Multistate Bar Exam Constitutional Law 4 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: The government seizes a landowner's property for a private shopping mall development under eminent domain, offering fair market value. The landowner argues this violates the Takings Clause. Under Kelo v. City of New London, the taking is:
- Unconstitutional because private commercial development is not a 'public use'
- Constitutional because economic development can satisfy the 'public use' requirement (Correct answer)
- Unconstitutional because fair market value is not 'just compensation' for a forced sale
- Constitutional only if the state legislature has specifically authorized economic development takings
Correct answer: Constitutional because economic development can satisfy the 'public use' requirement
In Kelo v. City of New London, the Court held that transferring land to private developers for economic development qualifies as 'public use' under the Takings Clause, provided just compensation is paid.
Question 2: A state enacts a law prohibiting the sale of video games depicting graphic violence to minors. The law is challenged on First Amendment grounds. The court should apply:
- Rational basis, because violent video games are not constitutionally protected speech
- Strict scrutiny, because video games are protected speech and there is no recognized 'violence' exception for minors (Correct answer)
- Intermediate scrutiny, because the law restricts commercial speech targeting children
- The Miller test, because violent content is analogous to obscenity
Correct answer: Strict scrutiny, because video games are protected speech and there is no recognized 'violence' exception for minors
In Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass'n, the Court held that video games are protected speech, violence is not a category exempt from First Amendment protection, and such laws must survive strict scrutiny.
Question 3: A federal law grants Native American tribes the exclusive right to operate casinos in states that permit casino gambling. A competing non-tribal casino operator challenges the law under the Equal Protection Clause. The court should apply:
- Strict scrutiny, because the law classifies based on race
- Rational basis review, because laws regarding Native American tribes are reviewed under Congress's plenary power over Indian affairs (Correct answer)
- Intermediate scrutiny, because tribal status is a quasi-suspect classification
- Strict scrutiny, because economic regulation that benefits a particular group is inherently suspect
Correct answer: Rational basis review, because laws regarding Native American tribes are reviewed under Congress's plenary power over Indian affairs
Under Morton v. Mancari, federal legislation singling out Native American tribes is reviewed under rational basis because it reflects Congress's unique plenary authority over Indian affairs, not racial classification.
Question 4: A police officer stops a car at a sobriety checkpoint and, without any individualized suspicion, detains the driver for two minutes to check for signs of intoxication. Under Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, this stop is:
- Unconstitutional because it lacks individualized reasonable suspicion required by the Fourth Amendment
- Constitutional because the minimal intrusion is outweighed by the state's strong interest in highway safety (Correct answer)
- Unconstitutional because the driver's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is implicated
- Constitutional only if the checkpoint is publicized in advance
Correct answer: Constitutional because the minimal intrusion is outweighed by the state's strong interest in highway safety
In Michigan v. Sitz, the Court applied balancing analysis and upheld sobriety checkpoints as constitutionally permissible despite the absence of individualized suspicion given the state's compelling highway safety interest.
Question 5: Congress passes the 'Balanced Budget Act,' requiring the President to cancel individual spending items after a bill is signed into law. The President uses this power to eliminate a tax break for particular companies. The law is most likely:
- Constitutional as a valid delegation of spending authority to the executive branch
- Unconstitutional because it gives the President a line-item veto power not authorized by Article I's Presentment Clause (Correct answer)
- Constitutional because Congress can delegate authority to modify tax provisions to the President
- Unconstitutional only if the President exercises the power in a discriminatory manner
Correct answer: Unconstitutional because it gives the President a line-item veto power not authorized by Article I's Presentment Clause
In Clinton v. City of New York, the Court struck down the Line Item Veto Act because it allowed the President to unilaterally amend or repeal acts of Congress, violating the Presentment Clause procedures.
Question 6: A woman is denied admission to a state-supported nursing school solely because of her sex. The school argues it provides a unique educational benefit to women. Under Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan, the exclusion of men is:
- Constitutional because single-sex educational institutions serve an important governmental interest
- Unconstitutional because sex-based discrimination must substantially relate to an important government interest, and this policy perpetuates stereotypes (Correct answer)
- Constitutional because the Fourteenth Amendment only prohibits discrimination against historically disadvantaged groups
- Unconstitutional only if the man can show he suffered a concrete educational harm
Correct answer: Unconstitutional because sex-based discrimination must substantially relate to an important government interest, and this policy perpetuates stereotypes
In Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan, the Court held that excluding men from a state nursing school violated equal protection because the policy reinforced gender stereotypes rather than compensating for past discrimination.
Question 7: A state statute criminalizes private, consensual sexual activity between adults of the same sex. The statute is challenged on substantive due process grounds. Under Lawrence v. Texas, the statute is:
- Constitutional because states have traditionally regulated sexual morality
- Unconstitutional because it infringes on the liberty interest of adults to engage in private consensual sexual conduct (Correct answer)
- Constitutional if the legislature finds a rational basis in public health
- Unconstitutional only under the Equal Protection Clause, not substantive due process
Correct answer: Unconstitutional because it infringes on the liberty interest of adults to engage in private consensual sexual conduct
In Lawrence v. Texas, the Court held that the government cannot criminalize private consensual sexual conduct between adults because it violates the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.
Multistate Bar Exam Constitutional Law 4
The government seizes a landowner's property for a private shopping mall development under eminent domain, offering fair market value.
The landowner argues this violates the Takings Clause.
Under Kelo v.
City of New London, the taking is: