Question 1: A student applied to a master's program at a state university and was rejected. The university used various criteria to determine student admission to the program, including academic record, quality of undergraduate education, work experience, community involvement, and the race/ethnicity of each applicant. The student believed that they were rejected because of their race, and they filed a lawsuit in federal court. The student asked the court to declare their denial of admission unconstitutional and order the program to admit the student. While the lawsuit was pending, the student reapplied to the program, was admitted, and began their studies. The state university filed a motion to dismiss the student's pending action. The court should

a) Deny the motion because the case is capable of repetition yet evading review.

b) Deny the motion because the student is not seeking monetary damages.

c) Grant the motion because it should abstain from deciding a state issue.

d) Grant the motion because the student's action is moot.

Question 2: A federal statute established an agricultural subsidy program administered by the United States Department of Agriculture. A vegetable farmer received subsidies under the program. The statute required farmers who received subsidies to provide all of the produce grown at their farms to a distributor approved by the department so that the produce could be sold on the open market. The farmer withheld some vegetables each day from the distributor for their family. The Department of Agriculture discovered the farmer was withholding vegetables and withheld the subsidies. The farmer sued the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture in federal court for the subsidies. How should the court rule?

a) In favor of the Secretary because the aggregate impact of withholding vegetables can have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.

b) In favor of the Secretary because the farmer's claim is not ripe.

c) In favor of the farmer because they are not seeking monetary damages.

d) In favor of the farmer because Congress may only regulate interstate commerce.

Question 3: Congress passed the Water Preservation Act, requiring all users of water in the United States to reduce their consumption by a specified percentage. Under the Act, state and local agencies enforced the percentages. A citizen of State X sued in federal court, arguing that the statute violated the 10th Amendment. The court should

a) Rule in favor of the citizen because the federal government may not commandeer states to enforce federal requirements.

b) Rule in favor of the citizen because Congress does not have constitutional authority to pass a law regulating water consumption.

c) Dismiss the case because the citizen does not have standing.

d) Rule in favor of the defendant because the federal government has constitutional authority to enact the statute under the dormant commerce clause.

Question 4: The President of the United States and the prime minister of another country signed an executive agreement creating a commission empowered to govern the import and export of products between the countries. The President subsequently issued an executive order authorizing a federal executive branch agency to represent the United States' interest in the commission and to take actions beneficial for the general welfare of the United States and its citizens. The President's actions are

a) Likely constitutional because the President has plenary power to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the United States citizens.

b) Likely constitutional because entering into executive agreements is within the President's power, and no federal statute prohibits the executive order.

c) Likely unconstitutional because the agency is part of the executive branch.

d) Likely unconstitutional because the executive agreement was not ratified by the Senate.

Question 5: The President of the United States signed a treaty with other nations regarding the development and use of materials necessary to make vaccines. Congress subsequently enacted legislation pursuant to its Commerce Clause powers regarding the development and use of these materials in the United States. The legislation included a provision providing the United States Supreme Court with original jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to the law. The rationale behind the jurisdiction provision was to provide a swift resolution to these issues in the nation's highest court. A private company challenged the constitutionality of the law by filing directly in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court should

a) Rule that the provision providing the Supreme Court with original jurisdiction is constitutional under the Necessary and Proper Clause.

b) Rule that the provision providing the Supreme Court with original jurisdiction is constitutional because Congress can change the scope of federal courts' jurisdiction under Article III.

c) Rule that the provision providing the Supreme Court with original jurisdiction is unconstitutional.

d) Rule that the provision providing the Supreme Court with original jurisdiction is unconstitutional because the Treaty was not ratified by the Senate.

Question 6: A rancher lived beside a national park. The rancher has a valid state hunting license. After finding several of their cattle dead, the rancher set up a video camera and discovered that a mountain lion was leaving the national park and coming onto the rancher's property to kill the cattle. The rancher went out one early morning and shot the mountain lion while the mountain lion was on the rancher's property near the cattle. The rancher was subsequently prosecuted by the federal government under a federal statute that prohibited hunting animals within national parks and animals that have crossed the borders of the park onto private land. The prosecution is

a) Unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment because hunting is a state matter.

b) Unconstitutional under the Privileges and Immunities Clause because the rancher has a valid hunting license.

c) Constitutional because the mountain lion was on the rancher's property.

d) Constitutional because of Congressional property power and the related authority to take necessary and proper steps to protect property belonging to the United States.

