BAR EXAM - Missed Con Law Questions

Seeking to prevent misleading advertisements, a state law permits dentists to advertise that they are specialists only in areas recognized by the American Dental Association (ADA) as specialties. A dentist whose practice is limited to implant dentistry, an area of specialty that is not recognized by the ADA, has challenged the law as a violation of her First Amendment Free Speech Rights as made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Of the following, which would be best argument that the state can advance for upholding this law? A. An advertisement by a dentist as a specialist in a non-ADA recognized area is inherently misleading. B. Commercial speech is not protected by the First Amendment. C. The law satisfies the strict scrutiny test. D. The state has a substantial interest in protecting consumers.

A. An advertisement by a dentist as a specialist in a non-ADA recognized area is inherently misleading. **Commercial speech (i.e., advertising and similarly economically oriented expression) is entitled to an intermediate level of First Amendment protection. A finding that the prohibited advertisements would be "inherently misleading" would determinatively establish that the speech is unprotected.

The United States Department of State adopted a rule that required passports issued to U.S. citizens born in a disputed territory to list their city of birth, rather than the country of birth, because the President had not formally recognized the foreign government that occupied the disputed territory. In response, Congress enacted legislation that required the Department of State to issue passports that listed the disputed territory as the birthplace of U.S. citizens who were born there. A U.S. citizen born in the disputed territory applied for a passport, which was issued by the Department of State. Though the citizen listed the territory on his application, the Department of State listed the citizen's city of birth as his birthplace. Wanting his passport reissued with the territory listed, the citizen seeks to enjoin enforcement of the Department of State's rule in an appropriate federal district court. How should the court respond? A. Deny the injunction, because the President has exclusive power to recognize foreign governments. B. Grant the injunction, because Congress may override the President's decision to recognize foreign governments. C. Refuse to hear the matter as a nonjusticiable political question. D. Refuse to hear the matter because the citizen lacks standing.

A. Deny the injunction, because the President has exclusive power to recognize foreign governments.

In order to discourage the transfer of electrical products that could threaten national security and to raise revenue, Congress enacted a statute that imposed a tax on the export of electrical products containing military-grade technology to countries that were determined to be hostile to the United States. Is the federal tax likely constitutional? A. No, because Congress does not have the power to tax exported goods. B. No, because the tax unduly burdens foreign commerce. C. Yes, because the commerce clause gives Congress the power to regulate foreign commerce. D. Yes, because the taxing and spending clause gives Congress the power to tax for any public purpose.

A. No, because Congress does not have the power to tax exported goods. **limit on congress's taxing & spending power is on exported goods

To protect state resources from over-hunting, a state agency enacted a regulation that established a lottery for permits to hunt elk for recreation in the state. The regulation capped the number of permits granted to out-of-state residents. Litigation over the regulation resulted in a decision by a federal appellate court that the regulation violated the dormant commerce clause by unconstitutionally discriminating against out-of-state commerce. In response to this decision, Congress enacted a statute permitting any state to regulate the fish and wildlife within its borders, including by issuing regulations that differentiate between residents and nonresidents of the state. Subsequently, a state agency in a different state issued a regulation that prohibited out-of-state recreational hunters from hunting elk within the state. A group of out-of-state residents who lead elk-hunting expeditions sued the state official responsible for enforcing the regulation, seeking a declaratory judgment that the regulation violates the dormant commerce clause. If the court determines that hunting is an economic activity that substantially affects interstate commerce, should the court grant the declaratory judgment? A. No, because Congress granted states the right to discriminate against out-of-state residents. B. No, because hunting is a traditional area of state regulation. C. Yes, because the federal law improperly invades the province of the court. D. Yes, because the regulation discriminates against out-of-state residents.

A. No, because Congress granted states the right to discriminate against out-of-state residents.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ("Corps") managed a reservoir and allocated water from the reservoir between two states. One of the states, dissatisfied with the allocation, sued the Corps in a federal district court. The other state, supporting the current allocation, intervened as a defendant and filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, claiming that the United States Supreme Court should hear the matter. The federal district court properly found that the plaintiff-state was seeking relief from the Corps, not from the defendant-state. Based on this finding, the court held that the action did not involve a controversy between two states and that the federal district court therefore retained original jurisdiction over the action. The defendant-state has challenged this ruling. Is the federal district court constitutionally required to dismiss this action because original jurisdiction lies with the Supreme Court? A. No, because Congress has denied the Supreme Court exclusive original jurisdiction over a controversy involving only one state. B. No, because the Constitution only requires that the Supreme Court have appellate jurisdiction over a controversy involving a state. C. Yes, because the action involves a controversy between a state and an entity of the United States. D. Yes, because the underlying controversy involves two states.

A. No, because Congress has denied the Supreme Court exclusive original jurisdiction over a controversy involving only one state. **SCOTUS only has exclusive jurisdiction over suit between 2 states

A federal statute established a life insurance exchange that allowed U.S. citizens and noncitizens to purchase affordable life insurance policies through it. U.S. citizens were immediately eligible to participate in the exchange, but resident noncitizens were not eligible to participate in it until they had resided in the U.S. for at least five years. A resident noncitizen who has resided in the U.S. for four years was denied eligibility pursuant to the statute and has filed suit in federal court challenging the statute on constitutional grounds. Specifically, the resident noncitizen claims that the statute violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment due process clause. Is the resident noncitizen likely to prevail? A. No, because Congress has plenary authority over immigration and naturalization under Article I of the Constitution. B. No, because the statute violates the privileges or immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. C. Yes, because national origin is a suspect classification that triggers strict scrutiny. D. Yes, because the statute is not substantially related to an important government interest.

