Con Law Final

Congress wishes to incentivize the purchase of automobiles that have low emissions. It realizes that in order to create a market, enough hybrids and plug-in electric cars have to be sold for manufacturers to realize economies of scale and begin to reduce the prices of the cars. Congress, therefore, passes legislation that imposes a $10,000 environmental mitigation fee on the purchase of cars powered by internal combustion engines. The legislation prohibits reducing the sales price of cars to mitigate the cost to the purchaser. The revenue from the fee is collected by the Environmental Protection Agency, which uses it to subsidize alternative energy projects. Carmakers and dealers challenge the constitutionality of the fee in federal court. Which of the following would be least useful in defending the constitutionality of the fee? (A) Congress's power to regulate for the general welfare (B) The Necessary and Proper Clause (C) The Commerce Clause (D) The Taxing Clause

(A) Congress's power to regulate for the general welfare

In 1989, Congress enacted a law providing that "no limitations on the sale of genetically modified food may be imposed by the United States except by an act of Congress." Last year, after a serious public health scare related to genetically modified vegetables, Congress adopted a new law authorizing the President to take "any necessary and appropriate action to protect the safety and security of the national food supply." Five days after the law was enacted, the President issued an executive order "pursuant to her executive powers under Article II" that severely restricts the production or sale of genetically modified food within the United States for a 90-day period until their safety can be assured." In the weeks after the executive order, Congress took no action to endorse, overrule, or condemn the President's executive order. ABC Foods, a manufacturer of genetically modified food, filed suit alleging that the President exceeded her Article II powers when she issued the executive order. A reviewing court is most likely to hold that the executive order is: (A) Constitutional, because Congress explicitly or implicitly approved of the President's actions. (B) Constitutional, because the executive order falls within the scope of the President's Commander-in-Chief power (C) Unconstitutional, because Congress explicitly or implicitly disapproved of the President's actions. (D) Unconstitutional, because Article II does not contain any explicit textual provisions related to food safety.

(A) Constitutional, because Congress explicitly or implicitly approved of the President's actions.

Congress enacts a block grant program that makes $4 billion of additional federal funds available to states that demonstrate a commitment to repairing their infrastructure. In order to apply for the grants, the statute explicitly requires a state to show that they have brought 70% of the bridges within their state up to federal safety standards established by the U.S. Department of Transportation. The Governor of New Jersey challenges the constitutionality of the grant program. A reviewing judge is most likely to declare the grant program: (A) Constitutional, because it is a permissible use of Congress' spending power. (B) Constitutional, because the grant operates as a tax and not a penalty. (C) Unconstitutional, because the grant program impermissibly coerces states to comply with federally mandated standards. (D) Unconstitutional, because infrastructure maintenance is a traditional state function.

(A) Constitutional, because it is a permissible use of Congress' spending power.

Recently, Congress established a committee within the Department of Defense to recommend areas where cuts could be made in the defense budget. According to the legislation, the committee—composed of individuals nominated by the President, the Speaker of the House, and the President of the Senate—makes recommendations, which then are subject to an up-or-down vote in Congress. No amendments are permitted to the recommendations. The goal is to make decisions unclouded by political considerations. After the first round of cuts were voted upon, a contractor whose project was cancelled on recommendation of the committee sued, claiming that the committee was unconstitutional. A reviewing court should: (A) Find for the contractor, because the committee's composition violated the Appointments Clause. (B) Find for the contractor, because the creation of the committee exceeded Congress's Article I powers. (C) Dismiss the suit, because Congress has the authority to establish the military's budget. (D) Dismiss the suit, because the suit was not ripe.

(A) Find for the contractor, because the committee's composition violated the Appointments Clause.

Oranges are among the most valuable agricultural crops in the State of Ames. Its growers have invested in developing a grading system that is regarded as the industry's gold standard, superior even to that of the federal government. Ames exports its oranges to, among other states, the neighboring State of Barr, which likewise grows oranges but does not have a separate grading system. Recently Barr's Secretary of Agriculture promulgated a regulation prohibiting the use of any but the federal grading system on oranges sold in the state. Ames growers sue in federal court, claiming that the regulation is unconstitutional. A reviewing court should: (A) Find for the growers because the regulation discriminates against the out-of-state oranges in its effects. (B) Find for the growers because the burden on interstate commerce clearly exceeds any possible local benefit. (C) Find for the State of Barr because the regulation is facially neutral. (D) Find for the State of Barr because it is a valid exercise of the police power.

(A) Find for the growers because the regulation discriminates against the out-of-state oranges in its effects.

In response to international pressure, the United States Congress recently voted to close "black sites" around the world where high-value detainees suspected of terrorism are held and relocate their occupants to the United States for trial or to be released. Congress gave the director of Homeland Security the authority to review individual cases and, if the director certifies that the detainee is no longer a danger to the United States or its citizens, release the detainee to his home country or any other country willing to take him. However, under the legislation, if one house of Congress expresses disagreement with the director by passing a resolution, the detainee may not be released. One of the detainees whose release was held up because of a House resolution expressing disapproval of the director's decision sues in federal court alleging that his continued detention is unconstitutional. A judge hearing the case should rule: (A) For the detainee, because the resolution did not meet the Constitution's bicamerality and presentment requirements. (B) For the detainee, because the legislation was an unconstitutional delegation of power by Congress.(C) For the government, because the legislation containing the one-house veto passed both Houses of Congress and was signed by the President. (D) For the government, because the one-house veto allows Congress to exercise oversight of the agency carrying out congressional directives.

(A) For the detainee, because the resolution did not meet the Constitution's bicamerality and presentment requirements.

As part of a state-wide infrastructure program, the State of Ames constructed and operated a factory that made bricks, cinder blocks, and other building material. The output was considered to be of high quality with numerous out-of-state contractors placing orders with the state factory. During a recent shortage, however, the factory refused to fill any out-of-state orders before in-state orders were filled. An out-of-state contractor sued in federal court, claiming that the new policy was unconstitutional. How should a reviewing judge rule? (A) For the state, because it is a market participant. (B) For the state, because it can favor its own citizens in times of shortage. (C) For the contractor, because the policy is facially discriminatory.(D) For the contractor, because the burden on interstate commerce is excessive.

(A) For the state, because it is a market participant.

After the President orders American troops into combat in Central America without a formal declaration of war from Congress, Erika, an anti-war activist and American citizen, files a suit in federal court alleging that the military action violates the Constitution because the President has exceeded her commander-in-chief powers under Article II. In response, the President files a motion to dismiss. A reviewing court is most likely to: (A) Grant the motion to dismiss, because Erika's case is non-justiciable. (B) Grant the motion to dismiss, because the President is relying upon inherent executive power under the Constitution. (C) Deny the motion to dismiss, because the Constitution requires a declaration of war in order for the President to order troops into combat. (D) Deny the motion to dismiss, because Erika has a cognizable injury.

