Constitutional Law Multiple Choice
Exams with Correct Solutions
1. For a party to have standing to sue in federal court, the Constitution
require that the party be able to show it satisfies the following elements:
correct answer: (1) injury-in-fact
(2) injury must be fairly traceable to the defendant
(3) the injury must be redressable by the court
2. What is the textual basis in the Constitution for the requirement that a
party have standing to sue? correct answer: The language in Article III, Section 2, which
describes the power of the Supreme Court and other federal courts as extending only certain types
of "cases" or "controversies"
3. May a federal court provide advice about a legal question in
response to questions that Congress or the President ask of it (outside
the context of an existing dispute?
For example, could Congress - in considering whether to enact the Affordabl
Care Act (also known as Obamacare) in 2009 or 2010 - have asked the
Supreme Court's justices to provide them with an opinion about whether the
law (if ultimately enacted) would be constitutional? correct answer: No. Neither the
Supreme Court nor any other federal court can provide such advice because the Constitution bar
courts from issuing advisory opinions.
4. What are the two things that the Supreme Court - in Lujan - said must be
true for an alleged harm to amount to an injury-in-fact? correct answer: It
must be:
(i) concrete and particularized
(ii) actual or imminent
5. Imagine that a wildlife researcher in Oregon is studying the Northern
Spotted Owl, a species protected by the Endangered Species Act. The
Department of Interior decides that while the ESA protects the Norther
Spotted Owl against acts that directly harm the owl, it odes not protect
the owl against forestry operations that harm the owl indirectly by
harming its habitat. Assuming these forestry operation would in fact
occur and would lead to the elimination of the owl population in the area,
,can the wildlife researcher likely show that the harm to the owl's habitat
would count as "injury in fact" enabling the researcher to sue the
Department of Interior in federal court? correct answer: Yes, because the harm that
the researcher plausibly says will occur to the owl population will cause harm to the researcher by
depriving it of animals to study in the area where the researcher works.
, 6. Which of the following best describes how the concept of a state's
"quasi-sov- ereign interests" modifies the standing analysis in the view of
the Court in Massachusetts v. EPA? correct answer: A state can satisfy the injury-in-fact
requirements by showing evidence of harms
- such as harms to the state's quasi-sovereign interest in protecting its air or water quality - even thoug
such harms
would likely not be particularized enough to let an individual citizen satisfy the injury-in-fact requiremen
on the grounds that citizen is hurt by polluted air.
7. After capturing an enemy combatant during the war in Afghanistan,
the government detains that combatant under circumstances that an
individual citizen - and taxpayer - believes are illegal under international
law, and a US status incorporating those aspects of international law
into domestic law.
Does the taxpayer likely have standing to sue the government on grounds
that the government is using her tax dollars to carry out the illegal
detention? correct answer: No. The general rule is that a taxpayer's connection to such
government action does not give her any more stake in the government's action than any other citizen
taxpayer and whatever injury exists is thus not suflciently particularized to count as an injury-in-fact for
purposes of standing.
8. What two factors does ripeness (for review) depend on? correct answer: (1)
Whether the issue is fit for judicial decision and
(2) the hardship to the parties of withholding consideration
(And the party must have already suttered harm, or be facing or threatened with specific harm).
9. Which of the following best provides a short summary of the black letter
law on when Congress can deprive the Supreme Court of appellate
jurisdiction to hear a case on a federal question? correct answer: Congress has power
to remove jurisdiction under its power to make exceptions to the Court's appellate jurisdiction.
The extent of that power is uncertain but Congress may not exercise it in such a way that it imposes a
rule of decision on the Court, or deprives its judgements of finality.
