In Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton, the Supreme Court ruled that random drug
testing of student athletes _______.
A. Violates the Constitution because minors are a protected group
B. Violates the Constitution because athletes are treated differently from non-athletes
C. Does not violate the Constitution because all forms of random drug testing are
constitutional
D. Does not violate the Constitution because students, especially student athletes, have
reduced privacy expectations
In U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton (1995) the Court struck down the term -limits law
enacted by the state of Arkansas. Four justices dissented in an opinion written by
Clarence Thomas. Summarize Thomas’s opinion in support of the constitutionality of
the Arkansas law.
Answer:A. Varies
Which Supreme Court justice argued that the “Constitution is color-blind,” in his
dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson?
A. Henry Brown
B. Edward White
C. John Marshall Harlan
D. Roger Taney
In West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937) a hotel company challenged a state law setting
mandatory minimum wage levels. The company seemingly stood on firm ground,
because in Adkins v. Children’s Hospital (1923) the Supreme Court set a precedent that
such laws violate constitutional due process guarantees. In West Coast Hotel the
Supreme Court _______.
A. struck down the law, applying the Adkins precedent
B. upheld the law, overruling the Adkins precedent
C. upheld the law, ignoring Adkins and instead applying the precedent set in Nebbia v.
New York (1934; milk regulation case)
D. struck down the law, applying the precedents of both Adkins v. Children’s Hospital
and Lochner v. New York (1905; state regulation of maximum working hours case)
On what did Justice O”Connor base her concurring opinion in Lawrence v. Texas?
A. Her disagreement with the decision in Bowers v. Hardwick
B. Her disagreement with the decision in Stanley v. Georgia
C. The substantive component of the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause
D. The Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause
According to Berman v. Parker (1954; case involving urban renewal programs in
Washington, D.C.) and Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff (1984; Hawaii land reform
case), a key factor in determining whether the public use requirement has been violated
is whether the government program provides for the ownership of property taken from
one private individual eventually to be transferred to another private individual.
A. True
B. False
C. True with respect to Berman v. Parker, but false with respect to Hawaii Housing
Authority v. Midkiff.
D. True with respect to Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, but false with respect to
Berman v. Parker.
In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, what provision of the Pennsylvania statute was ruled
an “undue burden” and therefore invalidated?
A. Informed consent
B. Parental consent for minors
C. Record keeping for health purposes
D. Spousal notification
Which of the following is an example of a clear and present danger?
A. Shouting “Fire!” in a crowded movie theater.
B. Shouting “Fire!” out in the middle of a forest.
C. Speaking out for one’s political beliefs in front of the White House.
D. None of the above.
Which two justices argued that the death penalty is unconstitutional in all circumstances
in their decisions in Furman v. Georgia and Gregg v. Georgia?
A. Douglas and Stewart
B. Marshall and Stewart
C. Brennan and Marshall
D. Marshall and Douglas
In Washington v. Glucksberg and Vacco v. Quill, the Supreme Court _______.
A. upheld state laws making assisted suicide a crime
B. struck down state laws making assisted suicide a crime
C. upheld state laws allowing random drug testing in the work place
D. struck down state laws allowing random drug testing in the work place
In United .States. v. Williams, the Court ruled that the PROTECT Act was _______.
A. Facially violative of the First Amendment
B. Overbroad and vague in violation of the due process clause
C. Not violative of the First Amendment
D. Not overbroad and vague and therefore constitutionally valid
Describe the standard the Court set out for proving libel in Sullivan.
Answer:*A. Varies
The decision in Oregon Waste Systems v. Department of Environmental Quality of the
State of Oregon (1994; case involving fees imposed on landfill activities) is a good
example of the principle that _______.
A. states may not place a tax on interstate commerce.
B. states may not impose a tax that discriminates against interstate commerce.
C. a state may tax interstate commerce at higher rates than it taxes intrastate commerce
if the goal is environmental protection.
