1-Despite being located in a region with a racially diverse population, Public College has low minority enrollment. The administrators at Public College believe that minority enrollment is low because many intelligent minority applicants attended low-quality public high schools. Public College therefore designs an affirmative action plan with the goal of increasing its racial diversity. In its normal admissions system, all applicants receive a score of 1 to 10 based on high school GPA, SAT score, extracurricular activities, etc. Under the affirmative action program, minority applicants are automatically awarded 2 extra points (equaling 20% of the applicant's entire score). The program successfully increases diversity at Public College, as virtually every academically qualified candidate who benefits from the affirmative action program is admitted. If this plan is challenged in court, which of following is most likely?

1. The court will hold that it is unconstitutional because it invidiously discriminates on the basis of race
2. The court will hold that it is constitutional because Public College has a compelling interest in a diverse student body
3. The court will hold that it is unconstitutional because it is not narrowly tailored to achieving Public College's interest in a diverse student body
4. The court will hold that it is constitutional because it remedies past societal discrimination

2-The State of Florida charges out-of-state residents more for a fishing license than residents of Florida. Is this policy constitutional?

1. Yes, because Florida may discriminate against residents of other states with respect to rights that have no bearing upon the vitality of the nation as a single entity
2. Yes, because Florida gives out-of-state residents the same rights that are afforded to them by their home states
3. Yes, because Florida may discriminate against residents of other states when necessary to achieve a compelling interest
4. No, because Florida cannot discriminate against residents of other states

3-In response to a recent salmonella outbreak from poorly packaged ground turkey, Congress recently passed the Care in Turkey Packaging Act (CTPA). As a result of the outbreak, 200 people became ill, there was one death, and the percentage of people purchasing ground turkey dropped by fifteen percent. The law was unanimously passed by both houses of Congress and signed immediately by the President. The law granted the Food and Drug Administration the power to pass regulations establishing higher safety standards for turkey sold in interstate commerce. The statute indicated that if a turkey packaging plant disagreed with the implementation and application of a new safety measure, the plant could bring a case before an administrative law judge (ALJ) challenging the safety measure. If the packaging plant was not happy with the ALJ's final determination, then the plant could seek additional review from Congress. Under the statute, if both houses of Congress agreed with the packaging plant, the plant would prevail. Which of the following statements would a court most likely to use in a decision addressing whether the CTPA law was constitutional?

1. The scheme created by Congress in the CTPA law violates the bicameralism requirement
2. The scheme created by Congress in the CTPA law violates the presentment requirement
3. The scheme created by Congress in the CTPA law violates the Commerce Clause
4. The scheme created by Congress in the CTPA law is constitutional

4-In which of the following fact patterns would the President be most likely successful in raising a claim of executive privilege?

1. The President seeks to quash a subpoena for minutes from meetings with her National Security Advisors regarding whether to initiate military air strikes against a hostile country.
2. The President seeks to dismiss a civil case against her for damages for a shop owner's lost profits when the President visited the shop owners' neighborhood, and for security reasons, entrance to the shop owner's shop was closed for five hours, thereby making it impossible for customers to come to the shop.
3. The President seeks to quash a subpoena for the White House Visitor's Log, where the information in the Log was sought by a criminal defendant who wished to establish as an alibi that he was at the White House at the time of the alleged crime.
4. The President seeks to dismiss a criminal case against her for tax evasion, based on her failure to properly report earnings from a book she published three years prior to her candidacy.

5-The City of Hicksville, Ohio has no concert halls, bars, or other venues for playing music. The City therefore allows musicians to play at a small public park.This park, however, is located near a number of residential areas. After a loud country music concert is held at the park, the City receives a number of complaints. Based on these complaints, the City bans the use of all sound amplification systems and prohibits the playing of music after 5:00 p.m. If the City's actions are challenged on First Amendment grounds, which of the following is most likely?

