1. Following a series of terrorist attacks in a small foreign country in which five American citizens were taken hostage, the President issued an executive order to cut off all diplomatic ties with that nation, including a prohibition on virtually all trade agreements. Under the terms of the executive order, the country's embassy was closed and its consul was ordered to leave the United States. The Prime Minister of the foreign country, which imports two billion dollars of corn from the United States each year, threatened to stop all U.S. imports immediately unless the embassy was reopened and the consul reinstated. The consul brought an action against the United States in federal district court to enjoin enforcement of the President's action.

Will the court hear the case?

Yes, because the President's action usurps the power of Congress to regulate issues directly or indirectly affecting foreign commerce.

Yes, because the consul has suffered redressable harm.

No, because lower federal courts lack original jurisdiction over cases involving ambassadors and consuls.

No, because Article II gives the President exclusive authority to recognize foreign governments.

2. In exchange for an agreement by a foreign nation to stop all testing and development of its nuclear arsenal, Congress passed a bill authorizing $100 million to enable students from that country to attend colleges and universities in the United States to obtain higher education. Two weeks after the measure was passed, human rights violations were committed in the foreign nation, during which a government-sponsored coalition used chemical weapons to kill hundreds of women and children.Immediately, the President ordered troops to be sent to the foreign country and he canceled the appropriation of the educational funds.

Is the President's action to cancel the higher education measure constitutional?

Group of answer choices

Yes, because of the President's broad emergency powers as commander-in-chief of the military.

No, because of the President's obligation to take care that the laws are faithfully executed.

No, because the higher education measure derives from Congress' power to regulate commerce with foreign nations.

Yes, because the President has exclusive power over the area of foreign affairs.

3. A federal statute enacted about 100 years ago admitted a state to the Union, granted the state certain public lands, and established conditions on the subsequent disposition of these lands by the state. The federal statute also required the state to write those same conditions into its state constitution. One hundred years later, a statute of the state dealing with the sale of these public lands was challenged in a state court lawsuit on the ground that it is inconsistent with the conditions contained in the federal statute and the state constitution. The trial court decision in that case was appealed to the state supreme court. In its opinion, the state supreme court dealt at length with the ambiguous language of the federal statute and with cases interpreting identical language in similar federal statutes. The state supreme court opinion did not discuss the similar provisions of the state constitution, but it did hold that the challenged state statute was invalid, because it was "inconsistent with the language of the federal statute and therefore is inconsistent with the identical provisions of our state constitution." The losing party in the case wishes to appeal the decision to the United States Supreme Court.

Can the United States Supreme Court review the decision?

Group of answer choices

No, because a decision by a state supreme court concerning the proper disposition of state public lands is not reviewable by the United States Supreme Court.

No, on the ground that the decision of the state supreme court rests on an adequate and independent state ground.

Yes, the Supreme Court can accept the case for review and determine the validity and interpretation of the federal statute.

Yes, because the state statute was adopted pursuant to federal law.

4. While vacationing, an African-American man entered a private restaurant in a remote town. All other customers in the restaurant at the time were white males who lived within a few miles of the restaurant. The man was refused service. The restaurant purchases a substantial portion of its food from local suppliers, who obtain their goods from a variety of sources, both in-state and out-of-state. The state has no statute prohibiting this type of discrimination. Congress, however, has passed a statute prohibiting restaurants from refusing service based on race and allowing private actions for damages for violations of the statute.

Assuming the man can establish a statutory violation, what is the likely outcome of the suit?

Group of answer choices

The man likely will prevail, even if Congress had not acted, because the activities of the restaurant violate the privileges and immunities granted to all citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The man likely will prevail, even if Congress had not acted, because this constitutes a denial of equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The man likely will not prevail, because this is local activity which cannot be regulated under the commerce power.

The man likely will prevail, because Congress has enacted the statute.

5. A city that lies astride a major interstate highway recently passed a referendum declaring itself a "nuclear-free zone." The referendum included a provision making criminal any importation of specified nuclear materials into the city limits. The law was immediately challenged in federal court by an interstate trucking firm that regularly transported prohibited nuclear materials through the city on the highway. The case ultimately reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which held that the challenged ordinance was constitutional because the city had a rational basis for concluding that the citizens of the city would be safer if the prohibited materials were kept outside of town, and because the ordinance did not unduly burden interstate commerce. Many other towns and cities throughout the nation considered similar enactments after the Supreme Court decision was announced. In response, Congress enacted a federal statute prohibiting the state regulation of interstate transportation of nuclear materials.

If the statute is challenged in federal court, is it likely to be held constitutional?

Group of answer choices

Yes, because the Supremacy Clause requires that state enactments bow to conflicting federal legislation.

No, because the disparate treatment of interstate versus intrastate carriers of nuclear materials would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

No, because the Supreme Court has already ruled that local governments may prohibit specified nuclear materials from crossing their borders.

Yes, because Congress has very broad power to regulate interstate commerc

6. A state legislature enacted an excise tax on any automobile sold in the state that had not been manufactured within the state. The tax was intended to ease the desperate plight of the thousands of auto workers suffering layoffs, plant closures, and pay cuts from lost sales to foreign competitors. The tax was graduated, from 5% of the sales price of inexpensive automobiles down to 1% for automobiles selling for more than $100,000. A corporation that manufactures automobiles in a neighboring state brought an appropriate action in federal court to enjoin enforcement of the automobile tax statute as to its products.

Which of the following is the strongest constitutional argument supporting the invalidity of the special tax?

Group of answer choices

It violates the Fourteenth Amendment's protection of the privileges and immunities of national citizenship.

It violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

It violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

It is an undue burden on interstate commerce.

7. After a state legislature is presented with compelling evidence that insurance companies that offer burglary insurance policies are charging people different premiums based on race, the legislature passes a statute requiring every insurance company offering burglary insurance policies in the state to charge a uniform rate for customers who reside in the same county in the state. As long as it complies with this requirement, a company is free to charge whatever rate the market will bear for its burglary insurance policies. There are no federal laws covering uniform rates. An insurance company that offers burglary policies in the state but that is located in a neighboring state has filed suit in federal district court against state officials to challenge the statute on constitutional grounds. The insurance company wishes to charge customers residing within the same county varying rates for burglary insurance policies.

What is the likely result of the suit?

Group of answer choices

The statute will be held constitutional, because it is a reasonable exercise of the state's police power.

The statute will be held unconstitutional, because it imposes an undue burden on interstate commerce.

The statute will be held constitutional, because it is narrowly tailored to achieve the compelling interest of remedying racial discrimination.

The statute will be held unconstitutional, because it is not necessary to achieve a compelling interest.

8. Congress provided by statute that any state that does not enact a ban on texting while driving on state highways within the next three years shall be denied 10% of federal highway construction funding.

What is the best argument that can be made in support of the constitutionality of this federal statute?

Group of answer choices

A recent public opinion survey demonstrates that 90% of the people in this country support the ban.

The federal government can regulate the use of state highways without limitation because the federal government paid for most of their construction costs.

The states ceded their authority over highways to the national government when the states accepted federal grants to help finance the highways.

The requirement is not unduly coercive and is related to making travel on highways safer.