D. under a state’s police powers it may tax the importation of hazardous materials from
another state even if that tax is so high that such importation is no longer economically
viable.
Explain the standard the Court uses to determine whether an utterance may be
considered fighting words.
Answer:*A. Varies
Which of the following statements best describes the Court’s decision in Sweatt v.
Painter?
A. The Court ruled in favor of the University of Texas Law School based on the
“separate but equal” doctrine established in Plessy.
B. The Court ruled Sweatt should be admitted to the Texas Law School because the law
school for black students was not equal to the law school for white students.
C. The Court overturned Plessy, arguing that it did not matter if the two facilities were
equal or not because segregation implied inferiority.
D. The Court ruled in favor of the Texas Law School, arguing its decision not to admit
Sweatt passed the “strict scrutiny” test.
Gitlow is an important case because it _______.
A. banned freedom of speech
B. incorporated freedom of speech
C. restricted freedom of speech in states
D. allowed regulation of freedom of speech by the federal government only
What was the test proposed by O”Connor in herAkron dissent?
A. The substantive due process test
B. The rational basis test
C. The undue burden test
D. The abortion protection test
Which of the following constitutional doctrines speaks directly to a situation in which
the federal government regulates an aspect of intrastate commerce that is so intertwined
with interstate commerce that a failure to regulate it would injure interstate commerce?
A. The Shreveport doctrine.
B. The stream of commerce doctrine.
C. The Lopez doctrine.
D. The commercial intercourse doctrine.
E. The doctrine of selective exclusiveness.
In Hamdi, the members of the Court were nearly unanimous that _______.
A. On their views of Hamdi’s specific detention
B. that a state of war is not a blank check for the president’s when it comes to rights
C. that Hamdi could not be detained at all
D. that The president has supreme power during the war on terror
Explain, with examples, the different types of powers held by Congress. Argue whether
you believe Congress has unlimited powers or whether it should be constrained, and
how, by other branches of government.
Answer:*A. Varies
President Bush asked for, and received, congressional approval to to send troops into
Afghanistan in response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York City
and Washington, D.C.America.
The troops conducted their military operation, but some stayed behind on a
peacekeeping mission. More specifically, the troops who stayed were there to assist the
U.N. forces that would eventually take over the operation. Their mission, as Bush told
the American public, “is now for peace-keeping purposes only.” Let us assume that the
peacekeeping mission was a disaster. By the end of 2002, fighting again had erupted in
the region. The evening news was full of images of dead and injured American soldiers.
Public opinion shifted strongly against U.S. involvement in the region.
Bush, however, felt that the interests of the United States were at stake in that region of
the world, and he decided to send in more troops specifically equipped for heavy
combat. They began launching attacks into the mountains on the Afghanistan-Pakistan
borderboth from the air and on the ground. Congress was not consulted about Bush’s
decision to escalate U.S. involvement in the region, leading many members of Congress
to come out vocally against the President.
By August 2003, members of Congress and the public began to question Bush’s
decision. All in all, the American operation in Afghanistan was not going well:
thousands of soldiers had been killed, and; many more had been seriously wounded.
Finally, in late August Bush pulled out the U.S. troops; the entire venture had been a
major fiasco. Not only had many Americans died, but also problems in the region
remained unresolved.
Congress did not plan to let Bush off the hook easily. In September of 2003, a special
house committee was created to determine whether he had violated the War Powers Act.
Passed in 1973 by a Congress fed up with its impotence during the Vietnam War, the
War Powers Act contains the following key provisions: 1. It sets a sixty-day limit on
any Presidential commitment of U.S troops abroad without specific congressional
authorization. The commitment may be extended for another thirty days if necessary for
the safe withdrawal of troops. 2. It allows for the termination of Unauthorized
commitments prior to the sixty-day deadline through congressional adoption of a
concurrent resolution, a measure that does not require presidential signature or
approval. 3. It requires the president to consult with Congress in every possible instance
before introducing United. States armed forces into hostilities or into situations where
imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated.
