County of Allegheny v. ACLU indicated that the Court _______.
A. Would analyze context when determining whether religious symbols can be
displayed on public property
B. Would not analyze context when determining whether religious symbols can be
displayed on public property
C. Would never allow religious displays on public property
D. Would only allow religious displays on public property
Most cases reach the Court through _______.
A. Certification
B. Appeal
C. Certiorari
D. Mandatory Appeal
Which one of the following statements is not true?
A. The Supreme Court has ruled that less-than-unanimous verdicts violate the Sixth
Amendment.
B. The Supreme Court has ruled that juries can be smaller than twelve people.
C. The Supreme Court has ruled that it violates the Constitution to intentionally
eliminate prospective jurors based solely on race.
D. The Supreme Court has ruled that it violates the Constitution to intentionally
eliminate prospective jurors based solely on gender.
States have generally _______.
A. Expanded gun rights
B. Restricted gun rights
C. Banned all guns
On June 5, 1989, FBI agent Steve Moe received a tip from a well-known actor in
Minneapolis, that Roger Sviggum, another well-known actor, was manufacturing illegal
drugs (cocaine and heroin) in a laboratory located on his land “up north,” and that he
was growing marijuana on land surrounding this lakefront property. Acting on this
information, Moe dispatched agents to the northern Minnesota property. Over the
course of the next week, these agents observed numerous “strange” cars and other
vehicles going in and out of the ranch.
Based on the initial “tip” and these observations, Moe sought to obtain a warrant to
search the Sviggum residence. He first approached Magistrate Hottinger and told him
about the “tip” and the agents’ observations. Hottinger, however, felt insufficient
probable cause existed to issue the warrant. Rather than attempting to build a better
case, Moe went to a second magistrate, Pawlenty, who issued a warrant to search only
the Sviggum residence (i.e., the main building).
a. Should Magistrate Pawlenty have issued the warrant? Why or why not?
Moe, along with four other officers, sought to execute the warrant. They drove up to the
Sviggum residence and, parked rather far from the house because a silver
Mercedes-Benz was blocking the driveway. They knocked on the door to the house, and
Sviggum’s wife opened it. After she told them that Roger was not in the house (he was,
according to her, practicing his lines for a new show), Moe explained that they had a
warrant to search the home. She let them in, and the five officers began a full search of
the house.
The officers found nothing until they spotted a closed door at the side of the house.
They asked Mrs. Sviggum about this, and she told them that they rented out that part of
the home to a boarder, one Monica Hahn. Upon obtaining Mrs. Sviggum’s permission,
the agents entered the Hahn quarters. There they found not only Ms. Hahn, but also a
sophisticated laboratory they suspected was used for the manufacturing of drugs.
b. Was it reasonable for police to enter Hahn’s quarters? Why or why not?
As the agents moved toward Hahn, she began ingesting chemicals located on a table on
which she was working. They immediately, but gently, seized her and placed her under
arrest. Because she had swallowed some of the “evidence,” however, two agents rushed
her to a local hospital for stomach X-rays. At the hospital, Hahn refused to give her
consent for the procedure. The doctor, acting under police orders, took the X-rays
anyway and, the resultant pictures revealed the presence of substances used to
manufacture heroin.
c. Was the X-ray procedure a reasonable search and seizure? Why or why not?
Meanwhile, finding nothing else in the Sviggum residence, agents decided to search the
silver Mercedes in the driveway. They asked Mrs. Sviggum who owned the car. She
replied that it was hers, but that she would not give them consent to search it. The
agents went back into the house, found the car keys, and unlocked the car without
permission. In a suitcase in the trunk, they found large quantities of heroin. They placed
Mrs. Sviggum under arrest and called for back-up officers.
d. Was the search of the car reasonable under the Fourth Amendment? Why or why not?
On
As soon as other officers arrived on the scene, two FBI agents decided to examine the
rest of the property (the land surrounding the house) to see if they could locate Roger,
and to determine if, in fact, the Sviggums were growing marijuana on the premises.
They did not have to walk very far to find what they were looking for. Right beyond the
fence enclosing the ranch, they spotted acres of marijuana plants. And, just a quarter
mile farther away, they saw Roger, dressed in a business suit, talking to two teenage
girls.