1. The City will win, because the regulation is rationally related to its interest in reducing sound pollution
2. The City will win, because it is targeting conduct rather than expression
3. The City will lose, because it has not left open ample alternative channels for communication
4. The City will lose, because there is no evidence that the City had the purpose of targeting secondary effects

6-The federal government seeks an order prohibiting the Washington Post from publishing an article about a failed terrorist attack.The government asserts that the article could interfere with the ongoing investigation. Although the public is currently unaware of the attempted attack, the article would describe the incident and suspects in detail. Which of the following is most likely?

1. The Court will deny the government's request because prior restraints on publication violate the First Amendment
2. The Court will deny the government's request because the government has not met its heavy burden of proving serious harm would result from publication
3. The Court will issue an order prohibiting publication because the article could interfere with an ongoing investigation
4. The Court will issue an order prohibiting publication because the Court defers to the government on national security issues

7-Dunkin Donuts runs a television commercial claiming that children benefit from eating donuts before school. The commercial accurately reports that it ran a study showing that children who ate donuts for breakfast performed better at school than a control group. Although the composition of the control group was not mentioned in the commercial, it consisted of children who were sent to school without eating any breakfast. If the state files a suit seeking to prohibit Dunkin from running this advertisement, which result is most likely?

1. Dunkin will win, because commercial speech is protected by the First Amendment
2. Dunkin will lose, because the advertisement is misleading
3. Dunkin will win, because its advertisement contains only truthful information
4. Dunkin will lose, because its advertisement was made negligently

8-Two gangs are involved in a long and bloody conflict. The police attempt to stop the violence for months, but nothing seems to help. After a drive-by shooting kills several school children, State X makes it a crime to join either gang. Police arrest two individuals who admit to being members of one of the gangs. Would prosecution under the state law violate the First Amendment?

1. No, because the law is narrowly tailored to a compelling interest
2. No, because the law does not target association for the purpose of expression
3. Yes, because the law directly limits speech
4. Yes, because a person cannot be punished for joining a group

9-The City Council of Funland recently adopted an ordinance requiring a dress code for all bus drivers. The dress code states: "All bus drivers shall wear suitable attire." "Suitable Attire" is defined in the ordinance as long pants (no jeans), shoes (excluding sneakers, slippers, sandals), collared shirts or blouses (which must be tucked in), and no hats. In a statement accompanying the ordinance, the City Council of Funland said the reasons for the new dress code; 1) to improve public safety, and 2) to promote a professional environment for visitors of Funland (which is known for its amazing theme parks and cotton candy). After being cited for violating the new ordinance, Ms. Johnson, a Funland bus driver of Afro-Caribbean dissent, filed a lawsuit challenging the dress code. Her complaint contends that the dress code violated the Equal Protection Clause by forbidding her to wear her ethnic headdress. What level of scrutiny should the ordinance receive?

1. Rational Basis Review
2. Intermediate Scrutiny
3. Strict scrutiny
4. Heightened Scrutiny

10-What if this was a Washington D.C. ordinance and Ms. Johnson was a federal employee who complained that the dress code infringed on the free exercise of her religion in that she could no longer wear the head covering that she sincerely believes is required by her religion? Which of the following is true?

1. If it impacts her right to exercise her religious beliefs it must be substantially related to an important governmental interest.
2. If it is a neutral law of general application that only incidentally impacts her religion it is constitutional.
3. If it substantially impacts the exercise of her sincerely held beliefs, then it must be necessary for a compelling governmental reason.
4. If it is a neutral law of general application that only incidentally impacts her religion it must be rationally related to an important governmental interest.

11-A heavy metel band called Stinky Pants wants to play a concert in the small community park in City Y. City Y will notgive Stinky Pants a permit to play in the park which is surrounded by single family residences. What is the City's best argument that the denial of the permit is constitutional (assume that the city has the facts to back up its argument)?