(A) Grant the motion to dismiss, because Erika's case is non-justiciable.

James is a New York resident who was subject to a police search while he was on vacation in Nevada that he believes was motivated by racial profiling. Subsequently, James filed a suit in federal court seeking an injunction forbidding the Nevada state police from engaging in racial profiling at any point in the future. During discovery, James acknowledged that he had only been to Nevada once and did not have plans to return. The State then filed a summary judgment motion seeking to have the case dismissed. A reviewing court is most likely to: (A) Grant the motion, because James' injury is insufficient to establish Article III standing. (B) Grant the motion, because James can receive monetary damages for his injury. (C) Deny the motion, because plaintiffs in race discrimination cases are entitled to "special solicitude" when determining Article III standing. (D) Deny the motion, because James's injury is sufficient to establish Article III standing.

(A) Grant the motion, because James' injury is insufficient to establish Article III standing.

The State of Ames is home to a number of picturesque state parks established and maintained at state expense. The parks employ rangers who oversee the parks and lead tour groups on hikes. The rangers are versed in state history, geology, and dendrology, and provide commentary on the features of the park and the history of the state. To be an Ames state park ranger, however, one must be a resident of the State of Ames. A recent applicant was rejected for an open ranger position because he was a resident of the nearby State of Barr. He sued in federal court, claiming that the Ames law is unconstitutional. A reviewing judge should: (A) Invalidate the law under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV. (B) Invalidate the law, because the burdens on interstate commerce clearly exceed any local benefit.(C) Uphold the law, because Ames is a market participant. (D) Uphold the law, because there is no federal legislation on point.

(A) Invalidate the law under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV.

The State of Ames has a freedom of information act that permits citizens of Ames to file requests for particular types of information that the state must then provide. A citizen of Barr, a neighboring state, files a FOIA request and is denied because she is not a citizen of Ames. She files suit in federal court claiming the citizens-only provision is unconstitutional. She alleges that the citizens-only provision violates her fundamental right to compete economically with state citizens. (She obtains property records for clients.) Testimony at trial reveals that the state adopted the citizens-only provision to reduce work for state employees and that much of the information sought was available from other, open sources. If the citizens-only provision is upheld, it would likely be because: (A) Its adoption was not motivated by a desire to discriminate against noncitizens. (B) The burden on interstate commerce is minimal. (C) The law is facially neutral. (D) The market participant exception to the Privileges and Immunities Clause immunizes the state law from challenge.

(A) Its adoption was not motivated by a desire to discriminate against noncitizens.

Alarmed at the increase in obesity rates among school-age children nationwide, Congress wants states to do more to combat childhood obesity and increase physical fitness. Which of the following may Congress not do in its attempts to address the problem? (A) Pass a law requiring states to mandate two and a half hours of physical activity a week at school for children in grades K-6. (B) Pass a resolution urging states to mandate two and a half hours of physical activity a week at school for children in grades K-6. (C) Condition federal funding for education on a state mandating two and a half hours of physical activity a week at school for grades K-6. (D) Withhold 10% of federal funds for education for states that do not mandate two and a half hours of physical activity a week at school for grades K-6.

(A) Pass a law requiring states to mandate two and a half hours of physical activity a week at school for children in grades K-6.

Federal law prohibits the use of an instrumentality of interstate commerce to threaten another person. A defendant was convicted of violating that statute by using a telephone to threaten another person. She claims that her conviction was unconstitutional because both she and the victim were located in the same state. A reviewing court should: (A) Sustain her conviction, because Congress may regulate instrumentalities of interstate commerce, even if employed in a single state (B) Sustain her conviction if, in the aggregate, threats of violence against others substantially affected interstate commerce. (C) Reverse her conviction, because the threat did not cross state lines. (D) Reverse her conviction, because a threat is not economic activity.

(A) Sustain her conviction, because Congress may regulate instrumentalities of interstate commerce, even if employed in a single state

The State of Tennessee passes a law requiring all businesses that conduct more than $500,000 within the state to collect a sales tax and remit it to the state at the end of each fiscal year. BigCorp is a large internet retailer that has no physical presence within Tennessee but does $2 million of annual business with Tennessee residents through sales on the BigCorp web site. After the state asks BigCorp to collect Tennessee sales taxes, Big Corp files a lawsuit challenging the tax collection requirement as a violation of the Commerce Clause. A reviewing court is most likely to rule in favor of: (A) Tennessee, because BigCorp is engaged in activities that have a substantial nexus with the State. (B) Tennessee, because the law does not discriminate against out of state businesses on its face. (C) BigCorp, because they do not have a physical presence in the state of Tennessee. (D) BigCorp, because the Tennessee law discriminates against out of state businesses on its face.

(A) Tennessee, because BigCorp is engaged in activities that have a substantial nexus with the State.

To protest human rights abuses in a foreign country, the State of Ames passes a law prohibiting companies doing business with that country or its citizens who travel to that country from bidding on state contracts. Congress enacted a similar law, though its statute does not sanction individuals for merely traveling to that country. If a reviewing judge strikes down the Ames statute it is likely because: (A) The Ames statute poses an obstacle to congressional aims in the area of foreign policy. (B) The Ames statute is expressly preempted by the congressional statute. (C) It is impossible to comply with both federal and state laws. (D) Congress has preempted the field of civil rights law

(A) The Ames statute poses an obstacle to congressional aims in the area of foreign policy.

Ames City in the State of Ames recently decided to invest in city-wide Wi-Fi. As part of its investment, it required equipment be installed on the roofs of many office and apartment buildings in Ames City. One office building owner sued, claiming that the city had taken part of his property. A reviewing court should find for: (A) The owner, because there has been a permanent, physical occupation of his property. (B) The owner, because there is no public use. (C) The city, because the owner has not had the economic value of his office building reduced to zero. (D) The city, because the background principles of common law limit the ability of the landowner to recover.

(A) The owner, because there has been a permanent, physical occupation of his property.

The State of Ames is known for the abundance and variety of the edible sea life that live in the waters off its shores. Recently, however, the state has become concerned about population reduction among some of the more popular species, which the state attributes to overfishing. In an effort to restore the population, the state raised the price of commercial fishing licenses. In addition, it imposed a special "harm reduction fee" of $1000 on those who fish in Ames's waters but are not citizens of Ames. A commercial fisherman from the neighboring state of Barr challenged the fee, claiming that it is a violation of his Privileges and Immunities. In defending its law, which of the following would be most helpful to the state? (A) The population reduction coincided with an increase in the number of out-of-state commercial fishermen seeking licenses. (B) In-state commercial fishermen lobbied for the imposition of the fee. (C) Fishing is recreation and not a fundamental right (D) The state is trying to preserve its resources for its citizens.

(A) The population reduction coincided with an increase in the number of out-of-state commercial fishermen seeking licenses.

