, because the all-male admissions policy is not substantially related to an important governmental interest.

Question 10

A state statute permits parents to bring a wrongful death lawsuit on behalf of their marital children but not their nonmarital children. The state enacted the statute to encourage individuals to get married before having children.
A woman’s child was killed in a car accident. When the woman filed a cause of action for wrongful death on behalf of the child, the action was dismissed pursuant to the state statute because the child had been born out of wedlock.
The woman filed suit in federal district court, alleging that the state statute violates the equal protection clause.
Which of the following best states the burden of persuasion in the suit?

A. The state must demonstrate that the statute is substantially related to an important state interest.
B. The state must demonstrate that the statute is the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling state interest.
C. The woman must demonstrate that the statute is not reasonably related to a legitimate state interest.
D. The woman must demonstrate that the statute is not substantially related to an important state interest.

Answer 10

A. The state must demonstrate that the statute is substantially related to an important state interest.

Question 11

A state statute prohibits a charitabie organization from paying a fundraiser more than 25% of the amount raised in connection with any fundraising activity. The statute sought to address fraud in charitable fundraising activities.
A state official charged with enforcing the statute informed a professional fundraiser who regularly charges less known and financially smaller charitable organizations more than 25% of the amount he raised that he would be prosecuted and subject to fines if he continued to violate the statute. The professional fundraiser filed an action in federal court alleging that the statute violates charitable organizations’ free speech rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution because the statute’s overbreadth in treating all fundraising charges over the 25% limit as fraudulent has a chilling effect on the charities’ free speech rights.
Is the fundraiser likely to have standing to bring this action?

A. No, because the fundraiser did not assert a violation of his own constitutional rights.
B. No, because violation of the statute will not result in physical harm to the fundraiser.
C. Yes, because standing is not required to assert a constitutional right.
D. Yes, because the fundraiser and the charities share an inextricably close relationship, and obstacles exist that may prevent the charities from asserting their rights.

Answer 11

D. Yes, because the fundraiser and the charities share an inextricably close relationship, and obstacles exist that may prevent the charities from asserting their rights.

Question 12

Concerned with the increase in car accidents involving uninsured drivers in the United States, Congress enacted a statute that imposes an excise tax of $300 on each car sold in the United States. The tax proceeds are then put into a “Car Accident Fund,” which assists uninsured drivers in offsetting accident costs.
Is the federal statute constitutional?

A. No, because the excise tax does not have a reasonable relationship to revenue production.
B. No, because the excise tax is not necessary to achieve a compelling government interest.
C. Yes, because Congress has the power to impose direct taxes.
D. Yes, because Congress has the power to impose taxes for any public purpose.

Answer 12

D. Yes, because Congress has the power to impose taxes for any public purpose.

Question 13

A taxpayer and citizen of the Unitea States filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in federal district court to compel Congress to require the President to disclose detailed information regarding the expenditures of the National Security Agency (NSA). The petition is based on Art. I, Sec.
9, cl. 7 of the U.S. Constitution, which states,
“No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law;
and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.” The petition alleges that the information currently provided by the NSA does not allow the petitioner or other taxpayers and citizens like her to accurately assess the NSA’s compliance with its statutory and constitutional obligations.
Does the court have jurisdiction over this action?

A. No, because the disclosure would not have a significant economic impact.
B. No, because the taxpayer lacks standing.
C. Yes, because the taxpayer is a citizen of the United States.
D. Yes, because the taxpayer is not directly seeking to compel or prevent congressional spending

Answer 13

B. No, because the taxpayer lacks standing.

Question 14

A state enacted a law banning written or electronic communications that encourage, induce, or instruct someone to contact a contractor for the purpose of filing an insurance claim for roof damage. The law imposed fines for violations to be assessed by the state’s Department of Business and Professional Regulation (“DBPR”). Contractors in the state filed a class action in federal district court against the Secretary of the DBPR, seeking damages for lost business attributa o the law as well as an injunction prohibiting the Secretary from enforcing the law. The contractors
alleged that this law unconstitutionally restricted their First Amendment right to free speech. The Secretary has moved to dismiss the action on the ground that the requested relief violates the Eleventh Amendment.
Should the federal court hear the merits of the contractors’ suit?

A. No, as to both the request for retroactive damages for lost business and the request for the injunction prohibiting the Secretary from enforcing the law.
B. Yes, but only as to the request for retroactive damages for lost business.
C. Yes, but only as to the request for the injunction prohibiting the Secretary from enforcing the law.
D. Yes, as to both the request for retroactive damages for lost business and the request for the injunction prohibiting the Secretary from enforcing the law.

Answer 14

C. Yes, but only as to the request for the injunction prohibiting the Secretary from enforcing the law.

Question 15

Congress enacted a federal statute requiring the installation of dashboard cameras in commercial shipping and fishing boats in an effort to deter crimes like boating while intoxicated and theft. A fishing-boat owner failed to comply with the statute and was fined by the federal government.
The fishing-boat owner alleged that the statute was not a valid exercise of Congress’s commerce clause powers.
Is the fishing-boat owner likely to prevail?

A. No, because Congress may regulate anything that has an identifiable effect on interstate commerce.
B. No, because the statute regulates instrumentalities of interstate commerce.
C. Yes, because Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce is narrowly construed
D. Yes, because the commerce clause does not allow congressional regulation of boats.

Answer 15

B. No, because the statute regulates instrumentalities of interstate commerce.

Question 16

A state statute prohibits candidates for a local school board from placing campaign signs within 100 feet of a polling location. A parent who supports a candidate for a school board wants the candidate to be able to place signs without restriction and has filed an action in federal court against the state seeking a declaratory judgment that the statute is unconstitutional. The state filed a motion to dismiss the parent’s suit.
How should the federal court rule on this motion?

A. Deny the motion, because the case falls within the federal judicial power.
B. Deny the motion, because the statute presents a real and immediate danger to the parent.
C. Grant the motion, because the federal courts are prohibited from issuing declaratory judgments.
D. Grant the motion, because the suit does not present a case or controversy

Answer 16

D. Grant the motion, because the suit does not present a case or controversy

Question 17

A town owned and operated a water tank that supplied water to the town’s businesses and residences. Citing the need for water preservation, the town implemented a plan to restrict water usage to eight hours per day at designated times. Property owners would be fined for using water during the designated restricted times. The town’s plan did not include advance notice to property owners.
A homeowner who did not know about the water restrictions was fined for using water during a designated restricted time. The homeowner then sued the town in federal district court to enjoin enforcement of the water restriction plan. He argued that the plan violated due process because the town failed to give property owners notice before issuing a fine. The town moved to dismiss the homeowner’s action. *
While the town’s motion was pending, the town council passed an ordinance requiring that notice be given to property owners and eliminating all fines that had been issued prior to the enactment of the ordinance.
Should the court grant the town’s motion to dismiss the action?

A. No, because the town’s action is capable of repetition yet evading review.
B. No, because there was a live controversy at the time the complaint was filed.
C. Yes, because the homeowner did not suffer actual harm.
D. Yes, because there is no longer a live controversy.

Answer 17

D. Yes, because there is no longer a live controversy.

Question 18

Congress provides funds to states that can be used to reimburse medical providers for procedures they perform for low-income individuals. A state that participates in this federal program enacted a statute that prohibits reimbursing providers for the cost of providing contraceptives.
A doctor who serves low-income individuals has submitted numerous requests for reimbursement of contraceptives pursuant to the program.
However, the commissioner of the state agency administering the program has repeatedly denied the doctor’s requests pursuant to the state statute.
The doctor sued the commissioner in federal district court, seeking an injunction against the enforcement of the statute on the ground that it violates an individual’s right to privacy.
May the court hear the suit?