1. the city's denial of the permit is based on a clear written policy that is justified because of the secondary effects of the speech; addressing the secondary effects is a significant state interest; the policy merely regulates the time, manner or place for the speech; and it allows for reasonable alternative venues for the speech. It also provides adequate procedural safeguards.
2. the city residents disapprove of the lyrics to most of Stinky Pants's songs, which include references to sex, drugs and the devil, and which are not appropriate for children who might hear the performance from their residences.
3. the city has an important governmental interest and there is no less restrictive means of serving that interest.
4. The city did not get an injunction against Stinky Pants restraining their concert, and merely threatened to fine them after the fact if they determined that they violated the city ordinance requiring a permit. Since this is not a prior restraint, it only needs to pass rational basis review.

43-A newly-enacted state criminal statute provides, in its entirety, "No person, without provocation, shall employ opprobrious words or abusive language, when such is used to or of another and tends to cause a breach of the peace." A 40-year-old man followed a small child home from school, yelling offensive four-letter words at the child. The child repeatedly asked the man to leave him alone, but the man refused. In a subsequent prosecution of the man, the first under this statute, the man

1. can be convicted.
2. cannot be convicted, because the First and Fourteenth Amendments bar punishing speech of the sort described here.
3. cannot be convicted, because the average user of a public street would think his speech and action here was amusing and ridiculous rather than "opprobrious."
4. cannot be convicted, because, though his speech here may be punished by the state, the state may not do so under this statute.

44-Which of the following defendants could constitutionally be punished under a state statutewhich made criminal the "incitement of others to perform any criminal act"?

1. A college student who tells a noontime rally of several hundred students at the university that "the corporate structure of the United States reeks from its own corruption and will, when the time is right, be cleansed by the purifying fire of violent revolution, brothers and sisters; I will lead you in that glorious purifying bloodbath."
2. A white supremacist who tells a clandestine meeting of seventeen followers that "I believe that the nonwhite races are vermin created by Satan and should be eradicated on sight by right-thinking white Americans."
3. A member of the radical People's Revolutionary Army, whose manifesto states that "each soldier of the People's Revolutionary Army will take constant and immediate action to destroy the government of the fascist United States and to execute the officials of that government." She joined the PRA two years ago and has attended one weekly meeting and one PRA bake sale.
4. A war protester who tells several thousand members of a protest march that "the war that's going on is illegal and immoral, and you should all go to the draft board offices right now and burn their records as a symbol of our contempt for their illegal war."

48-Federal marshals perform a variety of law enforcement functions, including apprehension of fugitives, the protection of federal judges, and guarding federal courthouses. Suppose that Congress, concerned about making sure that federal marshals are physically capable enough to handle the demands of the job, passes a law requiring that all federal marshals retire at age 50. After the publication of a study demonstrating that some officers in their early 50's are as physically capable of performing law enforcement functions as younger officers, a group of marshals facing mandatory retirement under the law brings a Fourteenth Amendment challenge to the law in federal court. Does the requirement of mandatory retirement at age 50 violate the federal Constitution?

1. Yes, because age is a quasi-suspect classification that triggers strict scrutiny.
2. Yes, because the requirement is not substantially related to an important governmental interest.
3. No, because Congress has plenary power to regulate federal law enforcement agencies.
4. No, because the requirement is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose.

49-In an effort to save money as well as live more efficiently, Family X, who recently emigrated from Syria as refugees decided to move into a home together. The family includes the mother and father, four children, four grandparents, two uncles, one aunt, and six cousins. The family was careful to meet the city code, which allows up to 20 people living in a home of their size. However, the city of Jacksonville thinks that only immediate family, and not extended family, should live under the same household and passed a statute, which did not allow family members including aunts, uncles, or cousins to live under the same roof. Family X sued the city and as a basis claims that the statute violates the Due Process Clause. Will Family X likely be successful in the suit against the city?

1. No, this is not a violation of the Due Process Clause, and the city may limit any immediate or extended family members who may live under the same roof.
2. No, if this is rationally related to a legitimate city interest.
3. Yes, because it unfairly discriminates against ethnic minority groups who are more likely to have extended families living together than majority ethnic groups.
4. Yes, the right to live as a family is protected under the Due Process Clause, and the city infringed the family's liberty interest in deciding which family members can live together.