LGS Midterm Exam Questions with Correct Answers Latest Update 2025/2026
When was the Bill of Rights passed by Congress? - Answers September 25, 1789
When was the Bill of Rights ratified by the States? - Answers December 15, 1791
Amendment I - Answers Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances.
Establishment Clause - Answers Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion
Free Exercise Clause - Answers or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Shurtleff v. Boston (2022) Facts - Answers The City of Boston owns and manages three
flagpoles in front of City Hall, the seat of Boston's municipal government. Ordinarily, the City
raises the United States flag and the POW/MIA flag on one flagpole, the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts flag on the second flagpole, and its own flag on the third flagpole. Upon request
and after approval, the City will occasionally fly another flag for a limited period of time instead
of its own flag. Gregory T. Rooney, Commissioner of Boston's Property Management
Department, reviews applications for flag-raising events to ensure the flag is consistent with the
City's message, policies, and practices. The City has approved 284 flag-raising events over a 12-
year period, and Rooney had never denied a flag-raising application. Camp Constitution is an
organization that seeks "to enhance the understanding of the country's Judeo-Christian moral
heritage" and applied to fly a "Christian flag" for its event. Rooney denied Camp Constitution's
flag-raising request, finding it was the first time any entity or organization had requested to fly a
religious flag. Camp Constitution sued, and the district court found for the City. On appeal, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed.
Shurtleff v. Boston (2022) Question - Answers Does Boston's refusal to fly a private religious
organization's flag depicting a cross on a city flagpole violate the organization's First
Amendment rights?
Shurtleff v. Boston (2022) Holding - Answers The court's decision was unanimous. Boston's flag
-raising program does not constitute government speech, so its refusal to fly the private
religious organization's flag violates the organization's First Amendment rights. Justice Stephen
Breyer authored the majority opinion of the Court. The Court first considered whether Boston's
flag-raising program is government speech. The test for government speech is a holistic inquiry
that considers, among other things, the history of the expression at issue, the public's
perception as to who is speaking, and the extent to which the government has controlled the
expression. Although the history of flag displays favors Boston, the other two factors outweigh
the first factor. The public would not necessarily associate a flag's message with the City, and,
, most importantly, the City has exercised almost no control over flag content. In fact, the City
has no record of denying a request until the Petitioner's in this case. Thus, on balance, the flag-
raising program is not government speech. The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment
disallows the government from engaging in "impermissible viewpoint discrimination." When it is
not speaking for itself, the government may not exclude speech based on "religious viewpoint."
Thus, Boston's refusal to allow Shurtleff and Camp Constitution to raise their flag based on
"religious viewpoint" violated the First Amendment.
Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022) Facts - Answers Joseph Kennedy, a high school
football coach, engaged in prayer with a number of students during and after school games. His
employer, the Bremerton School District, asked that he discontinue the practice in order to
protect the school from a lawsuit based on violation of the Establishment Clause. Kennedy
refused and instead rallied local and national television, print media, and social media to
support him. Kennedy sued the school district for violating his rights under the First Amendment
and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The district court held that because the school
district suspended him solely because of the risk of constitutional liability associated with his
religious conduct, its actions were justified. Kennedy appealed, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022) Question - Answers Is a public school employee's
prayer during school sports activities protected speech, and if so, can the public school
employer prohibit it to avoid violating the Establishment Clause?
Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022) Holding - Answers The Free Exercise and Free
Speech Clauses of the First Amendment protect an individual engaging in a personal religious
observance from government reprisal; the Constitution neither mandates nor permits the
government to suppress such religious expression. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the majority
opinion of the Court. The District disciplined Coach Kennedy after three games in October 2015,
in which he "pray[ed] quietly without his students." In forbidding Mr. Kennedy's prayers, the
District sought to restrict his actions because of their religious character, thereby burdening his
right to free exercise. As to his free speech claim, the timing and circumstances of Kennedy's
prayers—during the postgame period when coaches were free to attend briefly to personal
matters and students were engaged in other activities—confirm that Kennedy did not offer his
prayers while acting within the scope of his duties as a coach. The District cannot show that its
prohibition of Kennedy's prayer serves a compelling purpose and is narrowly tailored to
achieving that purpose. The Court's Lemon test, and the related endorsement test, are
"abandoned," replaced by a consideration of "historical practices and understandings." Applying
that test, there is no conflict between the constitutional commands of the First Amendment in
this case.
Texas v. Johnson (1989) Facts - Answers In 1984, in front of the Dallas City Hall, Gregory Lee
Johnson burned an American flag as a means of protest against Reagan administration policies.