10. Which of the following is true about the Supreme Court's power
to review and reverse a state court decision that discusses, in a dicta,
the meaning
of a federal constitutional provision such as the First Amendment of the US
Constitution? correct answer: The US Supreme Court may do so under any circumstances where
federal law is discussed, even if such discussing is purely dicta rather than the state court's holding,
Exams with Correct Solutions
1. For a party to have standing to sue in federal court, the Constitution
require that the party be able to show it satisfies the following elements:
correct answer: (1) injury-in-fact
(2) injury must be fairly traceable to the defendant
(3) the injury must be redressable by the court
2. What is the textual basis in the Constitution for the requirement that a
party have standing to sue? correct answer: The language in Article III, Section 2, which
describes the power of the Supreme Court and other federal courts as extending only certain types
of "cases" or "controversies"
3. May a federal court provide advice about a legal question in
response to questions that Congress or the President ask of it (outside
the context of an existing dispute?
For example, could Congress - in considering whether to enact the Affordabl
Care Act (also known as Obamacare) in 2009 or 2010 - have asked the
Supreme Court's justices to provide them with an opinion about whether the
law (if ultimately enacted) would be constitutional? correct answer: No. Neither the
Supreme Court nor any other federal court can provide such advice because the Constitution bar
courts from issuing advisory opinions.
4. What are the two things that the Supreme Court - in Lujan - said must be
true for an alleged harm to amount to an injury-in-fact? correct answer: It
must be:
(i) concrete and particularized
(ii) actual or imminent
5. Imagine that a wildlife researcher in Oregon is studying the Northern
Spotted Owl, a species protected by the Endangered Species Act. The
Department of Interior decides that while the ESA protects the Norther
Spotted Owl against acts that directly harm the owl, it odes not protect
the owl against forestry operations that harm the owl indirectly by
harming its habitat. Assuming these forestry operation would in fact
occur and would lead to the elimination of the owl population in the area,
,can the wildlife researcher likely show that the harm to the owl's habitat
would count as "injury in fact" enabling the researcher to sue the
Department of Interior in federal court? correct answer: Yes, because the harm that
the researcher plausibly says will occur to the owl population will cause harm to the researcher by
depriving it of animals to study in the area where the researcher works.
, 6. Which of the following best describes how the concept of a state's
"quasi-sov- ereign interests" modifies the standing analysis in the view of
the Court in Massachusetts v. EPA? correct answer: A state can satisfy the injury-in-fact
requirements by showing evidence of harms
- such as harms to the state's quasi-sovereign interest in protecting its air or water quality - even thoug
such harms
would likely not be particularized enough to let an individual citizen satisfy the injury-in-fact requiremen
on the grounds that citizen is hurt by polluted air.
7. After capturing an enemy combatant during the war in Afghanistan,
the government detains that combatant under circumstances that an
individual citizen - and taxpayer - believes are illegal under international
law, and a US status incorporating those aspects of international law
into domestic law.
Does the taxpayer likely have standing to sue the government on grounds
that the government is using her tax dollars to carry out the illegal
detention? correct answer: No. The general rule is that a taxpayer's connection to such
government action does not give her any more stake in the government's action than any other citizen
taxpayer and whatever injury exists is thus not suflciently particularized to count as an injury-in-fact for
purposes of standing.
8. What two factors does ripeness (for review) depend on? correct answer: (1)
Whether the issue is fit for judicial decision and
(2) the hardship to the parties of withholding consideration
(And the party must have already suttered harm, or be facing or threatened with specific harm).
9. Which of the following best provides a short summary of the black letter
law on when Congress can deprive the Supreme Court of appellate
jurisdiction to hear a case on a federal question? correct answer: Congress has power
to remove jurisdiction under its power to make exceptions to the Court's appellate jurisdiction.
The extent of that power is uncertain but Congress may not exercise it in such a way that it imposes a
rule of decision on the Court, or deprives its judgements of finality.
10. Which of the following is true about the Supreme Court's power
to review and reverse a state court decision that discusses, in a dicta,
the meaning
of a federal constitutional provision such as the First Amendment of the US
Constitution? correct answer: The US Supreme Court may do so under any circumstances where
federal law is discussed, even if such discussing is purely dicta rather than the state court's holding,