A. No, because Congress has plenary authority over immigration and naturalization under Article I of the Constitution.

A federal law provides that a U.S. citizen who votes in a foreign election forfeits U.S. citizenship. An individual who is a naturalized citizen of the United States votes in a national election held in her birth country. Based on the law, the State Department has refused to renew the individual's passport. The individual has filed an action in federal court for a declaratory judgment that the law is unconstitutional because it deprives her of U.S. citizenship. Is the court likely to find that the law is constitutional? A. No, because Congress may not revoke the citizenship of a U.S. citizen that is obtained in good faith and without fraud. B. No, because the law violates the privileges and immunities clause of Article IV. C. Yes, because Congress has exclusive authority over naturalization. D. Yes, because of the elections clause in Article I, Section 4.

A. No, because Congress may not revoke the citizenship of a U.S. citizen that is obtained in good faith and without fraud.

Concerned with the federal budget deficit, Congress sought to raise $100 million in revenue by enacting a tax on all real-property interests within the United States. A fixed rate is applied uniformly throughout the United States to the fair market value of these interests. Is this tax constitutional? A. No, because it was not apportioned proportionately among the states based on each state's population. B. No, because taxes on real-property interests are historically a matter left to state and local governments. C. Yes, because it was uniformly applied throughout the United States. D. Yes, because of the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

A. No, because it was not apportioned proportionately among the states based on each state's population. **Historically, taxes on real property (i.e., property taxes) have been imposed primarily by state and local governments. Nevertheless, the taxing and spending clause authorizes Congress to impose a property tax, provided it is (1) apportioned proportionately among the states AND (2) reasonably related to revenue production.

A patient at a government-licensed, private nursing facility received financial assistance from the government for the medical care he received. The patient's status was reviewed by a committee of physicians working at the facility to determine whether his level of care was appropriate and whether his continued stay in the facility was justified. The committee determined that the patient no longer needed the level of care provided by the facility and ordered his transfer to another nursing facility that offered a lower level of care. Since the patient received financial support through a government-funded program, the committee notified the appropriate governmental official who administered the program. The official in turn contacted the patient and informed him that due to the decision of the committee of physicians, his medical financial assistance would be terminated unless he accepted the transfer. The patient was properly notified of an administrative hearing by the governmental agency that administered the program, and the hearing confirmed the official's decision to terminate the patient's medical financial assistance unless he accepted the transfer. The patient sued the nursing facility for injunctive relief, contending that he was unconstitutionally denied his procedural due process rights with regard to the initial review of his status by the committee of physicians because he did not receive notice of the review or an opportunity to be heard. Is the court likely to rule in favor of the patient? A. No, because the decision was made by a committee of physicians working at a private nursing facility. B. No, because the patient's procedural due process rights were satisfied by notice and the administrative hearing. C. Yes, because the nursing facility received substantial funding from the government. D. Yes, because the nursing facility was licensed by the government.

A. No, because the decision was made by a committee of physicians working at a private nursing facility.

A long-standing state statute dictated that, if a cause of action accrued while an individual was a minor, the individual could bring a civil action within three years of turning 18 years old. The legislature later amended the statute to retroactively extend the period to seven years if the cause of action was based on sexual abuse that occurred while the individual was a minor. The legislative history for the statute shows that the legislature found that, although the change would not prevent such abuse, it would provide remedies for more victims. Within a month after the enactment of this amendment, a defendant was sued by a 23-year-old plaintiff who alleged that she had been sexually abused when she was 12 years old. The defendant contends that he cannot be sued because the amended statute violates his constitutional rights. Is the defendant likely to succeed? A. No, because the retroactive application of the amended statute is rational. B. No, because the retroactive application of a law is subject to strict scrutiny. C. Yes, because the amended statute constitutes an ex post facto law. D. Yes, because the amended statute violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

A. No, because the retroactive application of the amended statute is rational. **the retroactive application of the amendment does not violate the defendant's due process rights because it is rationally related to the state's legitimate interest in providing remedies for sexual-abuse victims **application of law is not effecting a "fundamental right," so test is RB

A student joined a small national organization during her freshman year of college after several of her friends, who were active in the organization, told her about the organization's annual all-expenses paid ski trip for its card-carrying members. The student attended a recruitment drive, signed a pledge of loyalty, paid her annual dues, and received an organization pin. The student later joined other members of the organization at the ski resort. During a meeting around the ski lodge fireplace, the student learned for the first time that the organization was a radical organization. The organization's members were preparing to use subversive means to achieve their objective of installing the organization's spiritual leader as Supreme Dictator of the United States. To this end, the organization was stockpiling mind-control serum and planned to poison the nation's water supply. After returning home, the student consciously avoided members of the organization and never participated in the organization's activities again. However, the student's name remained on the organization's active-member roster, and she did not report the organization's illegal objectives to the authorities. Three years later, the student was offered employment at a federal agency. However, the agency rescinded the offer before the student accepted it because a background check revealed that she was still an active member of the organization. Was the agency's action constitutional? A. No, because the student did not intend to install the organization's spiritual leader as Supreme Dictator of the United States. B. No, because the student did not personally participate in the organization's subversive plot. C. Yes, because the student continues to be listed as an active member of a subversive organization. D. Yes, because the student had knowledge of the organization's illegal objectives and failed to report them to the authorities.