Question 7: Congress passed legislation that permitted states to enact laws regarding non-plastic poultry packaging. The President signed the legislation into law. As a result of the law, a state passed a state statute requiring all poultry sold in the state to be packaged for sale in non-plastic containers regardless of whether the poultry was packaged in state or elsewhere. A poultry producer in a neighboring state challenged the packaging requirement in court. Will the poultry producer prevail?

a) No, because the state can enforce the packaging law pursuant to its police power under the Tenth Amendment.

b) No, because Congress authorized the state's action.

c) Yes, because the state's law violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause.

d) Yes, because the state's law violates the Dormant Commerce Clause.

Question 8: A state agency regulation required any state or federal agency official involved in a workplace safety investigation to file a formal written notice of participation with the employer so that the employer knows which agents conducted the investigation in case the employer appealed any of the findings or penalties associated with the investigation. State safety requirements are based on federal requirements. The formal written notice requirement is time consuming and is not required by federal regulations. Federal officials who are involved in a workplace safety investigation in the state refuse to comply with the state regulation and challenge its constitutionality as applied to federal agency officials. The regulation is likely

a) Constitutional under the state police power.

b) Constitutional under the Dormant Commerce Clause

c) Unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause.

d) Unconstitutional under 11th Amendment immunity.

Question 9: Congress passed an education reform bill that was signed into law by the President. The law included provisions requiring states to implement national achievement tests in public schools. Under the law, students who do not achieve a certain minimum score on the tests must be held back at their current grade level. State X implemented the achievement testing. Several hundred students in the state were held back as a result of their test scores. An association that advocated for public school students in State X filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the constitutionality of the statute. The association's members included students and family members of students who were held back as a result of the test. The association's purpose is to "protect the rights of State X students." The association asked the court to declare the law unconstitutional and to prohibit future achievement testing. The state moved to dismiss the case based on a lack of standing. The court will likely

a) Deny the motion because the association's members were harmed by the law.

b) Deny the motion because the case is ripe.

c) Grant the motion because the lawsuit does not relate to the purpose of the association.

d) Grant the motion because the lawsuit requires individual participation by members.

Question 10: Due to the rising costs of disposing and recycling plastic milk packaging, a state legislature enacted a law requiring all milk sold in the state to be packaged in paper-based containers to make disposal and recycling more cost-efficient. A national milk company sells its milk in the state, and some of the company's milk is packaged in plastic. The company challenges the state law in federal court. Which of the following is the best answer?

a) The law violates the dormant commerce clause because it discriminates against out-of-state milk producers.

b) The milk company has the burden to prove that the law has no less discriminatory alternatives.

c) The milk company has the burden to prove that the burden on interstate commerce clearly exceeds the local benefits of the law.

d) The state has the burden to prove that the local benefits of the law outweigh the burden on interstate commerce.

Question 11: A state facing a budgetary deficit needed to raise revenue, but state residents were opposed to any new state taxes. The state has a number of homes owned by out-of-state residents that are used as vacation homes or second homes. The state enacted a state property tax that applied only to property with homes owned by out-of-state residents. An out-of-state resident who owned a second home in the state sued the head of the state agency responsible for implementing the tax in their individual capacity in federal court to enjoin the collection of the tax. How should the court rule?

a) In favor of the defendant because the state may discriminate against nonresidents as market participants.

b) In favor of the defendant because the defendant is immune under the 11th Amendment.

c) In favor of the out-of-state resident because the burden on interstate commerce outweighs the local benefits.

d) In favor of the out-of-state resident because the law discriminates against non-residents in violation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause.

Question 12: Which of the following actions by the President is most likely to be constitutional?

a) The President issued an executive order requiring agencies to lease large SUVs for Cabinet members and their staff. The SUVs get low gas mileage, and federal law requires all federal agencies to lease or purchase fuel-efficient vehicles.

b) The President issued an executive order evacuating all embassy employees in a country after a terrorist threat was communicated to the United States embassy in a nearby country.

c) The President vetoed part of a bill pursuant to their authority to issue line-item vetoes provided by Congress.

d) The President issued an executive order canceling a vaccination program that Congress approved to reduce malaria deaths in a foreign nation.

Question 13: A federal statute provided the Department of Labor of the United States authority to enact regulations regarding workplace safety for employees working for private employers in times of national emergencies regarding infectious diseases. The statute also stated that any regulation enacted pursuant to the statute's authority could be set aside by a majority vote of both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Pursuant to this statutory authority, the Department of Labor enacted a regulation requiring employees working for private employers to wear an agency-approved mask anytime they worked indoors, and the President had declared a national emergency regarding an infectious disease. The majority of the House of Representatives and the Senate voted to set aside the regulation. Is the statutory authority to set aside the regulation constitutional?

a) Yes, because Congress may take whatever action is necessary and proper to maintain an effective balance over executive agencies.

b) Yes, because it meets the requirements of the Bicameralism Clause.

c) No, because it is legislative action.

d) No, because it is a nonjusticiable political question.