Federal law requires colleges, including state universities, to report certain information to the federal government such as the number of crimes that occurred on campus. If a reviewing court upheld the reporting requirement against a suit alleging the requirement violated the Constitution, it would likely be because: (A) The requirement requires the purely ministerial reporting of information only. (B) The Supremacy Clause requires state compliance with all duly enacted federal laws. (C) In the aggregate, campus crime substantially affects interstate commerce. (D) It is valid under the Necessary and Proper Clause.

(A) The requirement requires the purely ministerial reporting of information only.

Opticare operates low-cost, same-day service for prescription glasses. In many states, it either employs optometrists directly or leases space to independent optometrists who screen patients and write prescriptions for eyeglasses. The State of Ames prohibits doctors (including optometrists) from being employed directly by corporations. It also prohibits indirect arrangements that accomplish the same end. Opticare uses independent contractor arrangements to provide optometrists to corporations in other states. Opticare sues in federal court to have the law in the State of Ames invalidated. A reviewing court should: (A) Uphold the law because the law does not distinguish between in-state and out-of-state corporations. (B) Uphold the law because courts will defer to state regulation of health professionals.(C) Strike down the law because it is discriminatory. (D) Strike down the law because the burdens on Opticare exceed the local benefits.

(A) Uphold the law because the law does not distinguish between in-state and out-of-state corporations.

The State of Ames is home to a number of large and successful Christmas tree farms. Lately, however, the trees grown at the farms have succumbed to a fungus that threatens the industry. State officials traced the source of the fungus to Christmas trees brought in from other states, though it has not been able to narrow the source of the fungus down further. To save the industry, the legislature has banned the importation, cultivation, and sale of Christmas trees that have come from other states pending further investigation. The owners of an out-of-state Christmas tree wholesaler sue in federal court, claiming that the law is unconstitutional. A reviewing court should: (A) Uphold the law if the state demonstrates that there are no less discriminatory means available to it to mitigate the spread of fungus. (B) Uphold the law because the benefits of the law are not clearly exceeded by the burdens on interstate commerce. (C) Strike down the law because it is facially discriminatory. (D) Strike down the law because the legislature had a protectionist motive.

(A) Uphold the law if the state demonstrates that there are no less discriminatory means available to it to mitigate the spread of fungus.

Congress passes legislation that appropriates foreign aid in the form of disaster relief and delegates power to the President to release the aid to foreign countries at his discretion. In deciding whether and how much aid to release, the legislation instructs the President to consider "the scale of the disaster in humanitarian terms" and the "state of relations between the recipient and the United States." Is the delegation of power to the President constitutional? (A) Yes, because the legislation furnishes an intelligible principle (B) Yes, because the President has the sole responsibility for foreign affairs (C) No, because legislative power may not be redelegated (D) No, because the standards provided for guidance are too vague

(A) Yes, because the legislation furnishes an intelligible principle

The State of Ames is a mecca for big game hunters. Tourists come from other states for guided hunts. The State limits the number of guide licenses to prevent overhunting; as a result, guides tend to make a good deal of money. The State recently passed a law prohibiting residents of states other than Ames from obtaining state hunting guide licenses. Which of the following furnishes the strongest basis for a constitutional challenge to the statute? (A) The Due Process Clause (B) Article IV's Privileges and Immunities Clause (C) The Equal Protection Clause (D) The Full Faith and Credit Clause

(B) Article IV's Privileges and Immunities Clause

In response to complaints about a rash of mergers between U.S. and foreign companies driven by a desire to avoid the United States' high corporate tax rate, Congress authorized the director of the Internal Revenue Service to appoint a board of three experts who would review proposed mergers for business purpose. If the merger is found to be for a valid business purpose it is allowed to proceed. If, however, the board finds that the merger's main purpose is to minimize the payment of taxes, the corporation is subject to a one-time tax on earnings that can equal many millions of dollars. The members of the board, moreover, cannot be removed except for cause, and then only by the director of the IRS. DrugCo.'s proposed merger with a foreign company was found to be primarily to reduce DrugCo.'s tax bill and taxed accordingly. DrugCo. sues, claiming that the appointment of the board was unconstitutional because they were not appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Are the appointment and removal provisions for the board constitutional? (A) The appointment provision is constitutional, but the removal provision is not. (B) Both the appointment and removal provisions are constitutional. (C) The appointment provision is unconstitutional, but the removal provision is not. (D) Both provisions are unconstitutional.

(B) Both the appointment and removal provisions are constitutional.

LawOrg, a public interest organization, brought a civil suit in federal district court asserting violations of the federal Open Meetings Act by the executive branch. As part of the suit, LawOrg asked the court to issue a subpoena for written notes taken by the President during a meeting with Chinese officials about a new trade agreement. The President responded by asserting executive privilege. A reviewing court is most likely to: (A) Deny the subpoena, because the President enjoys an absolute privilege over confidential documents. (B) Deny the subpoena, because in this situation, the President is entitled to deference in the assertion of executive privilege.(C) Grant the subpoena, because the need for the fair administration of justice outweighs the need for confidential communications. (D) Grant the subpoena, because the subpoena would not constitute an unwarranted impairment of the executive branch's ability to perform its constitutional duties.

(B) Deny the subpoena, because in this situation, the President is entitled to deference in the assertion of executive privilege.

Following a close vote in Congress resulting in its narrow passage, a law that authorizes electronic surveillance of those suspected of having ties to terrorist groups is signed by the President. A representative who voted against the bill alleging it was unconstitutional files suit in federal district court seeking a declaration that the act is, in fact, unconstitutional. The government's response asks the court to dismiss the suit because it lacks jurisdiction. The judge should: (A) Dismiss the suit, because it presents a political question. (B) Dismiss the lawsuit, because the congressman lacks standing.(C) Hear the lawsuit, because the claim was brought by a member of Congress. (D) Hear the lawsuit, because the representative suffered injury-in-fact.

(B) Dismiss the lawsuit, because the congressman lacks standing.

After a federal judge is convicted on impeachment charges by a majority vote in the United States Senate based on sexual harassment allegations by former law clerks, the judge files suit in federal court asserting that his impeachment conviction was unconstitutional because the harassment was not a "high crime and misdemeanor" under Article II. A court reviewing the suit is most likely to: (A) Dismiss the suit, because the case involves politics. (B) Dismiss the suit, because the case is non-justiciable. (C) Hear the suit, because Article II provides a federal judicial remedy for impeachment convictions. (D) Hear the suit, because the judiciary has the final authority to interpret what constitutional provisions mean.

(B) Dismiss the suit, because the case is non-justiciable.

The President was impeached by the House after evidence surfaced that he had colluded with a foreign power to pursue a policy against a third country that was contrary to treaty obligations that the United States owed that country. Following a trial, the Senate convicted him and removed him from office by the requisite supermajority. The President then sued in federal court, claiming that he was denied due process and that the alleged offense, in any event, did not constitute a high crime or misdemeanor. Should the district court hear his case? (A) No, because the President lacks standing. (B) No, because the case presents a political question. (C) Yes, because the President suffered injury-in-fact. (D) Yes, because it the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.