A. No, because the student did not intend to install the organization's spiritual leader as Supreme Dictator of the United States. **She would need to (1) be an active member + (2) KNOW of the group's illegal objectives + (3) INTEND to further the group's objectives

A professional football player was accused of lewd conduct in a local bar. The prosecution refused to divulge the name of the other individual involved in the incident. Nevertheless, a reporter determined the individual's identity through interviews of eyewitnesses present at the scene. The reporter's newspaper published an article about the incident that included the individual's name. The publication of the article caused the individual extreme embarrassment. The individual sued the newspaper and the reporter for violating a state statute that prohibits public disclosure of private facts. Can the individual recover damages? A. No, the individual cannot recover from the newspaper or the reporter. B. Yes, the individual can recover from the newspaper. C. Yes, the individual can recover from the reporter. D. Yes, the individual can recover from the newspaper and the reporter.

A. No, the individual cannot recover from the newspaper or the reporter. **1st Amendment—applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment—shields the media from criminal and civil liability for publishing lawfully obtained private facts and other truthful information involving matters of public concern (i.e., newsworthy events)

A defendant was on trial for the murder of a police officer, which was allegedly ordered by the kingpin of a drug cartel known to be operating in the city. Because of the highly publicized nature of the case, the prosecution requested that the trial court issue a gag order that prohibited the publication of information about the proceedings. The purpose of the gag order was to prevent the release of sensitive information that might impair ongoing undercover investigations of other cartel members. The prosecution also requested that the court issue an order for a closed trial to protect the identities of witnesses, who feared violent repercussions if they testified. After hearing arguments by the prosecution and the defense, the trial court issued the requested gag order and order for a closed trial. The court issued findings on the record and concluded that the publication of information about the proceedings might impair undercover investigations and that public attendance would endanger the lives of those witnesses who testified at trial. Several newspapers that sought to attend and report about the trial appealed the orders, arguing that they were unconstitutional. How should the appellate court rule? A. Overturn both orders. B. Overturn the order for a closed trial but uphold the gag order. C. Uphold the order for a closed trial but overturn the gag order. D. Uphold both orders.

A. Overturn both orders. **both do not survive SS Test

A city police officer sought and received an anticipatory warrant to search the defendant's premises for evidence of a crime. The defendant sought to suppress the evidence seized by the officer during the search. The defendant challenged the constitutionality of the warrant on the basis that it violated the warrant clause of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and a similar warrant provision of the state constitution. The state's highest court noted that the U.S. Constitution permits anticipatory search warrants, while the state constitution clearly does not. The state has appealed this ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. Which of the following actions must the U.S. Supreme Court take? A. Refuse to hear the appeal. B. Reverse the state court decision, because the U.S. Constitution permits anticipatory warrants. C. Uphold the state court decision, because the issue involves a criminal matter, an area traditionally left to the states under the Tenth Amendment. D. Uphold the state court decision, because the U.S. Constitution does not require anticipatory warrants.

A. Refuse to hear the appeal. **SCOTUS can not hear issues that are based on adequate & independent state grounds **A state court ruling is not "independent" if the state court relied on an "identical" federal provision to rule on the state provision. Here, the federal and state warrant clauses are similar but not the same, so the ruling rests on an independent state ground

State A derived much of its business from tourism based upon privately owned cruise lines incorporated in State A. State B, which is located just north of State A, recently enacted a statute creating an annual licensing requirement for any cruise line not incorporated in State B that uses State B's ports. The licensing process was costly, and the licenses were difficult to obtain. There was no similar licensing requirement for State B cruise lines using the ports in State B. The cruise lines in State A typically travel north and must use the State B ports in order to maintain the facilities and services they offer. Congress has not enacted legislation regarding the regulation of cruise lines using out-of-state ports. If a cruise line located in State A challenges the constitutionality of the State B licensing requirement, which of the following would provide the strongest argument against the requirement? A. The Article I commerce clause. B. The Article IV privileges and immunities clause. C. The Fourteenth Amendment due process clause. D. The Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause.

A. The Article I commerce clause.

A city enacted legislation that required schools to automatically expel any male student who bullied another student, with bullying defined as "physical violence not used in self-defense." The legislation did not reference bullying committed by female students. The law was enacted in response to a high level of teen suicides that were linked to severe bullying, and it directly followed similar legislation in a neighboring state that was successful in the reduction of teen suicides over a five-year period. The in-depth analysis of the reduction of suicides in the neighboring state revealed, in those cases where bullying resulted in suicide, the vast majority involved bullying initiated by males, which was more severe than female bullying and less likely to stop without intervention. Would this statute likely survive a constitutional challenge? A. Yes, because the statute is substantially related to preventing teen suicides. B. Yes, because the statute is rationally related to preventing teen suicides. C. No, because there are other available solutions to prevent teen suicides. D. No, because the statute does not apply to bullying committed by female students.