As the agents rushed toward Roger, eventually arresting him, the girls started quickly
walking away from the scene. One of the officers stopped them and identified himself
as a police officer. Next, he “patted” them down.” He found nothing on the first; on the
second, Linda Lewinsky, he felt “something” bulky in her jacket pocket. The agent
reached in and removed the mass, which turned out to be a huge wad of $100 bills and a
negligible amount of heroin. He arrested Ms. Lewinsky.
e. Was this “frisk” reasonable under the Fourth Amendment? Why or why not?
f. Based on your answers to questions a”e, can you now reach conclusions about the
admissibility of the evidence? Would you exclude any or all of the evidence gathered
against the Sviggums, Hahn, and Lewinsky? Why or why not?
g. Would your answers to questions a”f be different if the year were 1968 rather than
1989?
Answer:
*A. Varies
There was no limit on the number of terms a president could serve until _______.
A. the ratification of the Eleventh Amendment in 1795
B. the ratification of the Twelfth Amendment following the confused presidential
election of 1800
C. the ratification of the Civil War Amendments
D. the ratification of the Twenty-second Amendment in 1951
E. the ratification of the Twenty-sixth Amendment in 1971 (which also established the
minimum voting age at eighteen)
Which one of the following statements best describes the Court’s decision in Brewer v.
Williams?
A. The legal definition of interrogation is confined to question and answer periods at a
police station.
B. Police do not have to read Miranda warnings before interrogating a suspects at the
suspects’ homes.
C. Any attempt to obtain incriminating statements from a suspect in custody requires
Miranda warnings.
D. Miranda warnings are required even if a suspect voluntarily shows up at a police
station.
Daniel Webster was one of the most influential legal minds of the nineteenth century.
He had a particularly important role in influencing the Supreme Court’s interpretation of
the Contract Clause. Which of the following best describes Webster’s Contract Clause
beliefs and activities?
A. Webster supported an interpretation of the Contract Clause that balanced the
importance of contracts with the public good, as can be seen in his arguments on behalf
of the Warren Bridge Company.
B. As an attorney Webster supported vigorous enforcement of the Contract Clause, but
after being appointed to the Supreme Court he altered his views and tended to support
the interests of the public good over the need to protect contracts.
C. As an attorney Webster supported vigorous enforcement of the Contract Clause, and
after his appointment to the Supreme Court he continued to vote in favor of the
Contract Clause in spite of the fact that a majority of his colleagues had Jacksonian
views of the primacy of the public good.
D. Webster strongly supported a vigorous enforcement of the Contract Clause,
representing such clients as the old trustees of Dartmouth College and the Charles River
Bridge Company.
Describe the structure of the U.S. judicial system.
Answer:*A. Varies
Each state is given a number of Electoral College votes _______.
A. equal to its number of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives
B. based on its proportion of the national population
C. equal to its combined number of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives and the
Senate
D. none of the above
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 deciding this case. 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.
Due to concerns about drug use and violence in schools, the Westminster Board of
Education adopted a policy that allowed, but did not mandate, schools in their system to
take steps necessary for the protection of students and to promote a positive learning
environment. Jefferson High School introduced policies aimed at preventing exactly the
type of behavior of concern to the board. One action was the installation of metal
detectors at all school entrances. In addition, the school hired security guards and gave
them the authority to conduct random “pat down” searches on students, including
searches of bags and backpacks.
The school also instituted a drug-testing system whereby students were randomly
selected for tests. A teacher or administrator who suspected a student was under the
influence of drugs or alcohol could send the student to the school nurse to be tested.
The nurse could also select students for testing. The nurse had materials available for a
variety of tests, including breath, blood, and urine tests. The samples taken from
students were sent to an independent lab for analysis.
The high school’s principal, Brett Dilfer, received an anonymous letter informing him
that Dorsey Dunn, a seventeen-year-old senior, kept marijuana in his locker, used it
personally and sold it to other students at school. Based on this information, Principal
Dilfer searched Dunn’s locker and found several ounces of marijuana and a half-empty
bottle of vodka. The security guards then searched Dunn and found rolling papers and a
small amount of marijuana. The principal sent Dunn to the nurse for testing. Over his
objections, the nurse obtained blood and urine samples and forced him to take a breath
test.