(B) No, because the case presents a political question.

Article I gives Congress the power to "raise and support Armies" as well as "[t]o provide and maintain a Navy," but doesn't say anything about an air force. Is the United States Air Force unconstitutional? (A) No, because Congress may tax and spend for the general welfare (B) No, because the creation of an air force is necessary and proper to either the raising and supporting of armies or the provision and maintenance of a navy (C) Yes, because Congress's powers are expressly limited by Article I (D) Yes, because all powers not given to the federal government nor prohibited to the states are reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment

(B) No, because the creation of an air force is necessary and proper to either the raising and supporting of armies or the provision and maintenance of a navy

Congress wishes to incentivize the purchase of automobiles that have low emissions. It realizes that in order to create a market, enough hybrids and plug-in electric cars have to be sold for manufacturers to realize economies of scale and begin to reduce the prices of the cars. Congress, therefore, passes legislation that imposes a $10,000 environmental mitigation fee on the purchase of cars powered by internal combustion engines. The legislation prohibits reducing the sales price of cars to mitigate the cost to the purchaser. The revenue from the fee is collected by the Environmental Protection Agency, which uses it to subsidize alternative energy projects. Carmakers and dealers challenge the constitutionality of the fee in federal court.For purposes of this question, assume that the government defends the fee as a valid exercise of the Taxing Power. Which of the following would be most helpful to the challengers? (A) The lack of a scienter requirement (B) The involvement of the EPA in the collection of the tax (C) The fact the fee is intended to change behavior and discourage the purchase of internal combustion engine automobiles (D) The fact that Congress could ban internal combustion engines directly

(B) The involvement of the EPA in the collection of the tax

The State of Ames recently passed a law limiting the length of freight trains that passed through the state. The limits in the Ames law are stricter than those of any other state. A group of railroads challenged the law, claiming that the Ames law would result in the expenditure of millions of dollars in either shortening the trains or rerouting them around the state. At trial, the evidence showed that the shorter freight trains did not appreciably reduce derailments or other accidents. If the Ames law is invalidated it would mostly likely be because: (A) The law discriminates against interstate commerce. (B) The law's burdens on interstate commerce clearly exceed its benefits. (C) The law directly regulates interstate commerce. (D) The law regulates a national subject that should be regulated by Congress, if at all.

(B) The law's burdens on interstate commerce clearly exceed its benefits. These facts track those of "Southern Pacific v. Arizona," in which the Supreme Court struck down Arizona's restrictive train-length law after finding that its effects on safety were minimal but that the costs to railroads would be substantial. If there is no demonstrable safety benefit and a burden placed on interstate commerce, then it is likely to be invalidated under the "Pike" balancing prong of the dormant Commerce Clause. Therefore, B is the correct answer. The law is not discriminatory because it does not treat in-state and out-of-state railroads differently. Therefore, A is incorrect. C and D are incorrect because each states an obsolete test for the permissibility of state regulations of interstate commerce. The latter is the "Cooley v. Board of Wardens"national/local subject test, which was succeeded by the direct/indirect test.

In response to a terrorist attack on American soil, the President dispatches troops to a foreign country to eliminate the bases from which those terrorists had planned and trained for the attack. After several months of combat, Congress, unhappy with the progress of the operation, establishes a "Committee on the Conduct of the War," which issues a report calling for generals to be fired, troop levels to be increased, and tactics to be changed. The report forms the basis for legislation instructing the President to carry out the report's recommendations. The President refuses, and members of Congress sue over his refusal. If a reviewing court invalidates the statute, it would likely be because: (A) The statute violates the War Powers Clause. (B) The statute infringes on the President's powers as Commander-in-Chief. (C) The statute infringes on the President's exclusive power over foreign affairs. (D) The statute violates the Militia Clause.

(B) The statute infringes on the President's powers as Commander-in-Chief.

President Adams promises Marbury that he will appoint him to the next vacant judgeship in his administration. When the vacancy opens, it is that of the Chief Justice of the United States. Adams decides to appoint Marshall instead to become Chief Justice. Marbury sues in federal court claiming that the President promised him the next vacancy. A reviewing court should find for: (A) Marbury, because his legal rights to the position were violated when Adams broke his promise (B) Marbury, if he can demonstrate that he relied to his detriment on Adams's promise. (C) Adams, because the Constitution gives the President the power to make appointments in his discretion, and exercise of that discretion is not reviewable by the court. (D) Adams, because the President is immune from suit.

(C) Adams, because the Constitution gives the President the power to make appointments in his discretion, and exercise of that discretion is not reviewable by the court.

After Jane was injured in a workplace accident, she applied for federal disability benefits and was examined by Dr. Smith, a doctor employed full-time by the Social Security Administration to make recommendations to the agency about benefit eligibility. After the agency denied Jane's application for benefits based on Dr. Smith's initial examination, she filed numerous administrative appeals with the agency and lost. Later, after Jane discovered that a staff member at the Social Security Administration appointed Dr. Smith to her position, Jane filed a federal lawsuit alleging that Dr. Smith's appointment violated the Article II Appointments Clause. A reviewing court is most likely to rule that Dr. Smith's appointment is: (A) Unconstitutional under the Appointments Clause, because Dr. Smith was not directly appointed by the President, a Court of Law, or a Head of Department (B) Unconstitutional under the Appointments Clause, because Dr. Smith performs an ongoing statutory duty. (C) Constitutional under the Appointments Clause, because Dr. Smith does not exercise significant authority. (D) Constitutional under the Appointments Clause, because Dr. Smith is performing a core executive function.

(C) Constitutional under the Appointments Clause, because Dr. Smith does not exercise significant authority.

In a recent omnibus appropriations bill, Congress allocated a $5 million grant to the state of Maine to build a new Museum of Lobsters located somewhere along the Maine coast. After several media reports confirmed that the grant was included in the federal budget in order to encourage Maine's junior senator to vote for an unrelated environmental bill, plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in federal court alleging that Congress exceeded its constitutional powers in funding the Museum. A reviewing court is most likely to hold that the grant is: (A) Unconstitutional, because the provision does not serve the general welfare. (B) Unconstitutional, because the conditional spending provision is coercive. (C) Constitutional, because the provision falls within the scope of Congress' Spending power. (D) Constitutional, because the provision falls within the scope of Congress' general police power.

(C) Constitutional, because the provision falls within the scope of Congress' Spending power.

An unsuccessful applicant to the state medical college in the State of Ames sued the college in federal court, claiming that its use of race in admissions violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The applicant claimed that the admissions department attempted to match the percentages of racial minorities in each year's incoming class with the percentage of those minorities in the state population. While suit was pending, the reviewing court ordered the applicant to be admitted. The district court ruled for the applicant; the state appealed. While the case was on appeal, the applicant graduated. The reviewing court should: (A) Hear the case, because it is important to establish precedent.(B) Hear the case, because the applicant suffered injury. (C) Dismiss the case as moot. (D) Dismiss the case because the court would be rendering an advisory opinion.