During the course of the House committee’s hearings, it became clear that many more
individuals within the executive branch (besides Bush) were involved (e.g., the
Secretary of Defense, the Director of the CIA). At this point, the committee asked the
president to turn over certain documents, particularly those describing the
administration’s strategic decision-making processes and defense plans in the
Afghanistan conflict. President Bush refused to do so, and he sent his Attorney General,
(John Ashcroft,) to Congress to explain his reasons.
Ashcroft offered two explanations. First, in the administration’s eyes, the entire War
Powers Act violated the separation of powers doctrine and interfered to an
impermissible (and, thus, unconstitutional) extent with the President’s responsibilities as
Commander -in -Chief and as the “sole organ of foreign affairs.” Accordingly, the
administration argued that it did not need to comply with a congressional investigation
into on whether or not Bush had violated the Act. Second, the administration asserted
that, even if the Act was constitutional, the President could, under a claim of executive
privilege, refuse to turn over sensitive documents.
Members of Congress immediately took on Bush and Ashcroft in a U.S. District Court.
They argued that the War Powers Act was perfectly compatible with existing U.S.
Supreme Court doctrine. They also asserted that the President was using “executive
privilege” as an excuse to avoid cooperating on with the committee and that he could
not constitutionally do so.
Suppose you were the district court judge in this case. Using relevant Supreme Court
doctrine, how would you rule on both aspects of this case, the constitutionality of the
War Powers Act and the claim of executive privilege? Explain and justify your
responses. Now consider this question: Would your responses be different if the United
States still had troops in Bosnia at the time this suit was pending? Why or why not?
The Separation of Powers _______.
A. Acts as a constraint on the decisions the Supreme Court makes
B. Does not act as a constraint on the decisions the Supreme Court makes
C. Allows states to ignore decisions the Supreme Court makes
D. Acts as a constraint justices can put on one another as they decide
In Gravel v. United States (1972; dispute over Senator. Mike Gravel’s making public the
contents of the Pentagon Papers), the Court ruled on the coverage of the Speech or
Debate Clause. Based on the Court’s ruling, did the Speech or Debate Clause protect (a)
Senator Gravel? (b) Senator Gravel’s legislative aide? (c) the publisher of the press that
printed the papers given him by Gravel?
Answer:*A. Varies
What is the main way in which interest groups try to influence the Supreme Court?
A. They give justices donations each holiday.
B. They meet with the justices twice a year to persuade them to change their votes.
C. They file amicus curiae briefs.
D. They file arguments on the Supreme Court’s Facebook page.
Which of the following statements is not true?
A. Cars have less protection against searches than homes.
B. An officer making a traffic stop can order the driver and passengers out of the car.
C. A routine traffic stop where a citation is issued is sufficient to justify a full search of
an automobile.
D. If probable cause justifies a search of a lawfully stopped vehicle, it justifies the
search of every part of the vehicle.
In Schenck v. United States the Court created the _______.
A. Clear and Present Danger Test
B. Preferred Freedoms Doctrine
C. Clear and Probable Danger Test
D. Imminent Lawless Action Test
What special power does the Chief Justice possess during the Court’s agenda-setting
stage?
A. The chief creates the discuss list.
B. The chief chooses all cases for the docket.
C. The chief chooses some cases that the Court must hear.
D. The chief has no special power during the agenda-setting stage.
In Craig v. Boren, what test did a majority of the Court agree on for examining sex
discrimination cases?
A. Heightened scrutiny test.
B. Strict scrutiny test
C. Rational basis test
D. None of the above.
Where does the word privacy first appear in the Constitution?
A. First Amendment
B. Fourth Amendment
C. Fourteenth Amendment
D. It is not in the Constitution
For purposes of Questions 28 and 29, assume that it is November 2006. Republicans
still control the U.S. Supreme Court (seven Republicans and two Democrats) but a
Democrat, Howard Lark, is now president of the United States, and Democrats control
the House of Representatives. The Democratic Party also controls the Senate. But in the
election of 2006 the party lost several seats, such thatbeginning in January 2007, when
the new senators are to be sworn inthe Senate is going to be controlled by Republicans,
though by a slim margin (forty-nine Democrats and fifty-one Republicans).
