School-sponsored prayer before football games was ruled unconstitutional in _______.
A. Edwards v Aguillard
B. School District of Abington Township v. Schempp
C. Lee v. Weisman
D. Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe
Give three reasons the court turned back to a more conservative approach to the First
Amendment in the early 1950s.
Answer:*A. Varies
Romer v. Evans _______.
A. Upheld laws that single out homosexuals for discrimination
B. Struck down laws that single out homosexuals for discrimination
C. Used strict scrutiny to decide a case of discrimination against homosexuals
D. None of the above.
McGrain v. Daugherty stemmed from which scandal?
A. Teapot Dome
B. Whitewater
C. Watergate
D. Iran-Contra
Based on the Court’s decision in South Carolina v. Baker (1988), _______.
A. it is unconstitutional for the federal government to tax income from state and
municipal bonds
B. it is unconstitutional for the federal government to tax income from registered state
and municipal bonds
C. it is unconstitutional for the federal government to tax income from state and
municipal bearer bonds
D. the Constitution does not prohibit the federal government from taxing income from
state and municipal bonds regardless of the form in which they are issued
The Supreme Court has accepted approximately _______.
A. 1 percent of cases brought to it
B. 10 percent of cases brought to it
C. 50 percent of cases brought to it
D. 100 percent of cases brought to it
In religious establishment cases the compelling interest test makes it _______.
A. More difficult for government agencies to impose restrictions on religious practices
B. Easier for government agencies to impose restrictions on religious practices
Define the term sovereign immunity.
Answer:*A. Varies
Which of the following statements about jury selection is not true?
A. Attorneys have an unlimited number of “challenges for cause.”
B. Judges may conduct initial interviews and excuse certain classes of people, including
felons and the mentally ill.
C. In making a peremptory challenge, an attorney is required to state a reason for
dismissing a juror.
D. All of the above.
Despite the fact that the First Amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law . . .
abridging the freedom . . . of the press,” the Supreme Court has recognized the need to
limit the press in certain instances. Explain the Court’s willingness to place restrictions
on the press, and under what circumstances such restrictions are warranted. Also,
discuss the distinctions made by the Court between different types of media. Is the
Court more or less willing to restrict the First Amendment rights of radio, TV, or print
journalism? How has the Court dealt with the issue of prior restraint? In what
circumstances is prior restraint allowed?
Answer:
A. Varies
In general, how has the Supreme Court ruled on the issue of parental consent for minors
seeking an abortions?
A. It has upheld most requirements of parental consent.
B. It has deemed most requirements of parental consent unconstitutional.
C. It has allowed doctors to determine if parents should be notified.
D. It has yet to hear a case on the issue.
You are a Supreme Court justice assigned to write the majority opinion in the following
case. How would you resolve it? What precedent would you cite to support your
opinion? You should identify and “resolve” the complex legal issues present. The
question brings up some factual situations and legal questions not directly addressed in
the cases we have discussed. However, those cases should provide some guidance to
you in making your decision. This is not to suggest that there are “right” answers to
these questions, but a strong argument will be well organized, logically argued, and
supported through reference to Court decisions.
On the night of October 4, 1995, Brett Freeman was found stumbling along the side of
the road in Sleepy Eye, Minnesota. A police officer, Paul Tagliabue, saw Freeman,
stopped his patrol car, and offered to drive Freeman home. Later, Tagliabue was quoted
as saying he believed that “Freeman was drunk and just needed to get home to sleep off
his binge.” Freeman accepted the ride, and Tagliabue drove him home. He had to assist
Freeman out of the car and into his living room. As they were walking into the house,
the officer asked Freeman where he had been drinking that night. To this Freeman
replied, “At the Pig’s Eye Bar on 3rd Street. I took my girlfriend’s car there, but could
not find my keys when I left. That is why I was walking home.”
Upon entering the house, specifically the living room, Tagliabue spotted a white
residue, a pot pipe, and other drug paraphernalia lying on and around the coffee table.
As a result, he asked Freeman if the paraphernalia was his. Freeman replied, “Yeah,
some of it.” During the entire conversation Tagliabue noted that Freeman slurred his
words, could not stand without support, and seemed to be nodding off. However, he did
say that he was able to answer both of the questions with little trouble. After Freeman
fell asleep on the couch, Tagliabue called a backup squad and sat down to wait for them
to arrive. Based on the drug paraphernalia in the living room, Tagliabue and the backup
squad began to search the house.
By this time Freeman’s roommates, Raymont Sapp and Robert Alstott, arrived home.