A. Yes, because the statute is substantially related to preventing teen suicides. **statute does discriminate based on sex BUT it meets the IS Test when applied

The United States Department of Defense entered into a contract with a state-owned weapons manufacturer. The contract called for the production of defense equipment to be used by the military. The Department of Defense agreed to purchase all of the defense equipment produced by the state-owned weapons manufacturer for a period of one year. The weapons manufacturer is located in a state that levies a tax on all purchases of the defense equipment produced by the manufacturer. The state seeks to tax the Department of Defense on its purchases pursuant to state law. The Department of Defense has filed suit in federal court challenging the constitutionality of the state tax applied to its purchases under the contract. Is the Department of Defense subject to the state tax for its purchases? A. No, because the contract involved military defense. B. No, because the Department of Defense is immune from state taxation. C. Yes, because the Department of Defense consented to state taxation when it purchased defense equipment from a state-owned manufacturer. D. Yes, because the power to tax is a power reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment.

B. No, because the Department of Defense is immune from state taxation.

A man was charged with violating a state criminal statute in state court. While prosecution was pending, the man filed a civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in federal district court, alleging that the state statute as applied to him violates the U.S. Constitution. The man sought an injunction against the state's prosecution of him. Should the federal district court hear the man's claim? A. No, because the man lacks standing since he has not been convicted and sentenced for a violation of the state statute. B. No, because the man seeks an injunction against a pending state criminal proceeding. C. Yes, because a federal court may enjoin the enforcement of an unconstitutional statute. D. Yes, because the man has alleged that the state statute violates the U.S. Constitution.

B. No, because the man seeks an injunction against a pending state criminal proceeding.

A state statute provides for a reduction in the property tax assessed against any residential dwelling located in a particular economically depressed area of the largest city in the state. The purpose of the statute is to encourage homeownership in the designated area and thereby improve the economic well-being of the residents living there. The statute provides that, in order to qualify for this tax break, the homeowner must be a citizen of the United States. Is the statute likely constitutional? A. No, because state classifications based on citizenship are impermissible unless explicitly authorized by an act of Congress. B. No, because the state cannot demonstrate that the citizenship requirement is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest. C. Yes, because the citizenship requirement is rationally related to a legitimate state interest. D. Yes, because the Tenth Amendment reserves to the states plenary authority to construct a tax system.

B. No, because the state cannot demonstrate that the citizenship requirement is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest.

A woman and her ex-husband shared joint custody of their children in State A. Without court approval, the woman took the children and moved to State B. The woman was arrested, convicted of kidnapping in a State B court, and imprisoned for two years. After completing her prison sentence, the woman returned to State A, where she, her ex-husband, and their children currently reside. Last month, the legislature in State A enacted a statute that requires individuals convicted of kidnapping to register with local law enforcement and provide it with the individual's name, current address, and place of employment. The information provided by the individual is maintained in a database that is accessible to the public. The purpose of the database is to protect the public by providing basic information about individuals who have been convicted of kidnapping. The woman has filed suit in a court in State A, challenging the constitutionality of the statute. Is she likely to succeed? A.No, because the parental kidnapping judgment was valid under the full faith and credit clause. B. No, because the statute's punitive effect does not clearly override its nonpunitive purpose. C. Yes, because the statute is an unconstitutional bill of attainder. D. Yes, because the statute is an unconstitutional ex post facto law.

B. No, because the statute's punitive effect does not clearly override its nonpunitive purpose. **a civil law will be deemed to be an "ex post facto law" when its retroactive effect is so punitive that it clearly overrides its nonpunitive purpose.

A federal statute was enacted that banned all individuals born on a specific sovereign island nation from entering the United States after it was established that only such individuals were carriers of a highly contagious and deadly virus. A U.S. citizen who had been born on the island nation has challenged the constitutionality of this statute in federal court after being denied reentry to the United States. Which of the following constitutional clauses provides the best ground for this challenge? A. The comity clause of Article IV. B. The due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. C. The naturalization clause of Article I, Section 8. D. The privileges or immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

B. The due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. **DP - federal laws that intentionally discriminate against a suspect class (e.g., national origin) are almost always invalidated under strict scrutiny. **privileges & immunities clause/comity clause ONLY apply to states

A federal statute provides that a U.S. territory can freely trade certain agricultural products, including bananas, with a foreign island nation. Shortly after the enactment of this statute, a U.S. state enacted a law allowing for a free transfer of goods between the state, the territory, and the island nation. Several years later, the President of the United States entered into a self-executing treaty with several trading partners that in pertinent part required a mark of origin on all agricultural products from all foreign countries. The Senate promptly ratified this treaty. Last year, the President of the United States entered into an executive agreement with the leader of a second foreign country, prohibiting the importation into the United States of bananas from any other country. Citizens of the U.S. territory want to continue to freely buy bananas from the island nation. Which of the following is likely to govern whether citizens of the U.S. territory can buy bananas from the island nation? A. The executive agreement B. The federal statute passed by Congress C. The federal treaty D. The state law

B. The federal statute passed by Congress **When a federal statute conflicts with an executive agreement, the federal statute takes precedence over the executive agreement.