A. No, because only an individual in need of contraceptives would have standing to bring the suit.
B. No, because the statute does not harm the doctor.
C. Yes, because the doctor has standing.
D. Yes, because third parties may always sue to enforce another individual’s rights.

Answer 18

C. Yes, because the doctor has standing.

Question 19

A federal statute provides funds to all elementary schools, private as well as public, to acquire textbooks for their students. The funding is allocated based on the number of students attending the school. The statute specifically permits parochial schools to acquire textbooks that provide religious instruction with the funds. A childless taxpayer who is not employed in the field of education has filed an action in federal court to challenge this federal statutory provision as violating the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
Does the taxpayer have standing to challenge the provision?

A. No, because the allocation of federal funds raises a political question that is left to Congress to decide.
B. No, because the taxpayer has not suffered a concrete and particularized injury due to the statute..
C. Yes, because taxpayers have the right to challenge how Congress spends federal funds.
D. Yes, because the taxpayer’s challenge is based on the establishment clause.

Answer 19

D. Yes, because the taxpayer’s challenge is based on the establishment clause.

Question 20

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) adopted a regulation granting tax-exempt status to hospitals that provide indigent individuals with emergency care, even if those hospitals do not provide indigent individuals with non-emergency care. A local organization representing indigent persons challenged the regulation in federal court, contending that the regulation encouraged the denial of non-emergency hospital care to indigent persons. The org ation asserted that neither private nor charitable hospitals currently provided such care to indigents. The organization
sought a ruling that the regulation was void considering the statutory limitation of a charitable-tax exemption to entities that serve a charitable purpose.
Does the organization have standing to contest the regulation?

A. No, because an organization cannot sue on behalf of its members.
B. No, because the regulation did not cause the hospitals to deny indigent individuals non-emergency care.
C. Yes, because indigent persons are currently being denied non-emergency care by hospitals that enjoy tax-exempt status.
D. Yes, because the indigent persons suffered a concrete and particularized injury by the denial of non-emergency hospital care.

Answer 20

B. No, because the regulation did not cause the hospitals to deny indigent individuals non-emergency care.

Question 21

Congress enacted a federal statute imposing restrictions on personal ownership of exotic “big cats” such as tigers and lions. The statute prohibited any person from owning a big cat without government authorization. Congressional findings contained evidence that, in the aggregate, unrestricted owners. up of big cats has a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce because it creates a market to breed and sell them.
A man who owned a large area of fenced land was given a tiger cub by a friend who illegally imported it into the United States. The man owned no other big cats, and he did not intend to sell or breed the tiger cub or purchase any other big cats. Instead, the man intended to raise the tiger cub as a domestic pet.
The man was charged in federal court with a violation of the federal statute. As part of his defense, the man alleged that the federal statute was unconstitutional. The federal government asserted that the statute was valid under Congress’s commerce clause powers.
If the court finds for the federal government, what is the likely reason?

A. A substantial effect on interstate commerce is presumed under these facts.
B. Congress may regulate any activity that incidentally affects interstate commerce.
C. Congressional findings show that unrestricted ownership of big cats in the aggregate substantially affects interstate commerce.
D. Owning big cats is an economic activity.

Answer 21

C. Congressional findings show that unrestricted ownership of big cats in the aggregate substantially affects interstate commerce.

Question 22

A federal statute provides that states must enforce specific educational standards in their high schools. The standards are clearly and unambiguously stated in the statute and are intended to strengthen student learning and achievement.
. The statute further provides that if a state’s
high schools do not comply with the federal standards, the state will be denied 2% of its federal aid for secondary education.
A high school in a state failed to comply with the statute’s educational standards. As a result, the state’s federal funding for secondary education was reduced by 2%.
Can the federal government constitutionally withhold this aid from the state?

A. No, because the federal government does not have the power to regulate education.
B. No, because the federal government cannot impose conditions on a state’s receipt of federal funds.
C. Yes, because the federal government may impose any condition on a state’s receipt of federal funds.
D. Yes, because the statute is a valid exercise of the federal government’s spending power.

Answer 22

D. Yes, because the statute is a valid exercise of the federal government’s spending power.

Question 23

A federal statute required that all adult U.S. citizens purchase and carry a certain amount of life insurance based on factors such as health and age. The statute created a federally operated online marketplace that offered various life-insurance packages. A group of plaintiffs who did not wish to purchase any form of life insurance filed a lawsuit in federal court alleging that Congress had no power to enact such a statute. The government responded that the statute validly derived from Congress’s commerce clause powers.
Who is likely to prevail?

A. The government, because purchasing life insurance has a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
B. The government, because purchasing life insurance is an economic activity.
C. The plaintiffs, because Congress cannot require individuals who are not engaged in commercial activities to participate in commerce.
D. The plaintiffs, because the statute does not regulate a channel or instrumentality of interstate commerce.

Answer 23

C. The plaintiffs, because Congress cannot require individuals who are not engaged in commercial activities to participate in commerce.

Question 24

The President pardoned all individuals sentenced under federal law for the possession of marijuana. In opposition to the President, Congress passed a bill prohibiting the President from granting a pardon to any person sentenced for a marijuana offense if the person has not served six months in prison. The President vetoed the bill, but Congress voted to override the veto by a two-thirds vote in the House of Representatives and the Senate.
Is the bill constitutional?

A. No, because the President has plenary power over all domestic affairs.
B. No, because the President has the exclusive power to grant pardons.
C. Yes, because Congress validly voted to override the President’s veto.
D. Yes, because Congress shares the pardon power with the President.

Answer 24

B. No, because the President has the exclusive power to grant pardons.

Question 25

Congress enacted a federal statute under its commerce clause power that made it a federal crime to direct a laser pointer at any person on public school or government property, or at the property itself. A man was arrested for directing a laser pointer through a window into a city police station. The man filed a lawsuit in federal court, alleging that the statute was an overreach of Congress’s commerce clause powers.
Is the statute likely a valid exercise of Congress’s commerce clause power?

A. No, because Congress may not criminalize in-state activities.
B. No, because the regulated activity does not have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
c. Yes, because a laser pointer can function as an instrumentality of interstate commerce.
D. Yes, because the commerce clause gives Congress unlimited power over interstate commerce.

Answer 25

B. No, because the regulated activity does not have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.

Question 26

Which of the following would be considered a constitutional direct tax if imposed by the federal government?

A. A tax imposed on a person for failing to have health insurance in violation of a health insurance mandate to generate revenue for the expansion of coverage for people in the United States.
B. A tax imposed on every person in the United States at a fixed rate regardless of income that is apportioned proportionately based on each state’s population to lower the federal budget deficit.
C. A tax imposed on the sale of tractor tires to generate revenue for the manufacture of safe tires.
D. A tax imposed on every real property interest sold in the United States at a fixed rate that is apportioned identically in every state to lower the federal budget deficit.

Answer 26

B. A tax imposed on every person in the United States at a fixed rate regardless of income that is apportioned proportionately based on each state’s population to lower the federal budget deficit.

Question 27

Congress enacted a statute that grants the U.S. Supreme Court original jurisdiction to hear any legal action against a member of Congress that alleges a violation of federal law. The intent of the statute is to ensure that these cases are handled quickly by eliminating the need for appeals.
Does the Supreme Court have original jurisdiction under this statute?

A. No, because Article Ill fixes the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction.
B. No, because Article Ill permits Congress to limit but not expand the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction.
C. Yes, because Article Ill grants the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over matters involving members of Congress.
D. Yes, because Congress has the authority under Article III to limit and expand the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction.