They were incensed that the police were searching the house and immediately called
their attorney. In the time that it took for the lawyer to arrive, the police searched the
living room where Freeman was sleeping, his bedroom, the kitchen, the basement, and
the attic. They found several marijuana plants under a hot light in Freeman’s bedroom
and a load of marijuana leaves drying in the basement. Additionally, they found several
other unidentified illicit drugs in the refrigerator, about $10,000 in a cookie jar, and
three handguns taped under the kitchen table. The officers also searched the entire
backyard. Beside the garbage cans, which were about seventy-five yards from the
house, the investigating officers found empty bags lined with a white powdery residue.
All three roommates were placed under arrest, and Sapp’s and Alstott’s bedrooms were
searched. These searches turned up more marijuana plants. The three roommates were
taken to the police station. Freeman was put in a holding cell to sleep off his night of
drinking, and Sapp and Alstott were booked. During the booking each was told that he
would have to submit to urine and blood tests administered by a local doctor.
Additionally, the police had the doctor draw a vial of blood from Freeman while he
slept in his cell.
At the same time that the search of the house was going on, two other police officers
were dispatched to the Pig’s Eye to look for the car Freeman drove that night. They
found the car unlocked, with the keys in the ignition. A thorough search of the car
turned up more marijuana, another handgun, five boxes of ammunition for the gun, and
another $10,000. The car was impounded and taken directly to the police station.
Based on the evidence obtained in and behind the house, as well as the drug tests
performed at the police station, Freeman, Sapp, and Alstott were arrested for drug
possession with intent to sell, for illegally using illicit drugs, and for possessing
handguns without permits. Freeman and his girlfriend, Jennifer Ryskoski, were
separately charged with possession of drugs and illegally possessing an unregistered
concealed handgun in the car.
Ryskoski was acquitted because the prosecution could not prove that she knew the
drugs or gun were in her car on the night in question. Freeman, Sapp, and Alstott were
convicted of possessing drugs with the intent to sell, of using illegal substances, and of
possessing handguns without proper permits.
As a Supreme Court justice, how do you resolve the intricate legal questions in this case
revolving around the Fourth Amendment? Was the officer justified in calling for backup
and then searching the house without obtaining a warrant? Should the police have been
able to search the house while Freeman was passed out based on the paraphernalia that
was in the living room? Should the officers have searched Sapp’s and Alstott’s rooms
after they were arrested? Was the backyard search justified? Should the police have
been able to go and search the car that Freeman drove that night based on what they
found at the house? Were the blood and urine tests in this case legitimate, or did they
violate the suspects’ Fourth Amendment rights? What, if any, of the evidence would you
admit at trial? Should any of it be excluded, or is the evidence admissible? Justify your
opinion.
Answer:*A. Varies
What standard has the Supreme Court applied to legislative redistricting based on race?
A. Strict scrutiny
B. Heightened scrutiny
C. Rational basis test
D. Totality -of -circumstances
In which case did the Supreme Court create the exclusionary rule?
A. Weeks v. United States
B. Wolf v. Colorado
C. Mapp v. Ohio
D. Terry v. Ohio
Which of the following statements best describes the position Chief Justice Rehnquist
took in his written opinion about the Supreme Court’s decision to hear Bush v. Gore?
A. He opposed the Court’s decision to accept the case, calling it a non-federal issue.
B. He approved of the Court’s decision to accept the case because the appointment of
presidential electors presented a federal constitutional question.
C. He opposed the Court’s decision to accept the case because there was no precedent
for hearing such a case.
D. He argued that the Supreme Court correctly accepted the case because all elections,
even local contests, are federal issues.
What are the key criticisms of the use of original intent to decide Supreme Court cases?
A. Its exclusive use would render the Constitution inapplicable and useless.
B. It is difficult to determine which of the framers’ intents should be used.
C. It is difficult to know what sources to use to determine the framers’ intent.
D. All of the above.
In federalism cases the Taney Court is best known for focusing on _______.
A. Cooperative Federalism
B. Dual Federalism
Detail two of the arguments Chief Justice Rehnquist made in his majority opinion in
favor of Missouri in Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health.
Answer:*A. Varies
Which amendment prohibits excessive bail?
A. Fourth Amendment
B. Fifth Amendment
C. Sixth Amendment
D. Eighth Amendment
Which of the following is not like the others in terms of doctrinal outcome?
A. United States v. E. C. Knight Co. sugar -refining case.
B. National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation labor
relations case.
C. Carter v. Carter Coal regulation case.
D. United States v. Morrison sexual assault case.
E. A. L. A. Schechter Poultry Corp v. United States poultry code case.
In Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992; case involving a state’s denial of a
permit to construct houses on island lots) the Court held that _______.