(C) Dismiss the case as moot.

Despite being videotaped in public punching his wife, Frank, a member of House of Representatives, defiantly refuses to heed calls that he resign. His colleagues vote to expel him from the House by a two-thirds vote, pursuant to Article I, section 5, clause 3 of the Constitution. ("Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.") Frank sues the Speaker of the House and the House majority leader in federal district court claiming that his expulsion was actually for blowing the whistle on corruption in the House. The judge hearing the case should: (A) Hear the case, because Frank has standing. (B) Hear the case, because it is a proper case for judicial review. (C) Dismiss the case, because the text of the Constitution commits to each House alone the discretion to expel members with a two-thirds vote. (D) Dismiss the case, because it is moot.

(C) Dismiss the case, because the text of the Constitution commits to each House alone the discretion to expel members with a two-thirds vote.

After the U.S. Department of Transportation issued a new regulation allowing automakers to opt out of federal airbag requirements for certain vehicle models, the state of Idaho filed suit in federal court seeking to enjoin the regulation as a violation of the federal Administrative Procedure Act. Idaho's complaint alleges that the state will incur millions of dollars in additional medical costs if the rule is allowed to go into effect. In response, lawyers for the agency filed a motion to dismiss the suit, arguing that Idaho lacks Article III standing. A reviewing court is most likely to: (A) Dismiss the case, because Idaho's injury is speculative. (B) Dismiss the case, because Idaho is asserting a generalized grievance. (C) Hear the case, because Idaho has Article III standing. (D) Hear the case, because Idaho has third-party standing.

(C) Hear the case, because Idaho has Article III standing.

Article I, § 9, cl. 7 states that "a regular Statement of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time." The budget of the intelligence community, however, is classified and never published. A concerned citizen files suit against the proper parties in federal court alleging that the classification of the intelligence budget is unconstitutional and should be made public. Should a judge hear the case? (A) Yes, because violation of an explicit constitutional provision is a concrete and particularized harm. (B) Yes, because the unconstitutional expenditure of taxpayer money is a concrete and particularized harm. (C) No, because the plaintiff lacks standing on account of lacking a sufficiently personal injury. (D) No, because a favorable judicial decision would not redress the plaintiff's alleged harm.

(C) No, because the plaintiff lacks standing on account of lacking a sufficiently personal injury.

Fearful that Americans are not saving enough for retirement and that the federal government will be required to spend more in the future to support retired workers to maintain their standard of living, Congress passes, and the President signs, an act that requires every adult to set up a 401K retirement account and fund it with no less than 15% of their monthly income until retirement or age 65, whichever comes later. Andy sues, claiming that the legislation exceeds Congress's Article I powers. Which of the following statements is most likely true? (A) The act is a permissible exercise of Congress's power to pass laws for the general welfare.(B) The act is a permissible exercise of Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce, because, in the aggregate, failure to save adequately for retirement would substantially affect interstate commerce. (C) The act is unconstitutional, because it regulates an individual's inactivity. (D) The act is unconstitutional, because Congress is regulating intrastate activity.

(C) The act is unconstitutional, because it regulates an individual's inactivity. After "National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius," it appears that there are five votes for the proposition that the regulation of inactivity, or the forced participation in a particular market, is not within Congress's Commerce Clause power. Therefore, C is the best answer. A is incorrect because Congress has no such power. It may tax and spend for the general welfare, but there is no power to legislate for the general welfare granted in Article I. B is false because that was precisely the argument that five members of the Court rejected in "NFIB." D is incorrect because Congress may regulate intrastate activity as long as it substantially affects interstate commerce.

The State of Ames is known for the quality of produce grown in the state. Concerned about its high unemployment rate, the state recently passed a law requiring that produce be packed in the state before it is shipped elsewhere. A company located in the neighboring State of Barr sought to have the law declared unconstitutional. It preferred to ship the produce out of Ames and have it packed in Barr before being distributed. Which of the following statements about the law is likely true? (A) The law is constitutional, because it is a valid exercise of the state's police power. (B) The law is constitutional, because the state is a market participant. (C) The law is unconstitutional, because it discriminates against interstate commerce. (D) The law is unconstitutional, because the burdens on interstate commerce clearly exceed the local benefits.

(C) The law is unconstitutional, because it discriminates against interstate commerce.

A defendant was convicted in state court on drug charges resulting from a search pursuant to a traffic stop that resulted in the discovery of a large amount of narcotics in the car. The defendant appealed his conviction, arguing that the stop and the search violated his constitutional rights. The state Supreme Court concluded that the search violated the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The court also held that the search violated similar state constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. The state petitions the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. If the Court declines to address the merits, what is the likely reason? (A) The Court will not review the constitutional decisions of state courts unless a federal statute is involved. (B) The case presents a nonjusticiable political question.(C) The state court decision rested on adequate and independent state grounds. (D) The Court defers to state court interpretation of the U.S. Constitution in state cases.

(C) The state court decision rested on adequate and independent state grounds.

Two years ago, President Jones nominated Angelica Smith to be Secretary of Education. Due to an ongoing political dispute, the Senate refused to hold a confirmation vote on Smith's appointment. Last month, during the Senate's Thanksgiving break, the Senate unanimously adopted a resolution on November 20 to convene a "pro forma session" on November 23. The 30-second long pro forma session occurred, the Senate immediately went into an intra-session recess, and then reconvened a week later on December 1. During that seven-day break, the President invoked the Recess Appointments Clause to formally appoint Smith as Secretary of Education. If subject to a constitutional challenge, a reviewing court reviewing would likely conclude that Smith's appointment is: (A) Constitutional, because the Recess Appointments Clause allows the President to appoint executive branch officers during any Congressional recess without Senate confirmation. (B) Constitutional, because under Article II, the President has full authority to nominate the appointee of their choice for cabinet-level positions. (C) Unconstitutional, because the Senate was not in recess. (D) Unconstitutional, because the Constitution requires presidential appointments to satisfy Article I's bicameralism requirement.

(C) Unconstitutional, because the Senate was not in recess.

In an effort to reform federal criminal justice policy, Congress enacts the Sane Criminal Justice Act, a federal statute that would allow the President to refuse to sign into law any individual provision contained within a federal criminal justice statute if the President determines that the provision would "not serve the nation's best interests." Under the Act, the statute in question would go into effect once the President signs it into law with the exception of the invalidated provision. A reviewing court would most likely find the Act: (A) Constitutional, because the Constitution vests the power to veto bills enacted by Congress in the President. (B) Constitutional, because Congress has broad power to delegate legislative authority to the President. (C) Unconstitutional, because the law violates Article I, Section 7's procedural requirements (D) Unconstitutional, because the law lacks an intelligible principle to guide the President's exercise of discretion.

