AICP Exam Prep – Law (2025/2026 Latest Exam
Prep) | Complete Study Guide & Verified Q&A
Welch v. Swasey; 214 U.S. 91 (1909) - correct answerThe Court established the right of
municipalities to regulate building height.
Eubank v. City of Richmond; U.S. Supreme Court (1912) - correct answerThe Court first
approved the use of setback regulations, although it overturned the setbacks in this
case.
Hadacheck v. Sebastian; U.S. Supreme Court (1915) - correct answerThe Court first
approved the regulation of the location of land uses.
Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.; U.S. Supreme Court (1926) - correct answerThe
Court found that as long as the community believed that there was a threat of a
nuisance, the zoning ordinance should be upheld. The court first upheld modern zoning
as a proper use of police power. Alfred Bettman filed an influential brief with the court.
Nectow v. City of Cambridge; U.S. Supreme Court (1928) - correct answerThe Court
used a rational basis test to strike down a zoning ordinance because it had no valid
public purpose (e.g., to promote the health, safety, morals, or welfare of the public).
Golden v. Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo; New York State Court of Appeals
(1972) - correct answerThe court upheld a growth management system that awarded
points to development proposals based on the availability of public utilities, drainage
facilities, parks, road access, and firehouses. A proposal would only be approved upon
reaching a certain point level. Developers could increase their point total by providing
the involved facilities themselves.
Construction Industry of Sonoma County v. City of Petaluma; U.S. Court of Appeals for
the 4th Circuit (1975) - correct answerthe Court upheld quotas on the annual number of
building permits issued.
Associated Home Builders of Greater East Bay v. City of Livermore; California Supreme
Court (1976) - correct answerThe Court upheld temporary moratoriums on building
permits.
Massachusetts v. EPA, Inc.; U.S. Supreme Court (2006) - correct answerThe Court held
that the EPA must provide a reasonable justification for why they would not regulate
greenhouse gases.
Rapanos v. United States; U.S. Supreme Court (2006) - correct answerThe Court found
that the Army Corp of Engineers must determine whether there is a significant nexus
between a wetland and a navigable waterway.
, SD Warren v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection; U.S. Supreme Court (2006) -
correct answerThe Court found that hydroelectric dams are subject to Section 401 of
the Clean Water Act.
Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project
Inc.; US Supreme Court (2015) - correct answerIn this case the Supreme Court was
asked to evaluate whether disparate impact is the appropriate standard in which to
evaluate the impact of the Fair Housing Act. Inclusive Communities Project claimed that
the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs was disproportionately
granting tax credits to developments in minority neighborhoods and denying credits to
developments within Caucasian neighborhoods. The Court held that Disparate impact is
the appropriate standard to be applied to the Fair Housing Act. The result is that policies
that even inadvertently relegate minorities to poor areas violates the Fair Housing Act.
Young v. American Mini Theaters, Inc.; U.S. Supreme Court (1976) - correct answerThe
Court upheld a zoning scheme that decentralized sexually oriented businesses in
Detroit.
Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego; U.S. Supreme Court (1981) - correct answerThe
Court found that commercial and non-commercial speech cannot be treated differently.
The court overruled an ordinance that banned all off-premises signs because it
effectively banned non-commercial signs.
Members of City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent; U.S. Supreme Court (1984) - correct
answerThe Court found that the regulation of signs was valid for aesthetic reasons as
long as the ordinance does not regulate the content of the sign. If the regulation is
based on sign content, it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. The
Court found that aesthetics advance a legitimate state interest. The Court upheld a Los
Angeles ordinance that banned attaching signs to utility poles.
City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc.; U.S. Supreme Court (1986) - correct
answerThe Court found that placing restrictions on the time, place, and manner of adult
entertainment is acceptable. The ordinance was treating the secondary effects (such as
traffic and crime), not the content. The Court found that the city does not have to
guarantee that there is land available, at a reasonable price, for this use. However, the
city cannot entirely prohibit adult entertainment. The Court upheld a zoning ordinance
that limited sexually oriented businesses to a single zoning district.
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 - correct answerFollowing
the Supreme Court's ruling in City of Boerne v. Flores, Congress passed the Religious
Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. The new act declares that no government
may implement land use regulation in a manner that imposes substantial burden on the
religious assembly or institution, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of
burden both is in furtherance of compelling government interest and is the least
restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. This act has been
Prep) | Complete Study Guide & Verified Q&A
Welch v. Swasey; 214 U.S. 91 (1909) - correct answerThe Court established the right of
municipalities to regulate building height.