A. the state’s denial of a building permit was not a taking because it was a reasonable
regulation for the preservation of the coastal environment
B. the state’s denial of a building permit with the intent of eventually placing a state
park on the land was a taking that required compensation
C. the state’s denial of a building permit with the intent of eventually placing a state
park on the land would not constitute a taking until the time the state actually began
construction of the park
D. the state’s denial of a building permit was a taking because it deprived Lucas of the
beneficial economic uses of his land
E. the state’s denial of a building permit was a reasonable application of existing zoning
standards
Which amendment contains the double jeopardy clause?
A. Fourth Amendment
B. Fifth Amendment
C. Sixth Amendment
D. Eighth Amendment
The “Four Horsemen” (Justices Van Devanter, McReynolds, Sutherland, and Butler)
were known for their _______.
A. support of Roosevelt’s Court-packing plan
B. steadfast support for federal power to regulate the economy
C. consistent votes to strike down New Deal legislation
D. active promotion of effective state efforts to deal with the Depression
E. support of federal trust-busting efforts
Reno indicates the Court views the Internet as _______.
A. More like print media than like broadcast media
B. More like broadcast media than like print media
C. Completely separate from print and broadcast media
D. A hybrid between print and broadcast media
The most prevalent focus in Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution is on _______.
A. Foreign policy
B. Internal matters of Congress
C. Economic issues
D. The military
Describe two new issues that recent technology has brought to the debate over privacy.
Answer:*A. Varies
With the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Congress _______.
A. Made it more difficult for government agencies to impose restrictions on religious
practices
B. Made it easier for government agencies to impose restrictions on religious practices
After he retired, what did Justice Powell say about Bowers v. Hardwick?
A. He had voted correctly with the Court’s majority.
B. He had probably made a mistake in voting to uphold the Georgia law.
C. He hoped to revisit the issue in retirement.
D. He never said a word about the decision as per Court norms.
Which of the following statements about Printz v. United States (a 1997; challenge to
the 1993 amendments to the federal Gun Control Act) is false?
A. The Court found that the provisions requiring local law enforcement officials to
conduct background checks on gun purchasers was unconstitutional.
B. The Court held that Congress cannot treat the states as administrative units of the
federal government.
C. The federal government may provide incentives for the states to help enforce federal
policy, but Congress may not order the states to do so.
D. None of the above. All of the above statements are true.
After INS v. Chadha, _______.
A. Congress stopped employing the legislative veto
B. Congress continued to use the legislative veto
C. Presidents stopped vetoing legislation
D. Presidents asked to have the legislative veto reinstated
Which justice wrote a dissent in Olmstead v. United States that became an important
opinion in the right to privacy debate?
A. John Harlan
B. Potter Stewart
C. Louis Brandeis
D. Harry Blackmun
What guarantees are afforded to the criminally accused in the two clauses of the Fourth
Amendment?
Answer:
*A. Varies
The “switch in time that saved nine” refers to what? What switched? What was saved?
Answer:
*A. Varies
How did the Court justify moving away from justifications based on substantive due
process in West Coast Hotel?
Answer:
*A. Varies
During his terms in office, President George W. Bush faced a number of politically
difficult situations. One of the most visible of the domestic problems he encountered
involved the Enron scandal. During his second full year in office, Bush, along with his
vice president, Dick Cheney, spent a lot of time fending off attacks concerning their
dealings with Enron. Specifically, the Bush White House was publicly chastised for
setting policies supported by Enron that actually helped the corporation. In short, many
observers believed that the Bush White House supported Enron, and may therefore have
helped prop up its illegal activities.
Senator. Henry Waxman was chosen to head the Senate committee charged with
investigating “possible illegal activity surrounding the failure of Enron, and the possible
involvement of the President and Vice President.” The committee called Cheney and
several of his top aides to appear and testify regarding their involvement in the Enron
corporate scandal. Reluctantly, Cheney’s chief of staff finally agreed to appear before
the committee.
Senator Waxman asked Cheney about his involvement with Enron generally, but as his
testimony continued, Waxman’s questions became more specific. He asked, “Did you
engage in any illegal activity regarding the Enron Corporation?” as well as, “Did you
know of anyone who did engage in illegal activity regarding Enron?” Cheney refused to
answer these questions, claiming that they were beyond the scope of the committee’s
charter. The committee held him in contempt.