Answer 27

A. No, because Article Ill fixes the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction.

Question 28

A state law grants a state income tax credit or deduction for contributions made to organizations that award scholarships to private elementary schools. Most of these organizations are associated with and award scholarships exclusively to religious schools. Acting as a concerned taxpayer, an individual brought an action in federal court challenging the law as a violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The law has cost the state over $300 million in revenue.
Does the individual have standing to challenge the state law?

A. No, because the individual challenged a state, not federal, law.
B. No, because the state law does not require the expenditure of state funds.
C. Yes, because the individual is challenging the state law as a taxpayer as a violation of the establishment clause
D. Yes, because the state law has had more than a de minimis effect on state revenue.

Answer 28

B. No, because the state law does not require the expenditure of state funds.

Question 29

A Black employee worked at a private credit union. Even though the employee was the most qualified, she was passed over for a promotion at her yearly employee review. The credit union mistakenly emailed the employee documents relating to her review that were meant to remain private. In the documents, the employee saw that her race was a factor used to deny her the promotion.
A newly enacted federal statute prohibits private banks and credit unions from discriminating against employees based on race. The employee filed an action against the credit union based on the statute. In response, the credit union moved to dismiss the action, arguing that the newly enacted federal statute is unconstitutional.
If a court upholds the statute against the constitutional challenge, which of the following amendments, taken alone, would be sufficient to support the holding?
A. The Twelfth Amendment.
B. The Thirteenth Amendment.
C. The Fourteenth Amendment.
D. The Fifteenth Amendment.

Answer 29

B. The Thirteenth Amendment.

Question 30

A state legislature passed a statute requiring fishermen to obtain a license in order to fish in the state. The statute imposes a license fee of $30 for each fishing boat owned by a resident of the state and a fee of $300 for each boat owned by a nonresident. The statute makes it a criminal offense to fish in the state without a license. Violators are subject to fines, which the statute describes in detail.
A nonresident commercial fisherman who has fished in the state for many years did not obtain a license because he did not want to pay the $300 fee. The commercial fisherman sued in federal court challenging the constitutionality of the statute.
Does the commercial fisherman have constitutional standing to challenge the statute?

A. No, because the commercial fisherman has not yet suffered an injury.
B. No, because the commercial fisherman’s unwillingness to pay caused his injury.
C. Yes, because the commercial fisherman is a citizen of a neighboring state.
D. Yes, because the commercial fisherman suffered an imminent injury caused by the statute that can be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.

Answer 30

D. Yes, because the commercial fisherman suffered an imminent injury caused by the statute that can be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.

Question 31

Congress passed a statute creating a new agency responsible for enforcing federal laws regulating generic prescription drugs. The director of the agency is to be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. The statute mandates that the President can only remove the agency director with the Senate’s consent.
The President appointed a lawyer to be the director of the agency, and the Senate confirmed this appointment. After two months, the President wanted to remove the lawyer as director of the agency because the lawyer was not performing his obligations and frequently missed agency meetings. However, the Senate did not consent to the lawyer’s removal.
Which of the following statements is true?

A. The President correctly appointed the director to the agency with the Senate’s consent but may remove the director without the Senate’s consent.
B. The President correctly appointed the director to the agency with the Senate’s consent and must remove the director with the Senate’s consent.
C. The President could have appointed the director to the agency without the Senate’s consent and may remove the director without the Senate’s consent.
D. The President could have appointed the director to the agency without the Senate’s consent but must remove the director with the Senate’s consent.

Answer 31

A. The President correctly appointed the director to the agency with the Senate’s consent but may remove the director without the Senate’s consent.

Question 32

Congress enacted a federal statute criminalizing the sale of counterfeit gun licenses, an activity that primarily occurs within individual states’ borders. A counterfeiter was arrested for violating the statute and moved for a declaratory judgment that the law was unconstitutional. The government argued that the statute constituted a valid exercise of Congress’s commerce clause powers.
Which party is most likely to prevail?

A. The counterfeiter, because Congress had no rational basis to conclude that selling counterfeit gun licenses substantially affects
interstate commerce.
B. The counterfeiter, because the statute does not regulate a channel or instrumentality of interstate commerce.
C. The government, because counterfeit gun licenses generally involve the use of guns and bullets that have moved in interstate commerce.
D. The government, because selling counterfeit gun licenses is an economic activity that is presumed to substantially affect interstate commerce.

Answer 32

D. The government, because selling counterfeit gun licenses is an economic activity that is presumed to substantially affect interstate commerce.

Question 33

A proposed federal statute would require all states to have a specific number of drop boxes for voters to return their ballots based on the population of each county within the state and would allow residents of a state to sue the state for violating the statute. The proposed statute resulted after an investigation revealed that numerous states have reduced their number of drop boxes to disproportionately impact racial minority groups.
What is the strongest argument to uphold the constitutionality of the proposed federal statute?
A. The statute is a means of enforcing Congress’s authority to protect the general welfare.
B. The statute is a means of enforcing the provisions of the Fifteenth Amendment.
C. The statute is a means of enforcing the provisions of the Nineteenth Amendment.
D. The statute is a means of enforcing the provisions of the Thirteenth Amendment.

Answer 33

B. The statute is a means of enforcing the provisions of the Fifteenth Amendment.

Question 34

A terrorist organization invaded a political rally that was being held in a public park in the United States. Members of the organization were holding U.S. citizens hostage and assaulting them. In response, the President sent troops to the park to repel the organization. Three days later, Congress declared war on the foreign nation to which the terrorist organization belonged
Was the President’s action constitutional?

A. No, because Congress has the exclusive authority to take military action.
B. No, because the President took military action before Congress declared war.
C. Yes, because the President has exclusive power over war as the commander in chief of the military.
D. Yes, because there were actual hostilities against the United States.

Answer 34

D. Yes, because there were actual hostilities against the United States.

Question 35

A President of the “Inited States entered into a mutual-defense treaty with a foreign nation that recognized the foreign nation as a country. The Senate gave its consent to the treaty and the President ratified it.
A subsequent President initiated the process of establishing diplomatic relations with another country that claimed sovereignty over the foreign nation that had entered into the mutual-defense treaty. The President then served notice of the intent of the United States to withdraw from the treaty effective within one year from the date of the notice, as permitted by the terms of the treaty. The President also revoked the recognition of the foreign nation as a country. The President took these actions without consulting the Senate, which passed a nonbinding resolution that Senate approval is required to terminate any mutual-defense treaty between the United States and another nation but took no other action with respect to the matter. Prior to the termination of the treaty, six senators sued the President in federal court, contending that her actions were unconstitutional.
Does the political-question doctrine prohibit the court from hearing the case?

A. No, because the case does not concern a dispute between political parties.
B. No, because the Senate has passed a nonbinding resolution requiring Senate approval to terminate a mutual-defense treaty.
C. Yes, because the Constitution has assigned this matter to the President.
D. Yes, because the senators lack a personal stake in this dispute.

Answer 35

C. Yes, because the Constitution has assigned this matter to the President.

Question 36

A state, pursuant to a legislative act, issued bonds to finance renovation of its capital building. Several years later, the state legislature enacted a law that repudiated its obligation to repay these bonds. Investors who had purchased those bonds-including citizens of the state and of other states-filed a class action against the state in a federal district court in the state. The investors sought damages arising from the state’s failure to honor the bonds it had issued. The investors alleged that the state’s failure to honor the bonds violated state law as well as the prohibition on the impairment of contracts imposed by the U.S. Constitution.
Does the federal court constitutionally have jurisdiction to hear these complaints?

A. Yes, as to all claims.
B. Yes, but only as to claims raised by citizens of other states.
C. Yes, but only as to claims raised by citizens of the state.
 D. No, as to all claims.