(C) Unconstitutional, because the law violates Article I, Section 7's procedural requirements

The year is 1910. In response to skyrocketing prices for baseball tickets, the City of New York passes an ordinance setting a maximum price for tickets to professional baseball games. The ordinance is challenged in federal court by a New York professional baseball team as a violation of the 14th Amendment. A reviewing judge would most likely find that the ordinance is: (A) Constitutional, because the ordinance falls within the scope of the state's police power. (B) Constitutional, because the ordinance relates to an activity that substantially affects commerce. (C) Unconstitutional, because the ordinance infringes on the economic liberties protected under the Due Process Clause. (D) Unconstitutional, because the ordinance infringes on one of the privileges or immunities protected under the Privileges or Immunities Clause.

(C) Unconstitutional, because the ordinance infringes on the economic liberties protected under the Due Process Clause.

Congress passed a controversial bill regulating firearms. The bill's constitutionality was questioned, and the bill was challenged in court. Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the provision. A sunset provision in the original bill meant that Congress had to reauthorize the bill every two years. The first time the bill was up for reauthorization, the President vetoed it. His veto message asserted that the measure was unconstitutional. Is the President's action constitutional? (A) No, because the president may not override Supreme Court decisions. (B) No, because it is the duty of the Supreme Court to say what the law is. (C) Yes, because the president is exercising discretion committed to him by the Constitution. (D) Yes, because the executive veto is a proper check on the Court's power of judicial review.

(C) Yes, because the president is exercising discretion committed to him by the Constitution.

Worried that federal judges lack the specialized expertise necessary to correctly decide cases involving new technology, Congress creates the federal Court of Technology, staffed with judges who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate and who otherwise are like federal district court and courts of appeals judges. Cases denominated "technology cases" in the statute must be filed in the new court. Appeals from the trial courts go to a new "Court of Technology Appeals" and are heard by panels of three Technology Appeals judges nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. In addition, the legislation creating these new courts removes technology cases from the appellate docket of the U.S. Supreme Court. Is the legislation constitutional? (A) No, because there must be an appeal from the Court of Technology Appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court (B) No, because the Constitution does not grant Congress the power to set the original jurisdiction of lower courts (C) Yes, under Article III (D) Yes, as long as technology cases have a substantial effect on interstate commerce when aggregated

(C) Yes, under Article III

Which of the following provides a textual basis for federal judges to invalidate statutes that violate the Constitution? (A) The Article III Arising Under Clause. (B) The Article III Vesting Clause.(C) The Article VI Oath Clause. (D) All of the above.

(D) All of the above.

The State of Ames passes a law mandating the use of Eludium Q36 in the manufacture of widgets. After evidence mounts that Eludium Q36 is carcinogenic, Congress bans the use of Eludium Q36 in widget manufacture. The State of Ames does not repeal its law. A widget manufacturing corporation based in Ames is fined after inspection reveals that it eliminated Eludium Q36 from its widget manufacturing process. Which of the following is the manufacturer's best argument? (A) Ames state law discriminates against interstate commerce (B) Ames state law violates the manufacturer's Privileges and Immunities. (C) Ames state law is expressly preempted (D) Ames state law is preempted, because it is impossible for the manufacturer to comply with both federal and state law.

(D) Ames state law is preempted, because it is impossible for the manufacturer to comply with both federal and state law.

In order to encourage citizens' vigilance in the defense of constitutional liberties, Congress passes a statute that authorizes suit in federal district court by "any person" who asserts a "credible claim" that any act of Congress or action of any executive official violates the Constitution. After reading a newspaper account of a "kill or capture list" of suspected terrorists that allegedly contains the names of American citizens, Rand sues in federal district court under the new statute. A reviewing court should: (A) Hear the suit, because Congress has empowered any person to bring suit. (B) Hear the suit, because the statute grants any person a procedural right, the violation of which satisfies Article III's standing requirements. (C) Dismiss the suit, because it is not ripe. (D) Dismiss the suit, because Congress cannot authorize courts to hear cases in which the plaintiff lacks a concrete injury.

(D) Dismiss the suit, because Congress cannot authorize courts to hear cases in which the plaintiff lacks a concrete injury.

The United States sued the State of Ames in federal court for alleged violations of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments for denying certain citizens the right to vote. The state objected, claiming that it was immune from suit. A reviewing court should: (A) Find for the state, because of the Eleventh Amendment. (B) Find for the state, because the regulation of elections is left to the states. (C) Find for the United States, because states can always be sued in federal court. (D) Find for the United States, because it may sue states in federal court despite the Eleventh Amendment.

(D) Find for the United States, because it may sue states in federal court despite the Eleventh Amendment.

Congress recently passed an immigration reform bill that provides a "path to citizenship" for those in the country illegally, as long as they have not committed a crime while in the country and pay any taxes owed. Those who had been convicted of any federal or state crime, however, were immediately deported. The President criticized this portion of the bill and instructed the head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement not to deport persons convicted of misdemeanors or non-violent felonies. As originally drafted, the bill gave the President discretionary power to halt deportations, but that provision was removed from the final version. Several governors of states with large numbers of illegal immigrants sued the President over his order. A reviewing court would most likely: (A) Find for the President, because he has the power to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. (B) Find for the President, because he has plenary power in the field of foreign affairs. (C) Find for the governors, because Congress, not the President, has the power to make law. (D) Find for the governors, because the President is acting in direct opposition to the expressed will of Congress.

(D) Find for the governors, because the President is acting in direct opposition to the expressed will of Congress.

The State of Ames requires all new office buildings to be fitted with a state-monitored box on the roof of the building that the State reads to monitor energy consumption by the building. The owners of a new building sue, claiming that the state's action constitutes a taking. A reviewing federal judge should: (A) Find for the state, because there is a valid public use. (B) Find for the state, because the owners' building still has economically beneficial use. (C) Find for the plaintiffs, because the requirement interferes with the owners' investment-backed expectations. (D) Find for the plaintiffs, because there has been a physical occupation in the form of the monitors.

(D) Find for the plaintiffs, because there has been a physical occupation in the form of the monitors.

Congress concluded that, in order to achieve economies of scale, more Americans should buy electric vehicles. In order to stimulate demand, Congress passed legislation requiring that the second car purchased by a household, and each subsequent car purchased, be an electric vehicle. If the act is challenged in federal court, a reviewing judge should: (A) Uphold the act, if it finds that Congress had a rational basis for concluding that widespread adoption of electric vehicles will substantially affect interstate commerce. (B) Uphold the act, because it is a regulation of instrumentalities of interstate commerce. (C) Invalidate the act, because the purchase of a car is intrastate activity. (D) Invalidate the act, because it forces individuals to participate in a particular market.