Dilfer called the local police and turned over the drugs and alcohol to them. Although
they did not have a warrant, the police officers then went to the school parking lot and
searched Dunn’s 1968 Camaro. They found more marijuana in the glove compartment,
a handgun under the driver’s seat, and several car stereos in the trunk that appeared to
have been stolen. When the police asked Dunn about the evidence, he said, “Yeah, the
stuff’s mine.” He was placed under arrest, read his Miranda warnings, and taken to the
police station. The police discovered that the stereos had recently been reported stolen
from a local Best Buy store. They also determined that the car was not owned by Dunn,
but was registered in his father’s name.
Based on the evidence given to them by the school, what they discovered in his car, and
Dunn’s statement, the police charged Dunn with drug possession, illegal possession of a
firearm (he had no permit), and grand theft for the stereos found in his car. The results
of Dunn’s drug tests were positive, indicating that he had marijuana and alcohol in his
system at the time of the tests. He was immediately expelled from school.
The trial court judge threw out the statement Dunn made to police prior to being read
his Miranda rights, but Dunn, a minor, was convicted of the charges filed against him.
Because of new criminal guidelines in Westminster County that allowed juveniles to be
tried as adults for certain crimesincluding drug possession and grand theftDunn was
sentenced to twenty years at a state maximum security prison. He appealed to the
intermediate court of appeals, where his conviction was upheld. He appealed to the state
supreme court, which affirmed the judgment of the intermediate court. He then brought
his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
As a Supreme Court justice, you are presented with several important legal questions in
this case. Was the school justified in conducting random searches of students without
probable cause? Were the intrusions made on students (searches, collection of blood and
urine samples) unreasonable or unduly burdensome? Was the school exerting its proper
authority in conducting the search of Dunn and his locker? Were the drug tests
conducted on him reasonable? How do you deal with the involvement of the local
police and their subsequent search of Dunn’s car? Was the trial court judge correct in
throwing out Dunn’s statement to the police prior to being read his Miranda rights?
Would you uphold his conviction? Justify your opinion.
Answer:*A. Varies
Benjamin Franklin’s position on the appointment of federal judges was for _______.
A. The president to appoint judges
B. Congress to appoint judges
C. Lawyers to appoint judges
D. the Senate to appoint judges
The Constitution stipulates that a tax on exports _______.
A. must be apportioned on the basis of population
B. may be imposed by the federal government, but not by the states
C. may be imposed by the states, but not by the federal government
D. may not be imposed by the federal or state governments
E. must be geographically uniform
The “fighting words” doctrine was enunciated in _______.
A. Chaplinksy v. New Hampshire
B. Rumsfeld v. FAIR
C. Boy Scots of America v. Dale
D. Texas v. Johnson
The old Latin maxim, Delegata potestas non potest delegari, means _______.
A. Delectable laws are the best laws
B. A power once delegated cannot be redelegated
C. The president can never act until Congress gives him the authority to do so
D. The president has the sole authority to declare war
Explain the rationale the Court used to determine that the use of a GPS tracking device
violated the Fourth Amendment in Jones.
Answer:*A. Varies
Explain how the Court’s decision in Hamdan differs from its analysis of its jurisdiction
in McCardle.
Answer:*A. Varies
Explain the concept of prior restraint and provide at least two examples of government
use of prior restraint.
Answer:*A. Varies
Compare Madison’s and Hamilton’s positions on using the power to tax for the general
welfare.
Answer:*A. Varies
Identify two issues upon which Congress has tried to eliminate the Supreme Court’s
appellate jurisdiction.
Answer:*A. Varies
In Williamson v. Lee Optical Co. (1955) the Supreme Court heard a substantive due
process challenge to an Oklahoma law that said that an opticians could grind lenses and
fit eyeglasses only when presented with a prescription from an ophthalmologist or an
optometrist. The law was challenged as unreasonable, unwise, and wasteful. The
Supreme Court _______.
A. upheld the law, saying that questions about the wisdom or need for a particular law
should be answered by the legislature and not the courts;. T thus, challenges to such
laws should be made through the electoral process and not through lawsuits
B. struck down the law, explaining that although the relevance of substantive due
process had declined, it still barred states from enacting regulatory laws without
sufficient evidence demonstrating the need for such regulation
C. struck down the law, saying that the state had failed to show that it had a compelling
state interest in passing such legislation
D. upheld the law, concluding that the state had satisfied its obligations under the
compelling state interest test
In Branzburg v. Hayes the Court ruled that _______.