Answer 36

D. No, as to all claims.

Question 37

An individual filed a claim with the applicable federal executive agency against a physician and a medical practice for allegedly submitting over 200 false requests for reimbursement. The individual’s claim arose under a federal statute that incentivized the individual to submit the claim by allowing him to retain a portion of the fines levied by the agency. After conducting a thorough review, the executive agency imposed a statutorily mandated penalty of $1,000,000. The physician and the medical practice then filed an action challenging the penalty assessed against them as a violation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on excessive fines. The physician and the medical practice brought their action in the federal court that was statutorily mandated to review penalties imposed by the executive agency.
On what primary basis can the federal court consider this challenge?

A. The doctrine of judicial review.
B. The doctrine of supremacy.
C. The nondelegation doctrine.
D. The principle of federalism.

Answer 37

A. The doctrine of judicial review.

Question 38

Congress passed and the President signed the following statute: “The appellate jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court shall not extend to any case involving the constitutionality of any state statute limiting the circumstances in which a person may vote, or involving the constitutionality of this statute.”
What is the strongest argument that this statute is unconstitutional?
A. Congress has the power to expand, but not limit, the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction.
B. Congress may not alter the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction in a way that seriously interferes with the establishment of a supreme and uniform body of federal law.
C. Congress may only expand or restrict the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
D. Congress may regulate the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction over cases arising in federal courts, but not cases arising in state courts.

Answer 38

B. Congress may not alter the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction in a way that seriously interferes with the establishment of a supreme and uniform body of federal law.

Question 39

A federal statute provides funds to states that choose to participate in a program to reduce homelessness. The program is overseen by a federal agency that determines whether a state is eligible for funding and works in conjunction with eligible and participating states to make sure that the program is properly administered.
A woman who resides in a state that seeks to participate in the federal program brought suit in federal court to enjoin enforcement of the federal statute on the ground that the statute gives the federal government power reserved to the states. The woman also argued that the statute would increase her federal tax liability.
Does the woman have standing?

A. No, because individuals cannot challenge the spending of federal funds based solely on their status as taxpayers.
B. No, because the woman has not suffered a concrete and particularized injury.
C. Yes, because individuals have the right to challenge how federal taxes are spent.
D. Yes, because the woman would suffer the injury of increased federal tax liability.

Answer 39

B. No, because the woman has not suffered a concrete and particularized injury.

Question 40

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a regulation that required antibacterial soap manufacturers to submit extensive testing results prior to advertising that their antibacterial soap killed a certain percentage of germs. The regulation was set to go into effect one year from the date it was issued. Failure to comply with the regulation could result in severe financial penalties.
One year after the regulation was promulgated, a hand soap manufacturer that did not manufacture antibacterial soap was worried about potential EPA regulations requiring similar testing for hand soap. As a result, the hand soap manufacturer filed suit in federal court to enjoin the EPA from enforcing the regulation on the basis that it unconstitutionally restricted the hand soap manufacturer’s commercial speech rights.
Can the federal court determine the merits of this suit?

A. No, because a suit for an injunction cannot be brought before the regulation is enforced
B. No, because the hand soap manufacturer cannot show an injury-in-fact.
C. Yes, because the case became ripe one year after the regulation was promulgated.
D. Yes, because the hand soap manufacturer is experiencing an immediate threat of harm.

Answer 40

B. No, because the hand soap manufacturer cannot show an injury-in-fact.

Question 41

A state legislature fashioned the congressional districts within the state in a manner that favored the political party controlling a majority of the seats in the legislature. Voters in the state who were aligned with the political party controlling a minority of the seats challenged the constitutionality of the districts in federal court. The voters established that most of the districts were designed to dilute their voting strength. The result of this scheme is that 90% of the districts favor the majority political party despite the fact that only 55% of the state’s voting-age population are registered voters of that party.
Should the federal court decide the voters’ challenge?

A. No, because the challenge is nonjusticiable.
B. No, because the voters lack standing.
C. Yes, because gerrymandering has been found to be a violation of the equal protection clause.
D. Yes, because the congressional districts violate the principle of one-person, one-vote.

Answer 41

A. No, because the challenge is nonjusticiable.

Question 42

A new federal statute requires recreational drone pilots to register drones in a national database. Upon registration, each drone is assigned a unique number so that the identity of a drone’s pilot can be discovered by searching the database. A drone pilot who does not register his or her drone may not fly it above a certain altitude. The statute contains no express congressional findings concerning the effect of recreational drone operations on interstate commerce.
Is the statute constitutional?
* A. No, because recreational drone operation is a noneconomic activity.
B. No, because the statute contains no express findings that recreational drone operation substantially affects interstate commerce.
C. Yes, because Congress may regulate navigable airways.
D. Yes, because the commerce clause permits Congress to regulate any activity that touches interstate commerce.

Answer 42

C. Yes, because Congress may regulate navigable airways.

Question 43

In order to control the federal debt limit, Congress proposed a statute that would give the President the authority to cancel specific spending provisions in a bill that the President signs into law. The statute further provides that Congress could override the President’s decision by a two-thirds vote in each house.
Is the proposed statute constitutional?

A. No, because the President cannot stop a bill passed by both houses of Congress from becoming law.
B. No, because the President may not exercise the authority provided in the statute.
C. Yes, because Congress may override the President’s decision by a two-thirds vote in each house.
D. Yes, because the President has the power to veto legislation.

Answer 43

B. No, because the President may not exercise the authority provided in the statute.

Question 44

After frequently failing to pay child support, a parent was sentenced to six months in prison at a civil contempt hearing. The parent was unrepresented despite having requested that the state pay for an attorney to represent him. The parent filed suit against the state, arguing that its refusal to provide him with an attorney violated his constitutional rights. The state supreme court ultimately rejected the parent’s constitutional claim and held that the right to an attorney does not apply in civil contempt hearings.
The parent appealed the state supreme court’s decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted certiorari to hear the case. However, the parent completed his sentence and was released from prison before the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case. The state moved to dismiss the parent’s pending case.
May the U.S. Supreme Court hear the parent’s case?

A. No, because the case is moot.
B. No, because the parent did not suffer a concrete injury.
C. Yes, because the parent was in prison at the time he filed the complaint.
D. Yes, because the parent’s harm is capable of repetition yet evading review.

Answer 44

D. Yes, because the parent’s harm is capable of repetition yet evading review.

Question 45

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), a federal agency, issued a rule that limited the maximum dosage of certain prescription drugs. Although the rule had not yet been enforced, the manufacturers of these prescription drugs filed a petition for review of the rule in a federal court of appeals. The manufacturers seek a declaration that the FDA rule is invalid because the FDA did not possess the statutory authority to issue such a rule.
Before the federal court of appeals issued a decision in the case, the manufacturers filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court requesting immediate review of this case. The FDA acknowledges that the case warrants prompt U.S. Supreme Court review but asked the U.S. Supreme Court to dismiss the petition on jurisdictional grounds.
A federal statute specifically provides for direct review of FDA rules by a federal court of appeals without any initial action in a federal district court.
Another federal statute provides that the U.S. Supreme Court has authority to review any case filed in a federal district court or federal court of appeals, even if no decision has been issued by the applicable federal court.
Is the U.S. Supreme Court likely to dismiss the manufacturers’ petition for a writ of certiorari?

A. No, because the case falls within the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction.
B. No, because the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over the case.
C. Yes, because Congress may not regulate the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
D. Yes, because the federal appellate court has not yet decided the case.