Question 14: Based on statistics regarding the fatality rate of people who ride motorcycles without a helmet, Congress enacted the Federal Motorcycle Safety Act under its Spending Clause powers. The Act provided states with funds to use for highway safety in their state. The Act included a condition that reduced all federal agency highway funds provided to the state by 20 percent if the state failed to make riding on a motorcycle without a helmet illegal. Which of the following is the strongest argument that the Act is unconstitutional?

a) The condition does not serve the general welfare.

b) The condition is coercive.

c) The condition is not reasonably related to the objective of decreasing fatalities.

d) The condition is ambiguous.

Question 15: Congress enacted legislation under its Spending Clause powers providing funds to states to develop programs in schools to "help students learn to uphold the values of American citizens." The legislation was signed into law by the President. The legislation provided the United States Department of Education with the authority to allocate funds to states based on plans filed by states explaining how the funds would be used. A state submitted a plan to the Department stating that it would use funds to develop programs explaining the "importance of religion and American citizenship." The Secretary of the United States Department of Education approved the plan and awarded the state-federal funds. A citizen from that state who does not have school-aged children filed a lawsuit in federal court arguing that funding religious programs violated the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution. The defendant moved to dismiss the case on the grounds that the citizen does not have standing. How should the court rule on the motion?

a) The court should grant the motion because it is a generalized grievance.

b) The court should grant the motion because the citizen does not have children.

c) The court should deny the motion because the citizen lives in the state.

d) The court should deny the motion because the lawsuit alleges a violation of the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution.

Question 16: After a dispute with a foreign country over natural resources lead to a Congressional hearing, the United States Secretary of State stated in a live news interview that the dispute was a result of a misunderstanding by the President of the United States about prior agreements between the countries and State Department officials were able to address the issue and repair relations with the foreign country. The President did not like the media comments and removed the Secretary from office. Federal law states that the Secretary can only be removed for good cause. The Secretary of State is a Cabinet member, and the State Department is a dependent agency. The Secretary sued in federal court, arguing that the President did not have good cause to remove them from office. The court should

a) Rule that the federal law limiting the President's authority to remove the Secretary only for good cause is unconstitutional.

b) Rule that the President had good cause to remove the Secretary.

c) Rule that the President did not have good cause to remove the Secretary.

d) Rule that the case is a nonjusticiable political question.

Question 17: A foreign country invaded another country and took control of its natural resources, which included oil. Prior to the invasion, the United States imported about ten percent of its oil from this invaded country, and some of the oil refineries in the invaded country were owned and operated by private United States companies. The new leader of the invaded country stated that the invaded country would no longer sell or export any of its resources to the United States, and that included refineries operated by United States oil companies. The President of the United States held meetings with military leaders, Cabinet members, and members of Congress to discuss ways to address potential oil shortages as a result of the invasion. Military leaders suggested invading the country to protect the private oil companies. Some Cabinet members suggested that any lost oil supply from the invaded country could be offset by increasing oil production in the United States. Congressional leaders suggested enacting legislation to protect the oil supply in the United States. Congress subsequently enacted legislation providing that "all oil refineries owned and operated in the United States shall be taken by the United States government for just compensation." The President signed the legislation into law and subsequently issued an executive order directing relevant agencies to send federal agents to seize and operate the oil refineries. The President's actions are likely

a) Unconstitutional because Congress did not authorize sending agents to seize and operate the oil refineries.

b) Unconstitutional because taking the refineries is unnecessary since any lost oil supply could be offset by increased production in the United States.

c) Constitutional because the President's war powers include sending agents to protect American interests.

d) Constitutional because the President has the authority to enforce federal laws.

Question 18: After three public school students were shot and killed at school by another student with a semi-automatic weapon, the state passed a law making it illegal to possess, use, sell, or transport any semi-automatic weapon unless it was for use by law enforcement officers while in the lawful discharge of their duties. The state is geographically located in the middle of the United States, and none of the other states prohibit semi-automatic weapons. As a result, companies transporting semi-automatic weapons to these other states have incurred substantial costs driving around the state to avoid violating the state law. One truck driver decided to drive through the state, and they were arrested and charged under the law for transporting semi-automatic weapons. Which of the following is the truck driver's strongest argument that the law is unconstitutional?

a) The law violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause because it prohibits state residents from possessing or using weapons that citizens of other states can possess and use.

b) The law does not serve a compelling interest.

c) The law's burden on interstate commerce clearly exceeds its benefits.

d) The law facially discriminates against out-of-state residents.