A police officer made a controversial video that he marketed on the Internet. The video, which was made while the officer was off-duty, correctly identified the maker of the video as a police officer for the city in which the officer lived. The video depicted the officer engaged in indecent acts while wearing a police officer's uniform and brandishing a badge and toy gun, all of which he had purchased from a Halloween costume shop. When the chief of police learned of the video, she requested that the officer remove the video from the Internet because the video significantly undermined the police force's morale and harmony, with a marked effect on the department's efficiency. The officer, asserting that the video was intended as a parody of police misconduct, refused to remove the video from the Internet and was fired as a consequence. The officer brought an action against the police chief, seeking reinstatement to the police force. The officer contended that he had been dismissed for exercising his free-speech rights. If the court finds in favor of the police chief, what is the most likely reason? A. Government employees do not enjoy free-speech rights. B. The police officer's parody was not a matter of public concern. C. The video impeded the police force's efficiency. D. The video was made within the scope of the police officer's employment.

C. The video impeded the police force's efficiency. **the gov. can regulate the content of that speech if its interest in efficient government function outweighs the employee's free-speech right

A state legislature enacted a statute that prohibits anyone convicted of a felony from voting in state elections. A group of released felons who had completed their sentences and paroles filed a class action in federal court, seeking a declaration that the statute violated their constitutional rights. Is the court likely to uphold the statute as constitutional? A. No, because it infringes upon the fundamental right to vote. B. No, because it violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. C. Yes, because it is permitted by Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment. D. Yes, but only pursuant to the privileges and immunities clause of Article IV, Section 2.

C. Yes, because it is permitted by Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment. **states are ALLOWED to deny felons right to vote in state elections

A manufacturer entered into a contract with the United States Forest Service, an agency of the federal government, to construct a special plane to be used by the Forest Service in fighting forest fires. The supplier of the plane's materials obtained, under state law, a valid lien upon the plane for the cost of the materials that the supplier provided to the manufacturer. Shortly before construction was completed, the manufacturer ceased operations and the Forest Service, as permitted by the terms of the contract, took title to the plane. The supplier's otherwise valid lien is now unenforceable against the Forest Service because of the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Has there been an unconstitutional taking of the supplier's property? A. No, because the supplier's lien was not a possessory interest in the plane. B. No, because the supplier's property interest was an interest in personal, not real, property. C. Yes, because the Forest Service's action effectively eliminated the supplier's lien on the plane. D. Yes, because the takings clause applies to state action through the Fourteenth Amendment.

C. Yes, because the Forest Service's action effectively eliminated the supplier's lien on the plane.

A state law imposes civil liability for the intentional publication of communications by individuals who know or have reason to know that the communications were unlawfully obtained. An animal rights blogger investigated a corporation for testing its salon products on animals. A subscriber of the blog unlawfully obtained a trove of the corporation's documents, which revealed that the corporation had concealed its testing on animals from the public. The subscriber sent the documents from his personal email to the blogger for use in her investigation and told the blogger that she had been able to remotely access the corporation's internal server to access the documents. After receiving the documents, the blogger posted a blog post on the internet that exposed the corporation's testing on animals. The blog post included links to the corporation's documents that had been obtained by the subscriber. As a result of the blog post, the corporation's sales dropped significantly. The corporation has filed suit against the blogger and seeks damages for publishing the corporation's documents in violation of the state law. Can the corporation recover damages from the blogger? A. No, because the blogger did not unlawfully obtain the corporation's documents. B. No, because the corporation's testing of salon products on animals is a matter of public concern. C. Yes, because the blogger knows who unlawfully obtained the corporation's documents. D.Yes, because the rights of the press are no greater than those of citizens generally.

C. Yes, because the blogger knows who unlawfully obtained the corporation's documents.

A federal judge improperly granted a search warrant for the home of a woman she believed was dating her ex-husband. In doing so, the judge acted with malice and for the sole purpose of harassing the homeowner. The homeowner brought a civil action in federal court against the judge personally for damages based on the violation of the homeowner's Fourth Amendment rights. The homeowner acknowledges that the judge had jurisdiction to issue the search warrant. The judge seeks dismissal on the action on the grounds of immunity. Should the court dismiss the case? A. No, because the judge acted with malice. B. No, because a judge enjoys only qualified immunity with regard to the violation of a person's constitutional rights. C. Yes, because the judge had jurisdiction to issue the search warrant. D. Yes, because an action for damages may not be maintained against a sitting judge

C. Yes, because the judge had jurisdiction to issue the search warrant. **judge is immune, even with malice, if he had jurisdiction to grant warrant

A policyholder sued her casualty insurance company for failing to timely pay a claim. The case reached the highest court of the state. The sole issue before the court was whether the policyholder was entitled to punitive damages. The company timely moved to recuse one of the appellate judges on the ground that the judge was pursuing a similar action against the insurance company seeking punitive damages in a state district court. Relying upon a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision to interpret state law, the judge determined that she did not need to recuse herself. As a result, the company's motion was denied. The judge later cast the deciding vote in the court's punitive damages decision in favor of the policyholder. The company timely and properly filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking a review of the judge's decision not to recuse herself. Is the U.S. Supreme Court likely to review the state court's judgment? A.No, because the justice's refusal to recuse herself was based on adequate and independent state grounds. B. No, because the suit is moot. C. Yes, because the judge's refusal to recuse herself violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. D. Yes, because the Supreme Court may correct any erroneous ruling by a state judge.

C. Yes, because the judge's refusal to recuse herself violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The District of Columbia government has the power to levy an income tax. In an effort to encourage nonresidents to conduct business in the District of Columbia, Congress enacted a federal statute that prohibits the District of Columbia from imposing an income tax on individuals who work there but reside elsewhere. Is the statute likely to be found constitutional? A. No, because it violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment. B. No, because it violates the uniformity clause of Article I, Section 8. C. Yes, under the enclave clause in Article I, Section 8. D. Yes, under the Sixteenth Amendment.