Answer 45

D. Yes, because the federal appellate court has not yet decided the case.

Question 46

A treaty between the United States and a bordering foreign country provides that certain bird species must be protected during hunting season and cannot be hunted due to their risk of extinction. The treaty authorizes the President of the United States to issue a proclamation nullifying any state or local law that permits hunting of the identified species. The treaty was ratified with the approval of two-thirds of the Senate but not the House of Representatives. The treaty is not prohibited by any constitutional provision.
A law of one of the states allows all birds to be hunted during hunting season. The state is home to the species of birds identified in the treaty.
The President of the United States issued a proclamation nullifying the state law pursuant to the treaty. The state argued that the President’s proclamation is an invalid exercise of executive power.
Is the state correct?

A. No, because the President has the exclusive power to enter into treaties.
B. No, because the treaty is the supreme law of the land.
C. Yes, because no legislation or judicial action has been implemented to enforce the treaty.
D. Yes, because the treaty was not approved by the House of Representatives.

Answer 46

B. No, because the treaty is the supreme law of the land.

Question 47

The Nutritional Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) requires that all food labels identify artificial flavors. The NLEA also specifies that state food-labeling laws that impose requirements that are not identical to the federal labeling regulations are void.
A state passed a law that allows food manufacturers to label their food as “all natural” if it contains 0.5% or less of any artificial flavor. The state law does not require food manufacturers to identify any artificial flavor unless there is more than 0.5% of any artificial flavor present.
A food manufacturer in the state is trying to decide whether it must follow federal or state law for its new product that contains 0.25% of an artificial flavor.
Which law governs the food manufacturer’s label?

A. Federal law, because the federal government and states cannot regulate the same subject matter.
B. Federal law, because the NLEA expressly preempts state regulation in food labeling.
C. State law, because the Constitution does not specifically grant the federal government exclusive power over food labels.
D. State law, because there is a presumption against preemption.

Answer 47

B. Federal law, because the NLEA expressly preempts state regulation in food labeling.

Question 48

A state law requires noncitizens in the United States to register with the state and pay a registration fee of $200 before being able to lease an apartment in the state. In addition, noncitizens who do not register with the state are subject to a fine of not more than $200 or imprisonment of not more than 60 days. A student who was a noncitizen moved to the United States to attend college in the state. The student did not register with the state or pay the registration fee and was denied an apartment lease one week before classes started.
Extensive and exhaustive federal regulations govern how noncitizens enter the United States, how they acquire citizenship, and how they may be deported. One federal statute requires noncitizen registration with the federal government but does not require such registration prior to being able to lease an apartment. Under the federal statute, failure to register results in a fine of not more than $1,000 and imprisonment for not more than six months. The federal statute does not contain any preemptive language.
The student challenged the state law in federal court, arguing that it was preempted by federal law.
Is the student correct?

A. No, because it is possible to comply with both state and federal law.
B., No, because the federal statute does not contain express preemptive language.
C. Yes, because Congress regulates the entire field of law dealing with noncitizen registration.
D. Yes, because the state and federal laws are in direct conflict.

Answer 48

C. Yes, because Congress regulates the entire field of law dealing with noncitizen registration.

Question 49

A state statute enacted 10 years ago requires any hair dye sold in the state to have less than 10% of ammonia, a potentially harmful chemical.
A new federal statute requires all hair dye bottles to be labeled with the amount of ammonia contained in the bottle as well as a description of ammonia’s harmful effects. The federal statute further requires hair dye to have less than 12% ammonia. The federal statute does not expressly preempt state law.
Assume that no other federal statute or administrative regulation addresses the issue of ammonia in hair dye.
Which of the following is the best argument the state can make for the continued validity of its statute?

A. A state law is not preempted unless a federal law expressly preempts it.
B. The Constitution gives states exclusive power to regulate products.
C. The purpose of the state law is consistent with the purpose of the federal statute, enforcing the law would not interfere with full execution of the statute, and there is no evidence that Congress intended to preclude the states from enacting supplemental laws on this subject.
D. The state statute was enacted before the federal statute was enacted.

Answer 49

C. The purpose of the state law is consistent with the purpose of the federal statute, enforcing the law would not interfere with full execution of the statute, and there is no evidence that Congress intended to preclude the states from enacting supplemental laws on this subject.

Question 50

A cigarette maker was sued by cigarette smokers in federal court for violating a state law that prohibited deceptive practices in any trade or commerce. The complaint alleged that the cigarette maker’s advertisements of its cigarettes as “light” and “low tar” were deceptive because they misled smokers into thinking that the cigarettes were safer than other cigarettes.
The cigarette maker contended that the smokers’ action was preempted by the Federal Cigarette Advertising and Labeling Act. The purpose of that act was “to establish a comprehensive federal program to deal with cigarette labeling and advertising with respect to any relationship between smoking and health” and “to prevent diverse, nonuniform, and confusing cigarette labeling and advertising regulations with respect to any relationship between smoking and health.” The act contained a provision that “[njo requirement or prohibition based on smoking and health shall be imposed under state law with respect to the advertising or promotion of any cigarettes the packages of which are labeled in conformity with the provisions of federal law.” The smokers conceded that the cigarettes were labelled in conformity with the federal law, which required the reporting of the levels of tar and nicotine in the cigarettes but did not address the use of descriptive words such as “light” and “low tar.” For whom should the court rule?

A. The cigarette maker, because the federal act expressly preempts state regulation of cigarette advertisements.
B. The cigarette maker, because the federal act impliedly preempts state regulation of cigarette advertisements.
C. The cigarette smokers, because the federal act does not preempt the state law.
D. The cigarette smokers, because the state law has a valid purpose.

Answer 50

C. The cigarette smokers, because the federal act does not preempt the state law.

Question 51

A state was concerned about a possible reduction in its native fish due to the large volume of people fishing in the state’s only lake. To curb excessive fishing, the state enacted a statute raising the cost of fishing licenses for out-of-state residents to 10 times the cost for in-state residents. The statute applies to both commercial and recreational fishing. An out-of-state commercial fisherman filed suit in federal court to challenge the statute, arguing that it is unconstitutional.
Is the statute likely constitutional?

A. No, because the statute violates the privileges and immunities clause of Article IV.
B. No, because the statute violates the privileges or immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
C. Yes, because the state has the power to preserve resources for its own citizens.
D. Yes, because the statute also applies to recreational fishing.

Answer 51

A. No, because the statute violates the privileges and immunities clause of Article IV.

Question 52

TH
A state imposes an income tax on its residents for income earned anywhere.
It also imposes an income tax on nonresidents for income earned
from real property or businesses located in the state. The state permits its residents to deduct in full expenses associated with their income, while nonresidents may deduct only those expenses associated with their in-state real property and businesses. In addition, the state provides a personal tax exemption for residents but denies a personal exemption for nonresidents.
Has the state violated the privileges and immunities clause (comity clause) of Article IV of the U.S. Constitution?

A. No, with respect to either the differing deductions or the differing exemptions.
B. Yes, with respect to the differing deductions only.
C. Yes, with respect to the differing exemptions only.
D. Yes, with respect to both the differing deductions and the differing exemptions

Answer 52

C. Yes, with respect to the differing exemptions only.

Question 53

A strain of avian flu impacted chickens from several states located in the same geographic region of the United States. A state legislature passed a statute banning the importation of out-of-state chickens.
Public health officials determined that banning the out-of-state chickens was the only
feasible way to stop the flu from spreading to chickens raised in the state and to prevent citizens from consuming contaminated chickens because the strain of flu is difficult to detect through normal testing procedures.
An out-of-state chicken farmer filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the constitutionality of the statute.
Is the chicken farmer likely to prevail?