(D) Invalidate the act, because it forces individuals to participate in a particular market.

In order to pass comprehensive immigration reform, Congress included some "get tough" measures intended to expedite the deportation of persons in the United States illegally who commit other crimes. The bill requires state and local law enforcement officials to check the immigration status of persons they detain or arrest. The chief of an overworked rural sheriff's department sues, claiming that the requirement is unconstitutional. A reviewing court should: (A) Uphold the provision, because it is necessary and proper to Congress's Article I power to prescribe uniform rules for naturalization. (B) Uphold the provision, because it is the supreme law of the land, which state officials must obey. (C) Invalidate the provision, because it exceeds Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. (D) Invalidate the provision, because it impermissibly commandeers state executive officials.

(D) Invalidate the provision, because it impermissibly commandeers state executive officials.

Congress passes, and the President signs, a bill allowing Congress to retain some authority over executive agencies. If both houses of Congress, by majority vote, object within ten days of the announcement of a new agency regulation, those regulations do not go into effect. Is such a law constitutional? (A) Yes, because the bill satisfies the constitutional requirements of bicamerality and presentment. (B) Yes, because the bill furthers Congress's responsibility to see that the laws be faithfully executed. (C) No, because Congress may not dictate how executive agencies implement statutes. (D) No, because the law violates separation of powers principles.

(D) No, because the law violates separation of powers principles.

Congress passes a law criminalizing the failure to make child support payments owed to a former spouse. A defendant challenges the law, arguing that it exceeds Congress's legislative powers in Article I. Which of the following arguments would be least helpful to the government in defending the law? (A) Child support payments are things in interstate commerce. (B) Child support payments, in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce. (C) The law contains findings detailing the effects that failure to make child support payments have on interstate commerce. (D) States have generally enforced laws criminalizing the failure to make child support payments.

(D) States have generally enforced laws criminalizing the failure to make child support payments.

The State of Ames passed a law greatly limiting the number of hunting licenses nonresidents could purchase during any given season. The number of licenses available to Ames residents was unlimited. Thereafter, a court invalidated the Ames law as a violation of the dormant Commerce Clause. Congress then passed a law explicitly permitting states to limit the number of hunting licenses given to nonresidents or to bar them from hunting altogether. Ames then re-enacted the law that was previously struck down. Which of the following statements is true? (A) The congressional statute is unconstitutional, because Congress cannot legislatively overturn decisions of federal courts. (B) The Ames statute is constitutional, because it does not involve the fundamental rights of nonresidents. (C) The congressional statute is constitutional, because Congress may enforce the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states. (D) The Ames statute is constitutional, because Congress may authorize state action that would otherwise violate the dormant Commerce Clause.

(D) The Ames statute is constitutional, because Congress may authorize state action that would otherwise violate the dormant Commerce Clause.

The United States recently began normalizing relations with Cuba. When Fidel Castro took over in 1959, the government expropriated businesses and property—much of which was owned by U.S. citizens. At present, there are around 6,000 claims pending against Cuba now worth nearly $7 billion. As part of the normalization process, the President negotiates an executive agreement with Cuba. He does not submit it to Congress for approval. Under the agreement, businesses and individuals with claims against the country will receive neither cash nor bonds but will receive economic development incentives—like tax exemptions—for reestablishing businesses in the country. The President's executive agreement is counter to a law passed by Congress requiring that all such claims be settled for cash or its equivalent. One of the businesses having claims against Cuba sues, citing the congressional statute. A reviewing court should rule for: (A) The plaintiff, because Congress has the power to regulate foreign commerce. (B) The plaintiff, because the agreement was not approved by two thirds of the Senate. (C) The President, because he has sole responsibility for conducting foreign affairs. (D) The President, because he has the power to settle claims with foreign countries using executive agreements.

(D) The President, because he has the power to settle claims with foreign countries using executive agreements.

The Air Force constructed a test flight facility near an existing poultry farm. The noise and commotion from the base has seriously harmed egg production, and many of the chickens have succumbed to stress. The farmer sues the government, demanding compensation for the economic losses. The government responds by filing a motion to dismiss. The court should rule for: (A) The Air Force, because there was no permanent, physical occupation. (B) The Air Force, because the land still retains some economic value. (C) The farmer, because he has had the economic value of his operation reduced to zero. (D) The farmer, because the harm is a compensable taking.

(D) The farmer, because the harm is a compensable taking.

Congress recently passed a law prohibiting any public or private employer in or affecting interstate commerce from requiring, as a condition of employment, that applicants disclose their social media passwords so that their accounts could be analyzed for inappropriate content. The State of Ames sued, claiming that the federal law could not constitutionally be applied to states. Which of the following statements is likely true? (A) The law is unconstitutional, because it commandeers state employees in the implementation of a federal program. (B) The law is unconstitutional, because it exceeds Congress's Article I powers. (C) The law is constitutional, because state officials are required by Article VI to assist the federal government in implementing valid federal law. (D) The law is constitutional, because state officials must comply with a valid federal law.

(D) The law is constitutional, because state officials must comply with a valid federal law.

The States of Ames and Barr both produce beef cattle. The State of Ames has invested a great deal of money developing a method of grading beef that is recognized as the industry standard. The state grading system, in fact, is regarded as superior to the one developed by the United States Department of Agriculture. The State of Barr has no grading system of its own; its beef producers use the system developed by the USDA. Claiming that it wishes to avoid consumer confusion, the State of Barr passed a law that prohibits the display of beef for sale of any grade other than that of the USDA. Ames beef producers sue in federal court, claiming that the Barr law is unconstitutional. A reviewing court should rule for: (A) The state, because it is a valid exercise of the police power. (B) The state, because the law applies to in-state and out-of-state beef equally. (C) The plaintiffs, because the law unduly burdens interstate commerce. (D) The plaintiffs, because the law effectively discriminates against Ames beef.

(D) The plaintiffs, because the law effectively discriminates against Ames beef.

Congress passed, and the President signed, a law requiring persons with ties to organizations designated by the State Department to be "terror groups" to register with the federal government. The State of Ames passed a similar law but imposed additional restrictions on such persons, including making them ineligible for certain social programs. Congress had considered, but rejected, such restrictions in the final version of the law that passed and was sent to the President. If a reviewing court invalidated the state law, it would likely be because: (A) The federal government has exclusive control over foreign affairs. (B) It would be impossible to comply with both federal and state law. (C) The state law discriminates against foreign commerce. (D) The state law presents an obstacle to congressional goals.

(D) The state law presents an obstacle to congressional goals.

The State of Ames recently enacted an individual income tax on all income earned by its citizens. Ames is home to a number of federal employees, one of whom files suit in state court, claiming that the income tax is unconstitutional. A reviewing judge should find for: (A) The federal employee, because the state may not tax the federal government or its instrumentalities. (B) The federal employee, unless Congress has consented to the tax. (C) The state, because the Constitution does not expressly limit its right to tax the federal government. (D) The state, as long as the tax is nondiscriminatory.