C. Yes, under the enclave clause in Article I, Section 8. **gives congress legislative power to govern District of Columbia

Congress recently enacted a federal statute creating a five-member commission whose purpose is to identify and prevent threats to national security. The statute grants the members of the commission broad discretion and administrative and enforcement powers to conduct investigations into possible security threats. Commission members are required to report the results of their investigations to the Secretary of Homeland Security, who was appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. Upon receiving the investigation results, the Secretary advises the President on what, if any, action should be taken to address potential national security threats. The statute permits the President to appoint the members of the commission, which she did without seeking Senate approval. Was the appointment of the commission members by the President constitutionally permissible? A. No, because Congress cannot delegate this appointment to the President. B. No, because the President needs the consent of the Senate to make these appointments. C. Yes, because Congress can appoint members with administrative and enforcement powers. D. Yes, because Congress can delegate these appointments to the President without Senate approval.

D. Yes, because Congress can delegate these appointments to the President without Senate approval.

After a trademarked cartoon character was almost elected as mayor of a small town as a write-in candidate, the state in which the town is located enacted a statute that bans write-in candidates for local elective office. The statute also requires candidates for local elective office to obtain a specified number of voter signatures in order to appear on the official election ballot. The purpose of the statute is to ensure that only candidates who have strong support among the voters are placed on the ballot. A man who was a candidate for local elective office failed to obtain enough voter signatures to appear on the ballot. The man has brought an action in federal district court challenging the constitutionality of the statute. Is the statute constitutional? A. No, because it restricts the fundamental rights of voters to vote for write-in candidates. B. No, because it restricts the man's right to access the ballot. C. Yes, because it is authorized by the elections clause. D. Yes, because it is a reasonable restriction to further the state's legitimate interest.

D. Yes, because it is a reasonable restriction to further the state's legitimate interest.

A state legislature enacted a statute that created strict requirements for obtaining a license to operate a taxi within the state. It was passed in response to a number of serious accidents involving taxi drivers in the state's major cities. The statute requires a person to pass three road tests, pass a difficult written examination, and pay a $150 licensing fee to receive a license. The statute also requires yearly recertification. The statute affects men disproportionately to women because 90 percent of the taxi drivers in the state are men. Two male taxi drivers have filed suit, challenging the statute's constitutionality. Is the statute constitutional? A. No, because it has a disparate impact on men. B. No, because it places an undue burden on taxi drivers. C. Yes, because it is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest. D. Yes, because it is rationally related to a legitimate state interest.

D. Yes, because it is rationally related to a legitimate state interest. **applies to all taxi drivers (no fundamental right issue OR gender discrim - so apply RB Test

The constitution of State X grants the state legislature the power to redraw state legislative districts every 10 years. In the last redistricting cycle, the legislature created a "majority-minority" district for the state senate in which the black population comprised a majority of the voters who resided in the district. The legislature's intent in creating this district was to increase the representation of black voters in the state senate because they had historically been disenfranchised in the state. A white resident of the legislative district is a registered voter. He filed suit in the appropriate court against the state legislators who drafted the redistricting map, challenging the district's creation as a violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Seventy percent of the state's population is white. If the court agrees to hear the plaintiff's claim, is strict scrutiny the appropriate standard of review for the court to apply to this constitutional issue? A. No, because 70 percent of the state's population is white. B. No, because the redistricting favors voters who have historically been disenfranchised in the state. C. Yes, because the plaintiff is a racial minority in the majority-minority district. D. Yes, because race was the predominant factor in creating the majority-minority district.

D. Yes, because race was the predominant factor in creating the majority-minority district.

A legal representative of a resident in a state-owned and state-operated mental health facility sued an official of the facility in federal court. The representative, who is a citizen of another state, seeks an injunction to compel the official to comply with a state law that requires the least-restrictive-environment approach to be used in mental health facilities. The state official has moved to dismiss the action as unconstitutional under the Eleventh Amendment. Should the court grant the official's motion? A. No, because the action seeks injunctive relief instead of damages as a remedy. B. No, because the action was brought against a state official rather than the state. C. Yes, because the action does not involve a fundamental right. D. Yes, because the action seeks to enforce state law rather than federal law.

D. Yes, because the action seeks to enforce state law rather than federal law. **11th - protects States from being sued by private citizen in Federal Court

A professional basketball player who was a citizen of one state sued an artist who was a citizen of another state. The artist had created multiple oil paintings of the player's image from which limited-edition prints were created and sold without the player's permission or consent. The player sought damages in excess of $80,000 for violation of his state statutory right to publicity. The state trial court ruled in the player's favor, but the state appellate court overturned this decision on the basis that the free speech clause of the state constitution created a privilege that protected the artist from this action. In making its decision, the appellate court relied on a recent decision issued by the U.S. Supreme Court. The appellate court decision denied the player recovery on his state-based cause of action. The state's highest court declined to hear the appeal. The player then filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. Can the Supreme Court grant this petition? A. No, because the player seeks to recover damages from the artist under a state statutory cause of action. B. No, because the state's highest court did not render a decision in this case since it declined to hear the appeal. C. Yes, because diversity of citizenship exists between the player and the artist and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. D. Yes, because the state court decision relied on a recent decision issued by the U.S. Supreme Court.