A. No, because the statute is not discriminatory.
B. No, because the statute serves an important local interest and no other nondiscriminatory means are available.
C. Yes, because the burden of the state statute falls exclusively on out-of-state farmers.
D. Yes, because the statute discriminates against out-of-state commerce.
Submit

Answer 53

B. No, because the statute serves an important local interest and no other nondiscriminatory means are available.

Question 54

Congress passed a federal act prohibiting the transfer of physical lottery tickets through channels of interstate commerce. The act was later amended to explicitly allow a state to ban the online sale of its lottery tickets by out-of-state businesses. The Congressional Record shows that Congress passed the amendment to protect states’ rights to regulate lotteries within their borders and to allow states to ensure that their lottery systems operate for the benefit of the local community.
The legislature of State A passed a statute prohibiting the online sale of State A lottery tickets by private businesses headquartered in other states. The statute does, however, allow private businesses located within State A to sell State A lottery tickets online. An out-of-state business that sold State A’s lottery tickets online filed a lawsuit in federal court, alleging that the statute constituted impermissible discrimination against out-of-state commerce.
Is the out-of-state business likely to prevail?

A. No, because Congress explicitly and unmistakably permitted states to ban the online sale of lottery tickets by out-of-state businesses.
B. No, because selling lottery tickets is not a traditional government function.
C.
Yes, because state legislation may not violate the dormant commerce clause, even with congressional permission to enact such legislation.
D. Yes, because the state statute is discriminatory.

Answer 54

A. No, because Congress explicitly and unmistakably permitted states to ban the online sale of lottery tickets by out-of-state businesses.

Question 55

A state legislature enacted a statute establishing a cash subsidy for any movie production company filming in the state that agreed to exclusively contract with local businesses for production-related services. The legislature hoped that incentivizing production companies to use local businesses would develop the state’s growing film industry. The subsidies are paid out of the state treasury.
An association of businesses involved in another state’s film industry filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the statute in federal court, alleging that it violates the dormant commerce clause.
Is the statute likely to be upheld?

A. No, because film production is not a traditional government function.
B. No, because the statute favors local commerce.
C. Yes, because the state is acting as a market participant.
D. Yes, because the statute creates a subsidy.

Answer 55

D. Yes, because the statute creates a subsidy.

Question 56

State X’s legislature passed a statute designed to incentivize recycling beverage bottles. The statute required all bottles sold within State X to bear a special mark that allowed the bottle to be accepted at deposit stations. The deposit stations paid a small rebate for each recycled bottle from funds generated by state sales taxes. To prevent people from crossing state lines to redeem rebates for bottles purchased outside State X, the statute prohibited bottling companies from using the special mark on bottles sold anywhere outside State X’s borders.
An association of bottlers from other states filed suit in federal court, alleging that the statute was unconstitutional because it violated the dormant commerce clause.
Is the court likely to find that the statute is constitutional?

A. No, because the language of the statute is discriminatory.
B. No, because the statute purposefully regulates extraterritorial activity.
C. Yes, because the dormant commerce clause gives states broad power to regulate interstate commerce.
D. Yes, because the statute only regulates in-state conduct.

Answer 56

B. No, because the statute purposefully regulates extraterritorial activity.

Question 57

A state statute required that all fruits and vegetables offered for sale in the state “be packed in a regular compact arrangement in closed standard containers.” A corporate farm that grew tomatoes in the state shipped loose, high-quality tomatoes a short distance to a packing facility located in another state, where they were packed in accordance with the state statute. The packing containers did not identify the state in which the tomatoes were grown. A state official charged with enforcing the statute ordered the corporate farm to stop shipping the loose tomatoes out-of-state to be packed.
The corporate farm brought an action to enjoin the state official from enforcing the order, which the farm contended violated the dormant commerce clause. The corporate farm also asserted that the cost of constructing a packing facility in the state would result in its tomato farm becoming unprofitable. The state asserted that the purpose of enforcing the statute was to protect the reputation of farmers of fruits and vegetables grown in the state by ensuring that those fruits and vegetables were not deceptively packaged
For whom should the court rule?

A. The corporate farm, because the law’s local benefit is clearly exceeded by its burden on interstate commerce.
B. The state official, because the dormant commerce clause does not protect corporations.
C. The state official, because protecting the reputation of the farmers in the state is a valid state purpose.
D. The state official, because the statute does not discriminate against farmers who grow fruits and vegetables out-of-state.

Answer 57

A. The corporate farm, because the law’s local benefit is clearly exceeded by its burden on interstate commerce.

Question 58

A state statute prohibits individuals from climbing to the top of the state’s only mountain during the winter months. The state enacted the statute after a group of mountain climbers fell from the mountain due to icy conditions and died. A professor belonged to a small religious group whose sincere beliefs required the group to pray on top of a mountain on a specific day in December. The group climbed the state’s mountain on the applicable day in December to hold its prayer service. During the prayer, the professor and the other members of his group were arrested. The professor was tried and convicted under the state statute. The professor appealed his conviction solely on the ground that enforcement of the state statute violated his First Amendment right to freely exercise his religious beliefs.
Will the appellate court likely overturn the professor’s conviction?

A. No, because the state statute is necessary to achieve the state’s compelling interest in protecting the safety of mountain climbers.
B. No, because the state statute is rationally related to the state’s legitimate interest in protecting the safety of mountain climbers.
C. Yes, because the state statute directly burdens the professor’s sincerely held religious belief.
D. Yes, because the state statute intentionally targets the religious group’s conduct.

Answer 58

B. No, because the state statute is rationally related to the state’s legitimate interest in protecting the safety of mountain climbers.

Question 59

A state provided financial aid to hearing-impaired individuals to attend college. A college student who qualified for the financia aid due to his hearing loss applied for the financial aid to use at a private religious college. The state denied his financial-aid request on the ground that p. iding financial aid to the student would violate the First Amendment establishment clause as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment because the state would be promoting the college’s particular religion. The student has challenged the state’s denial of his request in court.
How will the court likely rule?

A. For the state, because aid to the student would foster excessive government entanglement with religion.
B. For the state, because the government cannot provide aid to a religious school.
C. For the student, because no compelling interest justifies the government withholding the financial aid from the student.
D. For the student, because providing the financial aid to the student would not violate the establishment clause.

Answer 59

D. For the student, because providing the financial aid to the student would not violate the establishment clause.

Question 60

The President nominated and, upon the consent of the Senate, appointed an individual to serve as Secretary of the Treasury. While the individual was serving as Secretary, several members of the House of Representatives accused the individual of accepting a bribe. Sixty percent of the members of the House of Representatives voted to impeach the individual for bribery. The Senate held a trial. With all senators voting, 60 voted to convict the individual of bribery. The President has instructed the individual to remain in office.
Can the individual continue to serve as Secretary of the Treasury?

A. No, because bribery is a ground for impeachment.
B. No, because the impeachment process is exclusively within the province of Congress.
C. Yes, because fewer than two-thirds of the senators voted to convict the individual.
D. Yes, because only the President has the power to remove an executive officer.

Answer 60

C. Yes, because fewer than two-thirds of the senators voted to convict the individual.

Question 61

A federal statute authorized the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to issue regulations regarding coal-fired power plants. The statute provided that the EPA should be guided by the “best system of emission reduction” standard in fashioning those regulations. The EPA adopted regulation at went beyond the emissions produced by a specific coal-fired power plant and required consideration of emissions
produced by other coal-fired power plants, effectively adopting a cap-and-trade system, which Congress had considered but never specifically addressed in the federal statute. Coal-fired power plants challenged the EPA’s authority to adopt the regulations, arguing that the regulations involved questions of vast economic and political significance.
For whom should the court rule?