During his 2006 campaign to become a U.S. senator, the famous movie star Clint
Terminator (a Republican from California) was under constant attack from the major
newspapers in California. Among the most serious charges reported in the press was
that Terminator had sexually harassed or even assaulted as many as fifteen women
between 2000 and 2005.
Despite these and other allegations of improper (perhaps even illegal) behavior,
Terminator won the election by a wide margin. But his troubles were not over. The
Democratic attorney general of California had begun an investigation into Terminator’s
activities to determine whether he had violated any state laws,. And the lame-duck
Democratic Senate saw the investigation as a way to regain control of the Senate: if it
could get rid of Terminator and elect a Democrat in his place, the Senate would be
divided evenly, with fifty senators from each party. This situation would enable Lark’s
vice president to break any ties.
One week after the election, on November 15, 2006, the Senate, pursuant to Article I,
Section 5, of the U.S. Constitution, formed a committee specifically to investigate the
accusations of sexual harassment against Terminator. The charge to this committee, the
Select Committee on Ethics, read as follows: “The Senate of the United States will not
tolerate misconduct on the part of its members or potential members. The Senate
charges the Select Committee on Ethics with the task of determining whether Clint
Terminator engaged in illegal or questionable activities. To this end, the committee may
gather any information and call upon any witnesses it deems relevant.”
The first witness called to testify before the committee, Terminator’s agent, revealed an
interesting piece of information: since 1995 Terminator had kept an extensive computer
journal of all his activities. Upon hearing this information, the committee asked
Terminator to turn over a computer disk containing the contents of his journal. The
committee also called Terminator to testify before it.
Terminator agreed to allow the congressional committee to review everything in his
journal except accounts of “personal, private family matters.” Once the committee
consented to this request, Terminator turned over the disk. But, much to the committee’s
dismay, no entries for the years 2001 to 2003 were included not on the disk. When the
committee asked him about this, Terminator said he had accidentally erased the files for
those years from his hard drive. Knowing that a computer expert could recover the
information, the committee requested that Terminator to turn over his computer.
Terminator refused, claiming that he would not have an opportunity to excise personal
entries. But the committee members did not buy his argument; instead, they it voted
unanimously to force him to turn over the computer.
When Terminator appeared before the committee, he again refused this request. When
the chair of the committee asked him why, Terminator refused to answer. He also would
not answer the chair’s next questions: “With how many women have you had sexual
relations over the last five years?” “Did you discuss your sexual relations with anyone?
A friend, a family member?” In fact, immediately after the chair asked these questions,
Terminator stated that he would not answer any of the committee’s questions.
The committee cited Terminator for contempt, and he challenged its orders in a federal
court. He alleged that (1) the committee could not conduct investigations into this
particular subject, (2) the committee’s purpose was too vague, and (3) the committee’s
questions lacked pertinence.
Suppose you are the judge hearing this case. Based on U.S. Supreme Court precedent,
how would you rule on each of these claims and why?
With respect to Marbury v. Madison (1803): (a) Did Marbury have the right to the
commission he sought? (b) Was a writ of mandamus a proper remedy for Marbury to
seek? (c) Did Marbury take his case to the proper court?
Answer:
*A. Varies
Explain the difference between judicial activism and judicial restraint.. Give an
example of each.
Answer:*A. Varies
Libel and obscenity _______.
A. Are fully protected by the First Amendment
B. Are sometimes protected by the First Amendment
C. Fall outside the protections of the First Amendment
D. None of the above
Which of the following statements best describes the Supreme Court’s decision in
Powell v. Alabama (the “Scottsboro boys” case)?
A. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to counsel for every defendant.
B. Unusual circumstances (i.e., capital offenses) necessitate counsel to ensure fairness
for the defendants.