D. Yes, because the state court decision relied on a recent decision issued by the U.S. Supreme Court.

A Senate committee conducted an investigation into alleged corruption in the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). After a thorough investigation, the committee concluded that five SEC agents had significant illegal interactions with organized crime members over the course of three years. Soon after, Congress, on the advice of the Senate committee, passed a statute that removed the agents from the SEC and barred them from any other federal employment. The five agents, whose employment permitted removal with or without cause, were named in the statute. The agents subsequently challenged the statute on the basis that it was unconstitutional. Will the agents' challenge to the statute be successful? A. No, because the agents could be removed with or without cause. B. No, because the statute does not subject the agents to criminal or penal measures. C. Yes, because the statute constitutes an ex post facto law. D. Yes, because the statute constitutes a bill of attainder.

D. Yes, because the statute constitutes a bill of attainder. **bill of attainder = a legislative act that declares a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishes them without a trial. Article I, Sections 9 and 10 forbid the federal government and the states, respectively, from enacting such "legislative trials." Barring particular individuals from government employment qualifies as punishment under the prohibition against bills of attainder **the constitutional prohibition on an "ex post facto" law is confined to a retroactive change to a criminal or penal law

Congress has proposed repealing a federal statute that exempts the payment of federal income tax on the interest earned by the holders of state bonds. State bonds are the primary method by which many states finance public works projects, such as highways and educational facilities. Repealing the exemption would increase the interest that a state must pay to bondholders, which would have a substantial adverse economic impact on the cost of these projects to the state. The holders of private bonds are not eligible to receive the tax exemption. Would the repeal of the tax exemption be constitutional? A. No, because taxing this income would have a substantial adverse economic effect on the states. B. No, because the Tenth Amendment prohibits federal taxation of a state. C. Yes, because Congress has unlimited power to tax and spend for the general welfare. D. Yes, because the tax would not be imposed directly on the states.

D. Yes, because the tax would not be imposed directly on the states. **indirectly imposed on state via a person doing business with gov. (bondholders) = valid **LIMIT to tax/spending power - congress can NOT impose tax directly on state that would "unduly burden"

A human-rights group conducted a study regarding the treatment of prisoners in the federal prison system. The group concluded that there was a disturbing pattern of neglect and abuse of prisoners in federal prisons. In an effort to improve the treatment of those prisoners, Congress enacted a statute that required the Federal Bureau of Prisons to issue regulations that reform the hiring requirements for individuals hired by the federal prison system. Is the statute constitutional? A. No, because Congress cannot delegate its power to another branch of government. B. No, because Congress has exceeded its power to delegate. C.Yes, because there is a compelling government interest to protect prisoner rights. D. Yes, because there is an intelligible principle to guide the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

D. Yes, because there is an intelligible principle to guide the Federal Bureau of Prisons. **Congress has not exceeded its power to delegate since it delegated an incidental power (i.e., rule-making authority) to the Federal Bureau of Prisons and provided an intelligible principle to guide the agency

Due to the scarcity of post offices in low-income communities, the few post offices in the communities suffered severe overcrowding, slowing postal service to and from these communities significantly. To address the problem, Congress enacted a statute authorizing the conversion of old, uninhabited buildings in these communities that are owned by the federal government into post offices. A historical society in one of the affected communities wants to stop Congress from converting the buildings into post offices because they were categorized as historical buildings of cultural value to the community. Is the statute constitutional? A.No, because establishing postal services is a power reserved to the states. B. No, because the statute violates the takings clause. C. Yes, because the properties will be converted for a public use. D. Yes, under Congress's property power.

D. Yes, under Congress's property power.

A non-U.S. citizen actor was under contract to film a movie in the United States. The actor was a well-known supporter of a political group in his country that had executed various attacks on United States citizens living abroad. The actor publicly stated that he did not condone violence and offered no financial support to the group following such incidents. When the actor attempted to enter the United States, he was refused entry by a federal customs officer pursuant to a federal statute that denies any supporter of the political group entry into the United States. Is this refusal valid? A. Yes, because non-citizens have no absolute right to enter the United States. B. Yes, because non-citizens can be deported if a notice and hearing has occurred. C. No, because the refusal of entry discriminates on the basis of political beliefs. D. No, because the refusal impairs the actor's contractual obligation.

A. Yes, because non-citizens have no absolute right to enter the United States. **Congress has plenary power over non-citizens. Non-citizens have no right to enter the United States and may be refused entry for reasons such as their political beliefs

Congress enacted a statute authorizing states to regulate and tax the financial services industry, even if the regulation or taxation otherwise discriminates against out-of-state commerce. A state enacted a statute that taxed all out-of-state financial services entities doing business in the state but did not tax in-state financial services entities doing business in the state. The purpose of the tax was to encourage the growth of the in-state financial services industry. Assuming that the state statute is consistent with federal statutes regulating the financial services industry, is it constitutional? A. No, because it violates the dormant commerce clause. B. No, because it violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. C. Yes, because a state may tax a corporation doing business in the state. D.Yes, because Congress specifically permitted this type of statute.