A. The EPA, because Congress provided intelligible guidelines to the EPA regarding regulation of the coal-fired power plants.
B. The EPA, because the nondelegation doctrine is restricted to the creation of a federal agency.
C. The power plants, because the “best system of emission reduction” standard does not provide the EPA with clear decision-making authority to adopt the regulations.
D. The power plants, because the nondelegation doctrine prohibits Congress from delegating legislative power to a federa agency.

Answer 61

C. The power plants, because the “best system of emission reduction” standard does not provide the EPA with clear decision-making authority to adopt the regulations.

Question 62

The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is statutorily tasked with setting occupational health and safety standards in the workplace. In response to a virus epidemic, OSHA adopted an emergency regulation mandating that private employers with 100 or more employees require their employees to either be vaccinated against the virus or be tested regularly for infection. OSHA estimated that almost 85 million workers would be affected by the regulation. Employers subject to the regulation contend that complying with the regulation would cost billions of dollars.
The employers filed suit in federal court to block enforcement of the regulation.
How should the court rule?

A. The regulation is invalid, because fighting epidemics is beyond the statutory authority granted to OSHA by Congress.
B. The regulation is invalid, because the nondelegation doctrine prohibits Congress from delegating legislative power to an executive agency.
C. The regulation is valid, because it seeks to protect the health of workers.
D. The regulation is valid, because the epidemic created a situation that required the issuance of an emergency regulation.


Answer 62

A. The regulation is invalid, because fighting epidemics is beyond the statutory authority granted to OSHA by Congress.

Question 63

A businessperson contacted her congressional representative about supporting legislation favorable to her business. The representative told her that he would only do so in exchange for a payment of $50,000 in cash. The businessperson paid the representative the bribe he demanded. When the representative voted against the legislation, the businessperson contacted a federal prosecutor. The prosecutor has charged the representative with bribery. For purpose of this charge, bribery is defined as:
“Whoever, being a public official, directly or indirectly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally fr because of any official act performed or to be performed by such official.”
The representative has defended his action, contending that the speech or debate clause of the U.S. Constitution protects him from prosecution.

Is the representative correct?

A. No, because bribery does not require proof of legislative acts.
B. No, because the protection of the speech or debate clause is limited to defamatory statements made in Congress about pending legislation.
C. Yes, because his criminal conduct involved voting on legislation.
D. Yes, because the speech or debate clause prohibits an examination of a legislator’s motivation in voting on legislation.

Answer 63

A. No, because bribery does not require proof of legislative acts.

Question 64

During a House committee hearing, a member of the House of Representatives read a prepared statement that falsely asserted that a specific federal judge committed several acts of malfeasance. The member, who was motivated by personal animosity toward the judge, relied on false information that had been carelessly, but without malice, obtained by the member’s legislative assistant. Acting at the member’s behest, the legislative assistant also prepared and distributed to the media a press release that, other than identifying the time and location of the member’s statement about the judge, consisted only of the member’s statement itself.
The judge has sued the House member and her legislative assistant for defamation. The defendants have raised the speech or debate clause as a defense to this lawsuit.
Who is immunized from liability by the speech or debate clause?

A. Both the House member and the legislative assistant.
B. The House member only.
C. The legislative assistant only.
D. Neither the House member nor the legislative assistant.

Answer 64

D. Neither the House member nor the legislative assistant.

Question 65

A nongovernmental environmental organization brought an action in federal district court against a federal policy development group created by the President of the United States. The organization alleged that the group was subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and had violated that act. When the organization sought discovery from members of the group, including the Vice President of the United States, the members objected, raising executive privilege as a justification for their refusal. The organization moved for a court order compelling the members to turn over the requested information.
How should the court respond?

A. Overrule the objection, because this a judicial proceeding, not a Congressional hearing
B. Overrule the objection, if the organization is able to establish a need for the information,
C. Sustain the objection, because this privilege is an absolute privilege in the context of a judicial proceeding
D. Weigh the organization’s need for the information against the executive branch’s need for confidentiality after exploring other alternatives to avoid a clash between the court and the executive branch.

Answer 65

D. Weigh the organization’s need for the information against the executive branch’s need for confidentiality after exploring other alternatives to avoid a clash between the court and the executive branch.

Question 66

On behalf of a state grand jury, a prosecutor issued a subpoena duces tecum to the President of the United States. The subpoena demanded that the President, who was a target of the grand jury regarding a potential charge of tax fraud, turn over his personal tax returns and related documents to the grand jury. The President filed suit in federal district court seeking an injunction against enforcement of the subpoena, asserting that he, as a sitting president, is immune from compliance with a subpoena. In the alternative, the President argued that the prosecutor was required to make a heightened showing of need before issuing the subpoena, which the prosecutor had failed to do.
How should the court rule?

A. Deny the injunction, because a federal court lacks the power to enjoin a state criminal proceeding.
B. Deny the injunction, because a sitting president does not enjoy immunity from compliance with a subpoena issued in connection with a state grand jury’s criminal investigation.
C. Grant the injunction, because the prosecutor failed to satisfy a heightened standard of need for issuing a subpoena to a sitting president.
D. Grant the injunction, because the supremacy clause grants a sitting president absolute immunity from compliance with a subpoena issued in connection with a state grand jury’s criminal investigation.

Answer 66

B. Deny the injunction, because a sitting president does not enjoy immunity from compliance with a subpoena issued in connection with a state grand jury’s criminal investigation.

Question 67

A committee of the United States House of Representatives that is tasked with ensuring the efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability of the federal government subpoenaed financial records maintained by an accounting firm regarding payments received by the President fron foreign government officials for use of her real property.
The President filed an action in federal district court to quash the subpoena. The committee stated that it was investigating the President’s possible violation o’
› emoluments clause, which prohibits federal officers from accepting gifts or compensation from a foreign
government. The committee admitted that it would recommend impeachment if it determined that the President violated the emoluments clause. However, the committee did not promise to keep the information secret if it concluded that impeachment was unwarranted. The committee noted that the subpoena had been narrowly drafted to accomplish the committee’s purpose and that the committee could not reasonably obtain the information sought from another source.
Will the court likely quash this subpoena?
A. No, because the subpoena was validly issued.
B. Yes, because a congressional subpoena that seeks the President’s personal information violates the separation of powers
C. Yes, because the committee did not promise to keep the information secret if it concluded that impeachment was unwarranted.
D. Yes, because the power to conduct investigations or issue subpoenas is not among the powers of Congress enumerated in Article I.

Answer 67

A. No, because the subpoena was validly issued.

Question 68

A defendant was arrested for first-degree murder in a state that allows the death penalty for this criminal offense. Instead of convening a grand jury, the state prosecutor charged the defendant with first-degree murder as the prosecutor was permitted to do by state law. After a trial, the defendant was found guilty and was sentenced to death.
The defendant wishes to appeal the judgment on the ground that the prosecutor violated the defendant’s Fifth Amendment right to a grand jury indictment when the prosecutor charged him with first-degree murder without obtaining a grand jury indictment.
Will the defendant’s appeal likely be successful?

A. No, because the Bill of Rights only limits the power of the federal government.
B. No, because the Fifth Amendment right to a grand jury indictment in criminal cases is not incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause.
C. Yes, because the Fifth Amendment guarantees the defendant a grand jury indictment.
D. Yes, because the protections afforded by the Bill of Rights apply directly to state governments.

Answer 68

B. No, because the Fifth Amendment right to a grand jury indictment in criminal cases is not incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause.

Question 69

Residents of a town constantly complained to the town council about the noise created by university students living off-campus in houses.
To address the residents’ complaints, the town council enacted an ordinance that restricted the total number of residents in any house rented in the town to three people.
A family of four seing to rent a two-bedroom house in the town has sued to challenge the constitutionality of the town ordinance on the ground that it violates their substantive due process rights.
Is the town ordinance constitutional?