Question 19: A federal statute was enacted to protect natural resources. The statute created a joint commission with members representing three federal agencies and provided the commission with the power to develop regulations regarding natural resource preservation. The regulations are to be enforced by one or more of the three agencies. Commission members served two-year terms. The statute stated that after the initial commission developed regulations, subsequent members would be appointed to determine if any changes or additions needed to be made to regulations. Three of the commission members were to be appointed by the President, and the other six committee members would be selected by the heads of the three federal agencies. Is the federal statute unconstitutional?

a) No, because the commission members are inferior officers.

b) No, because the commission members are principal officers.

c) Yes, because commission members must be nominated by the President and appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate.

d) Yes, because members of the commission will be exercising quasi-legislative powers.

Question 20: Congress enacted legislation under its Spending Clause powers that denied highway construction funding to any state that failed to raise its minimum age for the purchase and consumption of alcoholic beverages to 21 years of age. The President signed the legislation into law. As a result of the new federal law, a state raised its drinking age from 18 to 21. A 19-year-old child of a member of Congress who lived in the state was subsequently charged with alcohol consumption under the law. The member of Congress asked the President to pardon their child, and the President agreed. Is the pardon constitutional?

a) Yes, because the President can pardon any crime.

b) Yes, because the pardon was authorized by Congress.

c) No, because it is a state crime.

d) No, because the child has not been convicted of a crime.

Question 21: A natural disaster struck in a heavily populated area of the United States. Residents of that area believed that the President and federal agencies did not provide sufficient support after the disaster, which resulted in unnecessary suffering, a lack of essential items like food and water, and lost revenue from being unable to work. A group of citizens sued the President and the heads of the federal agencies for $100 million dollars in federal court. The court should

a) Dismiss the claims because they are barred under the 11th Amendment.

b) Dismiss the claim against the President because the President has absolute immunity for official acts.

c) Dismiss the claim against the President because the President's conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person should have known.

d) Dismiss the claims against the President and allow the plaintiffs to bring them later when the President is no longer in office.

Question 22: Congress enacted legislation providing federal agencies with additional authority to investigate food safety requirements at food packaging and distribution centers. The legislation provided federal agencies with additional powers to fine companies that violated food safety requirements and to order companies to utilize the most effective ways to prevent food contamination. The legislation applied to all food products sold in stores and restaurants in the United States. The legislation and subsequent regulations significantly increased the costs of production and distribution for all food sellers. Does Congress have the authority to enact the legislation?

a) Yes, under the General Welfare Clause.

b) Yes, because food sales and distribution are instrumentalities of interstate commerce.

c) No, because the activity does not have a substantial effect on interstate commerce and interferes with state powers under the Tenth Amendment.

d) No, because the requirements are not necessary and proper.

Question 23: A United States Senate committee conducted hearings regarding a federal housing program to determine if there was waste, mismanagement, or fraud in awarding federal funds to contractors. As part of the hearing process, a former agency official testified that they had a conversation with a White House staff person about awarding funds to a specific contractor who was a financial supporter of the President. The agency official also stated that White House officials conducted an internal investigation into the financial relationship between the President and the contractor and issued a report to the President with their findings. The Senate Committee sent a request to the President to provide the report to the committee. The President declined citing executive privilege. The Senate Committee sued in federal court seeking a court order to disclose the report. The court will most likely

a) Dismiss the case because the President has absolute immunity.

b) Dismiss the case because it is a political question.

c) Deny the requested order to disclose the report because the President asserted privilege.

d) Determine if the need for the report outweighs the assertion of privilege.

Question 24: In which of the following instances would the Eleventh Amendment not bar the court action?

a) A citizen sued their state attorney general in federal court seeking an injunction against enforcement of a state policy they alleged violated federal law.

b) A citizen sued the governor of another state in state court, seeking damages for the violation of federal law.

c) A citizen sued a city official in federal district court for alleged violations of federal law.

d) A citizen sued a state agency in federal district court for damages for alleged violations of federal law.

Question 25: A study showed that obesity resulted in billions of dollars of healthcare costs nationally. The study found that snack foods and sugary drinks were one of the primary reasons for obesity. As a result, Congress enacted legislation imposing a 30 percent tax on processed snack foods and sugary drinks sold in the United States. The tax revenue was allocated to fund research on obesity and to help offset related healthcare costs. State X already had a 10 percent state tax on processed snack foods and sugary drinks. Companies that manufactured and sold processed snack foods in State X sued in state court, alleging that the federal tax violated State X constitutional requirements regarding taxation. The state courts agreed, and the defendants appealed to the United States Supreme Court. How will the Supreme Court likely rule?

a) That the state courts had adequate and independent state grounds for their decisions.

b) That the Supremacy Clause permits the federal tax to violate state constitutional requirements regarding taxation.

c) That the federal tax is preempted by the state tax.

d) That the state tax violates the dormant commer