A. Reporters have a privilege that protects them from appearing in front of a grand jury
B. Reporters do not have a privilege that protects them from appearing in front of a
grand jury
C. Reporters can never divulge the names of informants
D. Reporters must always divulge the names of informants
Given several examples of how the Lemon test has been applied to both to uphold and
to strike government involvement with religion (use case examples).
Answer:*A. Varies
Name two ways in which the separation of powers may constrain the decisions made by
the U.S. Supreme Court.
Answer:*A. Varies
Public opinion concerning the Court-packing plan _______.
A. Was favorable nationwide
B. Was unfavorable nationwide
C. Was largely unchanged
D. Was in favor of an alternate to the plan
Explain three conditions that may trigger valid government regulation of expression.
Answer:*A. Varies
Hylton v. United .States. defines a direct tax as a tax on _______.
A. land
B. capitation
C. individuals
D. A and B
E. A and C.
Why did the Court disagree with the federal government in Gonzalez v. Oregon?
A. The Controlled Substances Act did not reach regulation of medical drugs.
B. States can ignore federal laws whenever they feel it is proper to do so.
C. States have wide latitude to regulate the lives of their citizens.
D. The Court did not disagree with the Controlled Substances Act and, in fact, upheld it.
Federal courts are explicitly given the power of judicial review by _______.
A. Article I of the Constitution, which describes the process of how laws are passed and
repealed
B. Article III, which specifies the powers of the courts
C. the Supremacy Clause
D. the Eleventh Amendment
E. the Fourteenth Amendment
F. None of the above
In Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), the Supreme Court _______.
A. upheld the New York steamship monopoly because it was a state regulation of
intrastate commerce
B. held that navigation was commerce and that the Gibbons/Vanderbilt steamship
operation was validly operating in interstate commerce under a permit issued by the
federal government
C. held that steamship movement from New Jersey to New York was considered
interstate commerce under the stream of commerce doctrine
D. held that New York had the right to regulate commercial navigation in its waters
(including the right to impose a monopoly) because the federal government had not yet
entered into the field of regulating navigation
The power of the legislature to investigate and hold hearings is an _______ power.
A. implied
B. inherent
C. amendment-enforcing
D. enumerated
Federalism cases on the U.S. Supreme Court have progressed _______.
A. in a series of cycles
B. incrementally over time
C. with specific changes made only in the nineteenth century
D. none of the above
According to Supreme Court’s Rule 10, what makes a case “certworthy”?
Answer:
*A. Varies
Why was there a larger debate about the third provision of the Virginia Plan than about
the first two provisions?
Answer:
*A. Varies
In West Sussex, Alabama, district judge Robert Favre runs a very formal courtroom
where justice is handed out quietly but swiftly. The formality of Favre’s courtroom is
demonstrated by the fact that he runs all proceedings with an iron fist. Additionally, the
judge begins every court session day with a prayer that asks God to allow him to act
judiciously and fairly when dealing with defendants. These prayers, while
nondenominational, are read by different members of the clergy each week. The pool of
clergy includes several Presbyterian ministers and a few Catholic priests, but it is
mostly comprised of Southern Baptist ministers from the surrounding counties. These
ministers are not paid, but on days that they read the Court’s prayer they are provided
with breakfast at a local coffee shop across from the courthouse.
To help him serve justice, and to “show his place under God,” Judge Favre carved a
replica of the stone tablets upon which the Ten Commandments were inscribed. He took
it upon himself to hang these tablets behind his bench for all to see. When asked why he
put them in his courtroom, the judge said simply, “We must all realize that no matter
what our laws may be, we all live under God’s law and must follow it without
question.” While protesters said he should remove the tablets, Favre refused to do so.