B. No, because it violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Several national newspapers ran stories about a dramatic increase in the number of licensed pharmacists who prescribed controlled substances illegally because they had lied about their educational background. In response, Congress enacted a statute requiring state health officials to conduct background checks on pharmacists involved in the sale of controlled substances that had been previously transported in interstate commerce. Is the federal statute constitutional? A. No, because Congress has no authority to regulate activities that affect traditionally local matters. B. No, because Congress has no authority to require state governments to enforce federal law. C. Yes, because Congress has the power to legislate for the general welfare. D. Yes, because Congress has the power to regulate things that move in interstate commerce.

B. No, because Congress has no authority to require state governments to enforce federal law.

A state agency that issues licenses to real estate agents adopted a rule setting aside 10% of all licenses approved by the agency to racial minority groups. The purpose of the rule was to help redress the historical discrimination against these groups in the state and to help them achieve economic parity with other groups in society. An applicant who is not a racial minority and whose license application was denied has filed suit in federal court, arguing that the rule is unconstitutional. Assume that no federal statute applies. Is the agency's rule constitutional? A. No, because it is not substantially related to an important governmental interest. B. No, because it only remedies a general societal injustice. C. Yes, because it is intended to help remedy past race-based discrimination. D. Yes, because it is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest.

B. No, because it only remedies a general societal injustice.

In an effort to reduce workplace shootings, a state legislature enacted a statute that requires individuals with a mental illness to wait seven days before they take possession of a firearm after purchasing it. After an increase in crime in his neighborhood, a bank executive with a bipolar disorder attempted to immediately purchase a firearm but was forced to wait seven days before he took possession of it. The executive has filed suit in federal court, arguing that the statute is unconstitutional because it interferes with his right to bear arms. Is the statute likely constitutional? A. No, because the Second Amendment guarantees the absolute right to possess and use firearms. B. No, because the statute discriminates against a protected class. C. Yes, because imposing conditions and qualifications on commercial sales of firearms is permissible. D. Yes, because the statute is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose.

C. Yes, because imposing conditions and qualifications on commercial sales of firearms is permissible.

The President of the United States, in the waning days of his administration, issued a conditional pardon to a government official after the official had been convicted of a federal offense and sentenced to prison. After the President left office, a dispute arose as to whether the official had satisfied the condition. Under the new administration, the official was taken into custody to serve his sentence. The official challenged his custody through a writ of habeas corpus filed with a federal district court, which granted the official relief. The current administration appealed the district court decision to the Supreme Court, which agreed to review the district court's decision pursuant to a prior act of Congress that expressly permitted the Supreme Court to do so. Congress, controlled by the same political party to which the President and the official belonged, then repealed the law that had permitted the Supreme Court to review a federal district court's habeas corpus decision. Which of the following is the strongest argument defending the constitutionality of Congress's repeal of the law? A. Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution generally prohibits the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. B. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution grants the pardoning power to the President. C. Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to make exceptions to the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction. D. Marbury v. Madison established the right of the Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of Congressional acts.

C. Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to make exceptions to the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction. **SCOTUS has appellate jurisdiction to review a final judgment of lower federal courts and the highest state courts when the judgment turns on federal law, BUT the Article III Exceptions Clause gives Congress the power to expand, regulate, or make exceptions to such jurisdiction.

Condominiums located within a particular city block were known to be the center of illegal narcotics sales. Many individuals living within that city block had been arrested multiple times in connection with the illegal sales, and neighbors were outraged that the local police department did not attempt to do something more severe than individual, sporadic arrests. The city took action by filing an action in the appropriate federal district court seeking the forfeiture of real and personal property involved in the illegal narcotics sales. After an ex parte hearing at which only the city was present, the court properly issued a warrant of arrest authorizing the seizure of private property. The city seized all condominiums that were located within the city block and any car that was known to have transported illegal narcotics. A man whose condominium and car were seized in connection with the alleged crimes filed suit, alleging that he was not given prior notice of the city's intent to seize his condominium and vehicle. Were the seizures of the condominium and the vehicle proper in light of the principles of procedural due process? A.The seizure of the condominium and the vehicle were both improper. B. The seizure of the condominium was proper, but the seizure of the vehicle was improper. C. The seizure of the vehicle was proper, but the seizure of the condominium was improper. D. The seizure of neither the condominium nor the vehicle was improper.

C. The seizure of the vehicle was proper, but the seizure of the condominium was improper. **The car was known to have transported illegal narcotics, so the seizure served the city's significant interest in preventing the car from being used for illegal activity in the future. That interest would have been frustrated by providing advance notice of the seizure since the car could have been moved or concealed before it was seized. Therefore, the city's seizure of the vehicle was proper

A state statute provides that municipalities within the state may adopt an ordinance prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages within the municipality's borders. Pursuant to this statute, a municipality adopted an ordinance that banned the sale of alcoholic beverages with an alcohol content in excess of 10%. Which of the following is the best source of authority for enacting this ordinance? A.The dormant commerce clause. B. The Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause. C. The import-export clause. D. The Twenty-first Amendment.

D. The Twenty-first Amendment.

In order to save money, a state adopted a law restricting voting times and reducing the number of polling sites on Election Day. The law does not significantly impact the ability of voters to cast their ballots. The law applies to all state, local, and congressional elections occurring on Election Day. Does Congress have the authority to override the law? A. No, because the limitations are unrelated to the suppression of ideas. B. No, because the voters' ability to cast their ballots is not significantly impacted. C. Yes, because the state cannot limit state or federal voting practices. D. Yes, because the state law regulates congressional elections

D. Yes, because the state law regulates congressional elections