Eubank v. City of Richmond; U.S. Supreme Court (1912) - correct answerThe Court first
approved the use of setback regulations, although it overturned the setbacks in this
case.
Hadacheck v. Sebastian; U.S. Supreme Court (1915) - correct answerThe Court first
approved the regulation of the location of land uses.
Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.; U.S. Supreme Court (1926) - correct answerThe
Court found that as long as the community believed that there was a threat of a
nuisance, the zoning ordinance should be upheld. The court first upheld modern zoning
as a proper use of police power. Alfred Bettman filed an influential brief with the court.
Nectow v. City of Cambridge; U.S. Supreme Court (1928) - correct answerThe Court
used a rational basis test to strike down a zoning ordinance because it had no valid
public purpose (e.g., to promote the health, safety, morals, or welfare of the public).
Golden v. Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo; New York State Court of Appeals
(1972) - correct answerThe court upheld a growth management system that awarded
points to development proposals based on the availability of public utilities, drainage
facilities, parks, road access, and firehouses. A proposal would only be approved upon
reaching a certain point level. Developers could increase their point total by providing
the involved facilities themselves.
Construction Industry of Sonoma County v. City of Petaluma; U.S. Court of Appeals for
the 4th Circuit (1975) - correct answerthe Court upheld quotas on the annual number of
building permits issued.
Associated Home Builders of Greater East Bay v. City of Livermore; California Supreme
Court (1976) - correct answerThe Court upheld temporary moratoriums on building
permits.
Massachusetts v. EPA, Inc.; U.S. Supreme Court (2006) - correct answerThe Court held
that the EPA must provide a reasonable justification for why they would not regulate
greenhouse gases.
Rapanos v. United States; U.S. Supreme Court (2006) - correct answerThe Court found
that the Army Corp of Engineers must determine whether there is a significant nexus
between a wetland and a navigable waterway.
, SD Warren v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection; U.S. Supreme Court (2006) -
correct answerThe Court found that hydroelectric dams are subject to Section 401 of
the Clean Water Act.
Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project
Inc.; US Supreme Court (2015) - correct answerIn this case the Supreme Court was
asked to evaluate whether disparate impact is the appropriate standard in which to
evaluate the impact of the Fair Housing Act. Inclusive Communities Project claimed that
the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs was disproportionately
granting tax credits to developments in minority neighborhoods and denying credits to
developments within Caucasian neighborhoods. The Court held that Disparate impact is
the appropriate standard to be applied to the Fair Housing Act. The result is that policies
that even inadvertently relegate minorities to poor areas violates the Fair Housing Act.
Young v. American Mini Theaters, Inc.; U.S. Supreme Court (1976) - correct answerThe
Court upheld a zoning scheme that decentralized sexually oriented businesses in
Detroit.
Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego; U.S. Supreme Court (1981) - correct answerThe
Court found that commercial and non-commercial speech cannot be treated differently.
The court overruled an ordinance that banned all off-premises signs because it
effectively banned non-commercial signs.
Members of City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent; U.S. Supreme Court (1984) - correct
answerThe Court found that the regulation of signs was valid for aesthetic reasons as
long as the ordinance does not regulate the content of the sign. If the regulation is
based on sign content, it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. The
Court found that aesthetics advance a legitimate state interest. The Court upheld a Los
Angeles ordinance that banned attaching signs to utility poles.
City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc.; U.S. Supreme Court (1986) - correct
answerThe Court found that placing restrictions on the time, place, and manner of adult
entertainment is acceptable. The ordinance was treating the secondary effects (such as
traffic and crime), not the content. The Court found that the city does not have to
guarantee that there is land available, at a reasonable price, for this use. However, the
city cannot entirely prohibit adult entertainment. The Court upheld a zoning ordinance
that limited sexually oriented businesses to a single zoning district.
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 - correct answerFollowing
the Supreme Court's ruling in City of Boerne v. Flores, Congress passed the Religious
Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. The new act declares that no government
may implement land use regulation in a manner that imposes substantial burden on the
religious assembly or institution, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of
burden both is in furtherance of compelling government interest and is the least
restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. This act has been