On January 5, 1999, Roger Vinatonka was brought into Judge Favre’s courtroom to
defend an accusation that he had robbed five gas stations in the past month. As this was
the first case of the day, Judge Favre asked Southern Baptist minister Mordecai Brown
to read the invocation. After he finished, Vinatonka’s attorney objected that the reading
of the prayer was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Additionally, he objected to the Ten Commandments in the courtroom, as these also
violated the wall of separation between church and state. His argument was that it was a
violation of his client’s rights to be subjected to such prayers when he was not Christian,
and his beliefs did not include praying to God or following the Ten Commandments. He
also argued that for justice to be conducted fairly in this courtroom the prayers must be
stopped and the Ten Commandments taken down. Favre overruled the objection and
noted that even though Vinatonka was not a Christian, these were ideals by which all
“red-blooded” Americans should live. Because Vinatonka waived his right to a jury trial
the judge decided the case and found the defendant guilty. After telling him, “Thou shall
not steal,” he sentenced Vinatonka to three years in a state prison. On appeal
Vinatonka’s attorney argued that the trial was unfair and biased because it was
conducted under the auspices of Christian tenets that Vinatonka did not recognize,
which was a direct violation of the Establishment Clause. The appeals court in Alabama
affirmed the conviction and said there was no First Amendment problem. The case was
appealed to the Supreme Court.
As a justice on the Court, how would you rule given the line of Establishment Clause
cases decided by the Court? Should the judge be allowed to continue the prayers? Why
or why not? Is there a way that the prayers could be altered so that they would not
violate the Establishment Clause? How would you deal with the issue of the Ten
Commandments? Should they be taken down, or can they stay as a symbol of respect
for God? Finally, should Vinatonka be granted a new trial? Why or why not?
Be sure to cite cases from class to support your answers. There is no right answer, but
all your answers must be logical and supported with case law.
Answer:
*A. Varies
How far does executive privilege extend, according to the Court’s decision in United
States v. Nixon (1974)?
Answer:
*A. Varies
Randall Martinez, a Hispanic man, was convicted in a Texas court for the murder of a
security guard during a bank robbery. Texas allows for the death penalty to be given
when certain aggravating circumstances accompany a murder. A defendant may be
sentenced to death if any two of the following three factors are present. The jury must
consider (1) whether the murder was committed in the course of a robbery,; (2) whether
the murder was shamelessly gross and disgusting and (3) whether the murder victim
was a minor.
Prior to Martinez’s sentencing, the judge, William “Wild Bill” Houston, instructed the
jurors that all murders are inherently gross and disgusting and that they must include
that as one of the aggravating circumstances of this crime. He also said that Hispanics
are genetically prone to violent and anti-social behavior and are not fit for society. The
jury returned with a death sentence for Martinez, having found that the murder was
gross and disgusting, and that it was committed in the course of a robbery.
The intermediate court of appeals and the Texas Supreme Court upheld Martinez’s
conviction and the death sentence. In his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, Martinez
relied on the findings of a study conducted by researchers at Texas A&M University.
The study showed that, in Texas murder trials, Hispanic defendants were 40 percent
more likely than African American defendants, and 75 percent more likely than white
defendants to get the death penalty. defendants. In murder cases tried before Judge
Houston, 90 percent of Hispanic received the death penalty, but only 40 percent of
African American defendants and 25 percent of white defendants were sentenced to
death.
Based on this information, if you were a Supreme Court justice, would you overturn
Martinez’s sentence? How has the Supreme Court interpreted the Eighth Amendment’s
protection against cruel and unusual punishment in regard to the death penalty? What is
the primary limitation the Court has recognized on the application of the death penalty,
and does it apply to the Martinez case? Explain your reasoning and justify your opinion
with reference to cases involving the Eighth Amendment’s protection against cruel and
unusual punishment.
Answer:*A. Varies
In what way did the Court’s ruling in Gideon v. Wainwright extend the right to counsel?
Answer:
*A. Varies
Explain the two different interpretations of the Second Amendment. Which has the
Court (seemingly) adhered to? Why?
Answer:
*A. Varies
Justice Stevens argues that the circumstances in Raich are different from those in Lopez
or Morrison. What his rationale for this argument? Do you agree or disagree? Why?
Answer:
*A. Varies
What arguments did Justice Blackmun use to justify overruling National League of
Cities in Garcia v. SAMTA? Do you find his argument compelling? Why or why not?