A. No, because it is not necessary to achieve a compelling government interest.
B. No, because it is not rationally related to a legitimate government interest.
C. Yes, because it is necessary to achieve a compelling government interest.
D. Yes, because is it rationally related to a legitimate government interest.

Answer 69

A. No, because it is not necessary to achieve a compelling government interest.

Question 70

A state enacted a statute requiring that all residents present photo identification at a polling station prior to being allowed to vote. The state will issue a free photo-identification card to any resident who requests one. The statute also required that residents own property within the state to vote in elections for state and local offices. The stated purpose of the photo-identification requirement is to prevent voter fraud, and the stated purpose of the property-ownership requirement is to ensure that voters have a significant interest in the state and local elections
A state resident who did not have photo identification and did not own any property in the state showed up at her polling station on election day but was denied a ballot to vote. The resident then filed suit in federal district court to challenge the constitutionality of the state statute.
How will the court likely rule?

A. Both the photo-identification requirement and the property-ownership requirement are constitutional.
B. The photo-identification requirement is constitutional, but the property-ownership requirement is unconstitutional.
C. The photo-identification requirement is unconstitutional, but the property-ownership requirement is constitutional.
D. Both the photo-identification requirement and the property-ownership requirement are unconstitutional.

Answer 70

B. The photo-identification requirement is constitutional, but the property-ownership requirement is unconstitutional.

Question 71

A state experiencing a severe decline in childbirths enacted a ban on issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The state’s reason for doing so was to encourage more opposite-sex relationships as a way to potentially increase the number of children born in the state.
A same-sex couple applied for a marriage license in the state and was denied. The couple has sued the state, alleging that the state has deprived them of their right to marry.
Will the couple’s challenge be successful?

A. No, because the state’s ban is intended to achieve a compelling interest of increasing childbirths
B. No, because the state’s ban is rationally related to a legitimate interest in increasing childbirths.
C. Yes, because the state does not have a legitimate interest in increasing childbirths.
D. Yes, because the state’s ban is not necessary to achieve a compelling state interest.

Answer 71

D. Yes, because the state’s ban is not necessary to achieve a compelling state interest.

Question 72

A state enacted a statute that required courts to award visitation rights to any family member who petitioned for them, so long as visitation was in the best interests of the child, even if the child’s parents objected. The state sought to create stronger familial bonds between children and their nonparental family members, which the state hopes will decrease the number of children who would need to enter foster care if something were to happen to a child’s parents.
A child’s grandparents petitioned the state to award them visitation rights after the child’s mother refused to let the child see the grandparents. The trial court awarded a weekly visitation right to the grandparents in accordance with the state statute.
If the mother appeals and challenges the state statute as an unconstitutional impairment of her right as a parent, will she likely be successful?

A. No, because decreasing the number of children entering foster care is a compelling state interest.
B. No, because the statute is rationally related to a legitimate state interest.
C. Yes, because parental rights are ordinary, not fundamental, rights.
D. Yes, because the statute is not necessary to achieve the state’s compelling interest.

Answer 72

D. Yes, because the statute is not necessary to achieve the state’s compelling interest.

Question 73

A state with a decades-long downward trend in childbirth numbers enacted a ban on the sale of contraceptives in the state. The state intended for the ban to result in a higher number of children being born in the state.
A married couple that does not wish to have children challenged the statute by suing the state’s surgeon general.
What test must the court apply to the couple’s constitutional challenge?

A. Whether the state’s ban is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest.
B. Whether the state’s ban is necessary to achieve a legitimate state interest.
C. Whether the state’s ban is rationally related to a compelling state interest.
D. Whether the state’s ban is rationally related to a legitimate state interest.

Answer 73

A. Whether the state’s ban is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest.

Question 74

A state that was experiencing a severe budget deficit enacted a statute that limited the receipt of state welfare benefits to residents who had lived in the state for at least five years. The stated purpose of the statute was to prevent welfare fraud, though the legislature could produce no evidence showing that any such fraud had taken place in the state.
A woman moved to the state for work and suffered a stroke within her first year of residency. When she applied for disability assistance through the state, she was denied because she had not resided in the state for the required five years
If the woman challenges the statute as an unconstitutional impairment of her due process right to interstate travel, will she be successful?

A. No, because the five-year residency requirement is necessary to achieve the state’s compelling interest in avoiding fraud
B. No, because the five-year residency requirement is rationally related to the state’s legitimate interest in avoiding fraud.
C. Yes, because the right to move to a new state and be treated like a long-term resident is a fundamental right.
D. Yes, because the woman can show that the five-year residency requirement is arbitrary or irrational.

Answer 74

C. Yes, because the right to move to a new state and be treated like a long-term resident is a fundamental right.

Question 75

A state enacted a statute that requires state-run hospitals to use any medical means possible to extend a person’s life. It also prohibits physician-assisted death. The statute does not provide for state-supported health care. Instead, the cost of any medical procedure to extend a person’s life is to be borne by that person. The purpose of the statute is to raise the life-expectancy statistics in the state.
An 80-year-old retiree in the state has been diagnosed with a life-threatening but treatable disease. The treatment would only be partially covered by the retiree’s health care plan. The retiree, who is of sound mind, refused treatment and informed her doctor that she would prefer to die peacefully without experiencing the adverse side effects of the disease treatment. The retiree also inquired into whether she could obtain a physician-assisted death. The doctor informed the retiree that she was required to undergo the treatment and could not obtain a physician-assisted death under the state statute.
The retiree sued the state surgeon general, arguing that the statute violates her substantive due process rights.
What is the retiree’s best argument that the statute violates her substantive due process rights?

A. The statute impairs the retiree’s right to choose the time and manner of her own death.
B. The statute impairs the retiree’s right to obtain a physician-assisted death.
C. The statute impairs the retiree’s right to obtain health care.
D. The statute impairs the retiree’s right to refuse medical treatment.

Answer 75

D. The statute impairs the retiree’s right to refuse medical treatment.

Question 76

A state enacted a statute that prohibited associates at law firms within the state from working more than 2,000 billable hours per year. The statute includes legislative history stating that the purpose of the statute was to help limit the number of young attorneys who quit the practice of law due to the stress of working long hours.
A law firm in the state was fined by the state’s workforce commission for requiring its first-year associates to work a minimum of 2,200 billable hours per year. The law firm has sued the state’s workforce commission, arguing that the statute violates the law firm’s due proces: economic rights.
Will the law firm’s challenge likely be successful?

A. No, because the state’s interest in limiting the number of attorneys who stop practicing law is a compelling interest.
B. No, because the statute is rationally related to a legitimate government interest.
C. Yes, because the statute is arbitrary and irrational.
D. Yes, because the statute is not necessary to achieve a compelling government interest.

Answer 76

B. No, because the statute is rationally related to a legitimate government interest.

Question 77

A state’s public secondary schools are funded through property taxes levied on the residential property within each secondary school’s attendance district. The state recognized that this funding system resulted in significant funding disparities between public schools located in high- and low-income communities. The state legislature therefore enacted a statute in which a portion of the property taxes levied in high-income communities would be diverted to schools in lower-income communities.
A group of parents in a high-income community sued the state board of education on behalf of their children, alleging that the new statute violated their children’s right to an education because the statute resulted in their school having less funding than under the state’s original funding system.
Will the parents’ challenge to the state statute likely be successful?

A. No, because the statute is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest.
B. No, because the statute is rationally related to a legitimate state interest.
C. Yes, because the right to education is a fundamental right.
D. Yes, because the state’s interest in providing comparable funding to all state schools is not a compelling state interest.

Answer 77

B. No, because the statute is rationally related to a legitimate state interest.