Johnson was tried and convicted under a Texas law outlawing flag desecration. He was
When was the Bill of Rights passed by Congress? - Answers September 25, 1789
When was the Bill of Rights ratified by the States? - Answers December 15, 1791
Amendment I - Answers Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances.
Establishment Clause - Answers Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion
Free Exercise Clause - Answers or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Shurtleff v. Boston (2022) Facts - Answers The City of Boston owns and manages three
flagpoles in front of City Hall, the seat of Boston's municipal government. Ordinarily, the City
raises the United States flag and the POW/MIA flag on one flagpole, the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts flag on the second flagpole, and its own flag on the third flagpole. Upon request
and after approval, the City will occasionally fly another flag for a limited period of time instead
of its own flag. Gregory T. Rooney, Commissioner of Boston's Property Management
Department, reviews applications for flag-raising events to ensure the flag is consistent with the
City's message, policies, and practices. The City has approved 284 flag-raising events over a 12-
year period, and Rooney had never denied a flag-raising application. Camp Constitution is an
organization that seeks "to enhance the understanding of the country's Judeo-Christian moral
heritage" and applied to fly a "Christian flag" for its event. Rooney denied Camp Constitution's
flag-raising request, finding it was the first time any entity or organization had requested to fly a
religious flag. Camp Constitution sued, and the district court found for the City. On appeal, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed.
Shurtleff v. Boston (2022) Question - Answers Does Boston's refusal to fly a private religious
organization's flag depicting a cross on a city flagpole violate the organization's First
Amendment rights?
Shurtleff v. Boston (2022) Holding - Answers The court's decision was unanimous. Boston's flag
-raising program does not constitute government speech, so its refusal to fly the private
religious organization's flag violates the organization's First Amendment rights. Justice Stephen
Breyer authored the majority opinion of the Court. The Court first considered whether Boston's
flag-raising program is government speech. The test for government speech is a holistic inquiry
that considers, among other things, the history of the expression at issue, the public's
perception as to who is speaking, and the extent to which the government has controlled the
expression. Although the history of flag displays favors Boston, the other two factors outweigh
the first factor. The public would not necessarily associate a flag's message with the City, and,
, most importantly, the City has exercised almost no control over flag content. In fact, the City
has no record of denying a request until the Petitioner's in this case. Thus, on balance, the flag-
raising program is not government speech. The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment
disallows the government from engaging in "impermissible viewpoint discrimination." When it is
not speaking for itself, the government may not exclude speech based on "religious viewpoint."
Thus, Boston's refusal to allow Shurtleff and Camp Constitution to raise their flag based on
"religious viewpoint" violated the First Amendment.
Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022) Facts - Answers Joseph Kennedy, a high school
football coach, engaged in prayer with a number of students during and after school games. His
employer, the Bremerton School District, asked that he discontinue the practice in order to
protect the school from a lawsuit based on violation of the Establishment Clause. Kennedy
refused and instead rallied local and national television, print media, and social media to
support him. Kennedy sued the school district for violating his rights under the First Amendment
and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The district court held that because the school
district suspended him solely because of the risk of constitutional liability associated with his
religious conduct, its actions were justified. Kennedy appealed, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022) Question - Answers Is a public school employee's
prayer during school sports activities protected speech, and if so, can the public school
employer prohibit it to avoid violating the Establishment Clause?
Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022) Holding - Answers The Free Exercise and Free
Speech Clauses of the First Amendment protect an individual engaging in a personal religious
observance from government reprisal; the Constitution neither mandates nor permits the
government to suppress such religious expression. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the majority
opinion of the Court. The District disciplined Coach Kennedy after three games in October 2015,
in which he "pray[ed] quietly without his students." In forbidding Mr. Kennedy's prayers, the
District sought to restrict his actions because of their religious character, thereby burdening his
right to free exercise. As to his free speech claim, the timing and circumstances of Kennedy's
prayers—during the postgame period when coaches were free to attend briefly to personal
matters and students were engaged in other activities—confirm that Kennedy did not offer his
prayers while acting within the scope of his duties as a coach. The District cannot show that its
prohibition of Kennedy's prayer serves a compelling purpose and is narrowly tailored to
achieving that purpose. The Court's Lemon test, and the related endorsement test, are
"abandoned," replaced by a consideration of "historical practices and understandings." Applying
that test, there is no conflict between the constitutional commands of the First Amendment in
this case.
Texas v. Johnson (1989) Facts - Answers In 1984, in front of the Dallas City Hall, Gregory Lee
Johnson burned an American flag as a means of protest against Reagan administration policies.
Johnson was tried and convicted under a Texas law outlawing flag desecration. He was