Answer:
*A. Varies
The Framers of the U.S. Constitution would have great trouble recognizing today’s
presidency. The sentiment of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention was that
the Articles of Confederation were flawed because they did not provide for an
executive, but few would have supported the far-reaching powers wielded by modern
presidents. After what they had suffered under the British monarch, many delegates had
serious reservations about awarding too much authority to the executive branch. Those
who supported the New Jersey Plan envisioned a plural executive in which two or more
individuals would share the chief executive position as insurance against excessive
power accruing to a single person. The Framers would be amazed at the vast military
resources over which the president serves as commander in chief, to say nothing of the
hundreds of departments, agencies, and bureaus that constitute the executive branch.
Some scholars lay the blame (or credit, depending on your perspective) for this
“aggrandizement” of the American presidency directly on the Supreme Court. Do you
agree? Specifically, do you believe that the Court has been particularly generous to the
president in interpreting the scope of the office’s constitutional powers?
Why are restrictions on speech often associated with times of crisis?
Answer:
*A. Varies
Is Kelo consistent with Berman and Midkiff? If so, why? If not, why not? Who has the
more convincing argument on this issue, Stevens or O”Connor? Why?
Answer:
*A. Varies
How did the Twelfth Amendment change the procedures for selecting the president
through the Electoral College?
Answer:
*A. Varies
What did Alexis de Tocqueville observe about religion in America, and how does this
relate to religion in the nation today?
Answer:
*A. Varies
The Supreme Court has held that before interrogating suspects who are in custody,
police must warn them of their right to remain silent and the right to have counsel
present during questioning (Miranda v. Arizona, 1966). Unless suspects have received
these warnings, the statements they make cannot be used against them at trial. However,
the Court has substantially refined this requirement so that it applies only in certain
circumstances. Discuss the Court’s interpretation of “custodial interrogation” and
“coercive environments.” What do these terms mean, and what effect has the Court
recognized that these situations have on the admissibility of statements? As always,
discussion of the cases covered will enhance your answers.
Answer:*A. Varies
In a 2006 lawsuit, McAdams v. Bush, plaintiffs sought to overturn a section of Florida’s
voting law. The section in question, passed 142 years ago, bans voting by people with
felony convictions. Under this law, more than six hundred thousand people are barred
from voting, and one in ten African Americans is barred from voting. McAdams argues
that the law violates the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution. After winning his case
at trial, but losing in the state supreme court, McAdams asked the U.S. Supreme Court
to decide the case and ultimately to rule that the law violates the 1965 Voting Rights Act
as well as the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Given that other
states have restored voting rights to former convicts, how would you decide this
case? Be sure to make clear references to existing precedent to justify your decision.
Answer:*A. Varies
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).
While Terminator’s case against the Senate committee was pending in federal court, the
Senate decided to take action against him. In December 2006 it voted to exclude him
from the Senate and directed the Senate majority leader (a Democrat) to inform the
governor of California that the seat was vacant.
The governor, Dreg Mavis (another Democrat), not only was quick to call a new
election but also decided to run in itas the Democratic candidate to replace Terminator.
As it turned out, and much to the delight of the Democratic Party, Mavis won the
election. He was sworn in as a member of the U.S. Senate in January 2007. Livid about
this turn of events, Terminator brought another suit against the Senate, claiming that it
did not have the power to deny him a seat since he met all the qualifications for office:
he was thirty, had been a U.S. citizen for more than nine years, and so on.
Believing that Terminator might have a plausible legal argument, and knowing that the
U.S. Supreme Court was controlled by Republicans, Democrats in the Senate decided to
take yet another step: they removed the Court’s authority to hear cases centering on the
power of Congress to refuse to seat members. Both houses quickly passed the
legislation, and the president signed it.
This step, however, did not deter Terminator. Not only did he proceed with his
challenge to the Senate’s authority to exclude him, but he also made an additional claim:
Congress cannot take away the Court’s jurisdiction to hear this class of case.
Suppose you are a justice on the Supreme Court. Would you decide this case on its
merits (that is, would you determine whether Congress could exclude members), or
would you dismiss it on the ground that the Court lacked jurisdiction to decide it and/or
that the dispute itself is nonjusticiable?
Why did the Court strike the Child Online Protection Act in Ashcroft [II]?
Answer:
A. Varies