(D) The state, as long as the tax is nondiscriminatory.

The owners of a historic landmark in Ames City wished to make substantial alterations to the property, which had to be approved by the city's historic landmark design committee. The committee denied the owners their desired permit. The owners sued, claiming that the city's denial was a compensable taking. Which of the following statements is true? (A) There is no compensable taking, because there is no physical occupation. (B) There is no compensable taking, because the owners have not lost all economically beneficial use. (C) There is a compensable taking, because the regulation in question is the equivalent of physical occupation. (D) There is a compensable taking only if owners could prove the regulation interfered with investment-backed expectations and had a large economic impact on them.

(D) There is a compensable taking only if owners could prove the regulation interfered with investment-backed expectations and had a large economic impact on them.

Congress recently passed, and the President signed, a nationwide ban on sports betting. The ban was passed under authority of Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce. A zealous federal prosecutor in the State of Ames sought the convictions of five persons who ran an inter-office pool betting on the outcome of the annual college basketball tournament. The defendants objected that the office was a local one, servicing customers in Ames, and that there was no connection to interstate commerce. The defendants were convicted and appealed their conviction. A reviewing judge should: (A) Reverse the convictions, because the betting pool was noncommercial. (B) Reverse the convictions, because the defendants were not engaged in interstate commerce.(C) Uphold the convictions, because Congress may regulate interstate commerce for the general welfare. (D) Uphold the convictions, because Congress could have rationally concluded that in the aggregate intrastate sports betting substantially affected interstate commerce.

(D) Uphold the convictions, because Congress could have rationally concluded that in the aggregate intrastate sports betting substantially affected interstate commerce.

To deal with increasingly complex intellectual property questions, Congress established a specialized court and required that all statutorily defined "intellectual property" cases be filed there exclusively. Appeals are taken to a special intellectual property court of appeals and may, from there, be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Is such an arrangement constitutional? (A) No, because the original jurisdiction of the courts is set in the Constitution. (B) No, because Congress has no power to establish specialized Article III courts. (C) Yes, because Congress has plenary power over the jurisdiction of the federal courts.(D) Yes, because Congress may set the jurisdiction of inferior courts it creates.

(D) Yes, because Congress may set the jurisdiction of inferior courts it creates.

Country A underwent a violent civil war in which opposing sides were made up of ethnic groups that had comprised the country's population. One group managed to establish de facto control of a third of Country A and declared themselves to be the State of B, with a government, social services, and the like. The President of the United States instructed the State Department to recognize the State of B as a sovereign country and to open an embassy there. When the civil war began, however, Country A had lobbied Congress for legislation that declared the policy of the United States not to recognize any state claiming to exercise sovereignty over any part of Country A. The President sought a declaratory judgment in federal court that the law was unconstitutional. If a judge found in favor of the President, it would likely be because: (A) The President has exclusive control over foreign affairs. (B) Congress may not interfere with the President's power to recognize foreign governments.(C) The legislation exceeded Congress's Article I powers. (D) Congress may not negotiate treaties.

B) Congress may not interfere with the President's power to recognize foreign governments.

State X enacted a statute requiring all teachers preparing students for the Multistate portion of the state's bar examination to obtain a license from State Z. A dean from an out of state law school was charged with violating the statute after giving a lecture on the Multistate bar exam in State Z without first obtaining a license. Which of the following would be the dean's best defense under the Commerce Clause? A)the dean only gave an occasional lecture when no licenses personnel were available B) the dean gave the lecture to the students free of charge C) the only requirement for a license is that the licensee reside in the state

C) the only requirement for a license is that the licensee reside in the state

Congress enacts a law establishing a new Federal Privacy Administration, an agency led by a five-person Commission to set federal privacy policies for technology companies. Each Commissioner is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate and can only be removed from office prior to the expiration of their 11-year terms "for cause." The new agency is led by a Chief Federal Privacy Officer, who is appointed by the Commissioners and can only be fired by the Commissioners for "good cause." If the process for appointing and removing the Chief Federal Privacy Officer is subject to a constitutional challenge, a reviewing court is likely to hold that the process is: (A) Constitutional, because the Officer is performing a purely executive function. (B) Constitutional, because the Commissioners are appointed by the President. (C) Unconstitutional, because Congress cannot impose "for cause" removal requirements on executive branch officials. (D) Unconstitutional, because the process places unconstitutional limits on the President's ability to control or supervise the executive branch.

D) Unconstitutional, because the process places unconstitutional limits on the President's ability to control or supervise the executive branch.

A federal study found that, in the majority of school shootings, the guns were purchases within one mile of the school. In order to prevent further school shootings, Congress enacted a statute requiring each state legislature to enact a state law prohibiting the sale of guns that had previously been transported in interstate commerce within on mile of a school. Congress has established a substantial record to show that the limitation on gun sales is the least restrictive means to achieve the government's interest in curbing school shootings. Is the federal statute constitutional? a) yes, because it was enacted pursuant to Congress's Commerce Clause power b) no, because the 2nd amendment prohibits federal legislation limiting the sale of guns c) no, because Congress lacks the authority to require a state to enact any specific legislation d) yes, because it is the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling government interest

c) no, because Congress lacks the authority to require a state to enact any specific legislation 10th amendment specifies that all powers not specifically assigned tot he fed. government are reserved to the states and the people. the ability to enact state legislation is an exclusive state power, the fed. government cannot directly compel a state to enact legislation. (anti-commandeering)

Congress enacted a statute establishing a program to protect areas in the US that are rich in biological diversity. The program is consistent with the terms of an environmental treaty that the President objected to and did not sign. The statute creates an executive agency and authorizes it to designate parts of federal lands for inclusion in the program in accordance with criteria taken from the treaty. In an inseparable provision, the state further provides that the agency must report each designation to a committee of Congress and that the committee may overturn the agency's designation by a majority vote. Why is the statute unconstitutional? a) it requires an executive agency to report its decision to congress b) it interferes with the exercise of the President's paramount authority in foreign affairs c) it constitutes an invalid delegation of legislative authority to an executive agency d) it authorizes a committee of Congress to overturn an executive decision

d) it authorizes a committee of Congress to overturn an executive decision

A state passes a statute requiring all employers in the state to provide a medical insurance plan for full-time employees. A trade assoc. to which many state employers belong brings suit in federal court, asking the court to strike down the statute as unconstitutional. Which of the following best reflects the burden of proof in this case? a) the trade assoc. bears the burden of proving the statute is not necessary to achieve a compelling state interest b) the state bears the burden of proving the statute is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest c) the state bears the burden of proving the statute is rationally related to a legitimate state interest d) the trade assoc. bears the burden of proving the statute is not rationally related to a legitimate state interest.

d) the trade assoc. bears the burden of proving the statute is not rationally related to a legitimate state interest.