1. City X passes a law that states that "[t]he driver of a motor vehicle when reasonably necessary to ensure safe operation shall give audible warning with his horn," but that "[t]he horn shall not otherwise be used, except as a theft alarm system." A group of protestors who disagree with the President's policies hold a protest where its members drove along the President's travel route and continuously honked their horns. Five of the protestors were arrested and cited for violating the honking law. The protestors have presented the defense that the law is unconstitutional. Should the Court uphold the law's constitutionality? A. No because the protestors lack standing to challenge the law.

B. No because it is not narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest.

C. Yes because one need not need only observe the traffic circumstances and determine if a safety risk is present

D. Yes because it leaves open alternative channels for communication of the information. 2. Following an escalating series of confrontations among neighbors in a condominium complex over election signs during a tense school board election year, the complex's private homeowners' association, which governs members' land use, bans all yard signs except for sports signs. A homeowner who is running for school board president sues the homeowner's association, claiming that the rule violates his First Amendment rights. A reviewing court should: (A) Strike down the rule, unless the association can prove that it is narrowly tailored to further a compelling government interest. (B) Strike down the rule, if there are not ample alternative channels of expression for residents. (C) Dismiss the suit, because the yard signs are not speech. (D) Dismiss the suit because the First Amendment doesn't apply.

3. A state initiated a criminal prosecution against the owner of a bar for hosting a Drag Show, in which male performers dress up as flamboyant female performers and perform songs and other entertainment. The state charged the bar with violation of the anti-obscenity law. The bar owner defended on the ground that the prosecution violated his constitutional right to freedom of speech. Should the bar owner prevail in this defense? A. Yes because men dressing as women performers does not satisfy the criteria for obscene speech as a matter of constitutional law.

B. Yes because the state lacks a compelling interest in the safety and morality in adult establishments.

C. No because the bar engaged in commercial speech which is subject to lower first amendment protection.

D. No because the regulation directly advances and is narrowly tailored to serve a substantial government interest.

4. In the first months of the covid-19 breakout, Bradley Teenson made the following post on facebook: "This just in: Sherriff deputies promise to shoot on site anyone with covid-19!" He was prosecuted under the State's terrorism statute, which states " Terrorizing is the intentional communication of information that the commission of a crime of violence is imminent or in progress or that a circumstance dangerous to human life exists or is about to exist, with the intent of causing members of the general public to be in sustained fear for their safety." Teenson argues that he did not fall under the scope of the statute, and that in any event his conduct is protected under the First Amendment.

How should the Court rule on Teenson's First Amendment defense?

A. In favor of the State, because Teenson's statements fall outside the First Amendment.

B. In favor of the State, because the regulation serves a significant government interest.

C. In favor of Teenson because it did not incite imminent lawless action

D. In favor of Teenson because Sherriff's deputies are public figures on a matter of public concern.

5. Mary was employed by a California State public university as an administrator. She learned that a recruiter at the university was throwing away applicants filed by persons of a certain race. She reported the conduct to the Dean of the University. Instead of investigating the issue, the Dean fired her for disruptive conduct interfering with management of the university. Mary has filed a lawsuit claiming that her termination violated her constitutional right of freedom of speech because she was fired in retaliation for exercising her rights to free speech. How should the court rule on Mary's constitutional claim? (A) For Marcy, because the Dean had no compelling reason to fire her.

(B) For Mary, because the abridgment of Mary's freedom of speech outweighs the University's interest in prohibiting disruptive conduct in this case.

(C) For the University because federal courts cannot review a the merits of a personnel decision by a public agency

(D) For the University because Mary has no right to freedom of speech in this context 6. The federal government enacted a statute to provide funding for programs intended to boost renewable energy and decrease reliance on fossil fuels. The funds were distributed to researchers and universities based on an application and grant process. Before receiving the grant funds, recipients had to agree to support renewables in their programs using the targeted funds. A university professor, Mr. Greene, applied for and received the grant. He used it to fund a seminar regarding energy uses. During a class in the seminar, Mr. Greene assigned reading and assignments regarding the benefits of fossil fuel use. The federal government learned of Mr. Greene's advocacy of fossil fuels and terminated him from the program and required a return of any outstanding grant funds. Mr. Greene filed a lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment that terminating of the grant violated his constitutional rights to free speech. How should the court rule? A. For Greene because the government retaliated against him for exercising his right to free speech.

B. For Greene because on balance his right to speak on an issue of public concern outweighs the government interest in promoting their views of fossil view use.

C. For the government because public employees do not have a first amendment right to freedom of speech.

D. For the government because it is permitted to engage in viewpoint discrimination when requiring that government officials speak for the government.