Senator Waxman, upon the completion of Cheney’s testimony, called him “a complete
liar, and an underhanded cheater, willing to do anything to make money,” and asserted
that “he was simply part of the Texas oil mob good ole boys network.” These comments
were made directly to Cheney’s face in the Senate committee’s chambers. While the
hearings were taking place, Waxman was negotiating with a major publisher to write a
book about the Enron hearings, which would include Cheney’s testimony as well as
Waxman’s own thoughts and comments about the process. At the conclusion of
Cheney’s testimony, Waxman appeared on numerous news programs and talk shows to
promote his book and talk about the testimony, repeating his earlier comments about
Cheney’s honesty.
Vice President Cheney sued Waxman on several grounds. First, he claimed that
Waxman had libeled him and sought $10 million in damages. Second, he challenged the
committee’s authority to investigate this subject matter. He argued that the committee’s
charter was too vague and the questions posed to him were a violation of his First
Amendment rights of association.
Suppose you are a Supreme Court justice. How would you decide this case?
The First Amendment is clear in its protection of the freedom of expression: “Congress
shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of
the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of
grievances.” However, only Justices Black and Douglas have ever adhered to a literalist
interpretation of the Freedom of Expression Clause. All other justices have been willing
to place some restrictions on the freedom of expression. Discuss the evolution of
standards the Court has used to adjudicate freedom of expression from Schenck to
Brandenburg and explain why the Court has not adhered to a single position, instead
changing standards depending on the circumstances of the case. Why has the Court
been more willing to restrict freedom of expression at certain times and allowed more
liberal standards at other times? Are you satisfied with the standards that the Court has
provided? Do you feel that the standards should be more or less precise, allowing for
more or less freedom in interpreting the standards? Why?
Answer:
*A. Varies
In Muller v. Oregon (1908) the Supreme Court considered the appeal of a laundry
owner who had been charged with violating a state law regulating the maximum
number of hours employees could work. He challenged the law on the ground that it
violated his substantive due process rights. The Court unanimously upheld the law,
which was surprising given the Court’s tendency at that time to strike down such
legislation. What accounts for the Court’s reaching a decision in this case that seems so
out of line with prevailing precedent (e.g., Lochner v. New York, 1905)?
Answer:
*A. Varies
Why were Justices Kennedy and Breyer slightly concerned with the Court’s decision in
United .States. v. American Library Association and therefore filed a concurring
opinion?
Answer:
A. Varies
Why did the Court refuse to suppress the evidence used to convict Herring in Herring v.
U.S.?
Answer:
*A. Varies
In Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee what rationale does the Court use to explain why it has the
power of judicial review over states and state courts?
Answer:
*A. Varies
How did the dissenters respond to the majority argument in Shelby County?
Answer:
*A. Varies
What are the key points in Gibbons v. Ogden that led to an expansive reading of the
Commerce Clause?
Answer:
*A. Varies
Several years ago, Congress passed legislation permitting citizens to register to vote
when they obtain or renew their driver’s licenses (the Motor Voter Law). Congress
thought that it could pass this legislation based on a power that could be implied from
various enumerated powers (e.g., Article I, Section 4: “The Times, Places and Manner
of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed by the [state]
legislatures; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations,
except as to the Places of chusing Senators.”)
The State of Illinois disagrees. While conceding that the Motor Voter Law is
constitutional as it pertains to federal elections, Illinois argues that it is unconstitutional
as applied to state elections. In Illinois’s view, the Motor Voter statute directly interferes
with states’ rights. So Illinois is allowing voters, who registered when they obtained
their licenses, to vote for federal candidates but not for state candidates.
Suppose John Marshall were still chief justice. How would he react to this argument?
How would a Marshall opinion in this case differ from one written by, say, Roger B.
Taney? Please note that you are not being asked to write an essay determining whether
or not this law is constitutional; rather, you should analyze the approaches that Marshall
and Taney would take in their opinions.
Finally, if you were a justice on the Supreme Court, to which view of federalism would
you subscribe: Marshall’s, Taney’s, or something in between?Explain why.
How have political strategists attempted to thwart campaign finance laws since the
Federal Election Campaign Act was passed in 1971?
Answer:
*A. Varies
Following the Civil War, “the power to set voting rights policy began a steady shift.”
What was the nature of this shift? What are two constitutional amendments that
symbolize this shift?
Answer:
*A. Varies
In Home Building and Loan Association v. Blaisdell (1934) the Supreme Court upheld
the Minnesota Mortgage Moratorium Act against a challenge that the law was a
violation of the Contract Clause. What were the basic provisions of the act? What
reasons did the Court give for upholding the act?
Answer:
*A. Varies