C. The Sixth Amendment does not guarantee defendants the right to counsel.
D. The defendants in Powell v. Alabama received an adequate defense given the
circumstances of the crime.
The House Un-American Activities Committee mainly dealt with investigating
_______.
A. citizens who belonged to the Green Party
B. citizens who belonged to the Dixiecrat Party
C. citizens who belonged to the Communist Party
D. citizens who belonged to the Nazi Party
In 2005 the issue of steroid use s issue in Major League Baseball came to a head with
the suspension of first baseman Rafael Palmeiro. Congress finally took action and
forced baseball to come up with a new policy for drug testing, as well as a stringent
policy for suspensions. The first part of the law mandated drug testing for every major
and minor league player at the beginning of each season, during the all-star break, and
prior to any participation in post-season play. The law also called for a 50 fifty-game
suspension for the first positive test, suspension for a full season on the second positive
test, and a lifetime ban upon a third violation. While the Baseball Players Association
and Major League Baseball agreed to the policy, the requirements were forced on the
sport by Congress, which said that it would pass a law mandating these requirements if
the two sides did not agree on the basic outline.
Several players have sued Major League Baseball, claiming that the contracts they
signed under the prior agreementwhich called for punishments for drug use of ten-game
suspension, thirty-game suspension, and lifetime bans, respectivelywere impaired by
this new contract. They argued that Congress cannot force (by coercion) parties to a
private contract to change the terms of that contract. The lower courts disagreed and
ruled in favor of Major League Baseball. The case is now before the Supreme Court.
If you were a justice on the Supreme Court, how would you rule in this case?
Since Flast v. Cohen what two links must taxpayers demonstrate to have standing in
Court?
Answer:
*A. Varies
Did Ashcroft v. ACLU [I] settle the issue of internet pornography regulation? Why or
why not?
Answer:
*A. Varies
United .States. v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936) makes clear that presidents have
almost unfettered power over foreign affairs. Are there any limits to such power? If so,
what are they?
Answer:
*A. Varies
How does judicial review in the United. States. compare to judicial review in other
nations? Why is the use of judicial review more controversial in the United States than
in other nations whose courts enjoy the same power?
Answer:
*A. Varies
How does the Succession Act of 1947 differ from the National Security Act of 1947 in
terms of presidential succession?
Answer:
*A. Varies
What are the three main provisions of the double jeopardy clause? How has the Court
interpreted “the “same offense”?
Answer:
*A. Varies
How did the Taney Court differ from the Marshall Court in its interpretation of the
Contract Clause? How did its interpretation stay the same?
Answer:
*A. Varies
Why is it so difficult for the Court to decide offensive and hate speech cases?
Answer:
*A. Varies
What are the constitutional qualifications for presidential eligibility?
Answer:
*A. Varies
How has the Court applied its obscenity law to depictions of acts of violence or cruelty?
Answer:
*A. Varies
How did the Court deal with the issue of filtering software in libraries in United States
v. American Library Association?
Answer:
A. Varies
How are cases involving child pornography different from typical obscenity cases?
Answer:
*A. Varies
What rationale did Chief Justice Marshall use to justify the congressional delegation of
power to the judiciary in Wayman v. Southard (1825)?
Answer:
*A. Varies
What equal protection test did the majority of the Court use in San Antonio Independent
School District v. Rodriguez? Why did the Court settle on this test?
Answer:
*A. Varies
The Court is constrained because it cannot hear a case if it is not justiciable. Explain
what it means for a case to be considered justiciable, and cite cases we have read to
support your argument. Finally, is justiciability a constraint on the Court? Why or why
not?
Answer:
*A. Varies
The Constitution places one specific requirement on the federal government’s power to
impose a tax on duties and imposts. What is it?
Answer:
*A. Varies
What constitutional provision did Chief Justice Roberts use to justify the
constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act? Why did he argue that this law could not
be upheld under the power to regulate interstate commerce?
Answer:
*A. Varies