BAR EXAM - Missed Con Law Questions
and Answers
A legal representative of a resident in a state-owned and state-operated mental health
facility sued an official of the facility in federal court. The representative, who is a citizen
of another state, seeks an injunction to compel the official to comply with a state law
that requires the least-restrictive-environment approach to be used in mental health
facilities. The state official has moved to dismiss the action as unconstitutional under the
Eleventh Amendment.
Should the court grant the official's motion?
A. No, because the action seeks injunctive relief instead of damages as a remedy.
B. No, because the action was brought against a state official rather than the state.
C. Yes, because the action does not involve a fundamental right.
D. Yes, because the action seeks to enforce state law rather than federal law. - ANS-D.
Yes, because the action seeks to enforce state law rather than federal law.
**11th - protects States from being sued by private citizen in Federal Court
A professional basketball player who was a citizen of one state sued an artist who was
a citizen of another state. The artist had created multiple oil paintings of the player's
image from which limited-edition prints were created and sold without the player's
permission or consent. The player sought damages in excess of $80,000 for violation of
his state statutory right to publicity.
The state trial court ruled in the player's favor, but the state appellate court overturned
this decision on the basis that the free speech clause of the state constitution created a
privilege that protected the artist from this action. In making its decision, the appellate
court relied on a recent decision issued by the U.S. Supreme Court. The appellate court
decision denied the player recovery on his state-based cause of action. The state's
highest court declined to hear the appeal. The player then filed a petition for writ of
certiora - ANS-D. Yes, because the state court decision relied on a recent decision
issued by the U.S. Supreme Court.
A man was charged with violating a state criminal statute in state court. While
prosecution was pending, the man filed a civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in federal
district court, alleging that the state statute as applied to him violates the U.S.
Constitution. The man sought an injunction against the state's prosecution of him.
,Should the federal district court hear the man's claim?
A. No, because the man lacks standing since he has not been convicted and sentenced
for a violation of the state statute.
B. No, because the man seeks an injunction against a pending state criminal
proceeding.
C. Yes, because a federal court may enjoin the enforcement of an unconstitutional
statute.
D. Yes, because the man has alleged that the state statute violates the U.S.
Constitution. - ANS-B. No, because the man seeks an injunction against a pending state
criminal proceeding.
In order to discourage the transfer of electrical products that could threaten national
security and to raise revenue, Congress enacted a statute that imposed a tax on the
export of electrical products containing military-grade technology to countries that were
determined to be hostile to the United States.
Is the federal tax likely constitutional?
A. No, because Congress does not have the power to tax exported goods.
B. No, because the tax unduly burdens foreign commerce.
C. Yes, because the commerce clause gives Congress the power to regulate foreign
commerce.
D. Yes, because the taxing and spending clause gives Congress the power to tax for
any public purpose. - ANS-A. No, because Congress does not have the power to tax
exported goods.
**limit on congress's taxing & spending power is on exported goods
A federal statute established a life insurance exchange that allowed U.S. citizens and
noncitizens to purchase affordable life insurance policies through it. U.S. citizens were
immediately eligible to participate in the exchange, but resident noncitizens were not
eligible to participate in it until they had resided in the U.S. for at least five years. A
resident noncitizen who has resided in the U.S. for four years was denied eligibility
pursuant to the statute and has filed suit in federal court challenging the statute on
constitutional grounds. Specifically, the resident noncitizen claims that the statute
violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment due process clause.
Is the resident noncitizen likely to prevail?
, A. No, because Congress has plenary authority over immigration and naturalization
under Article I of the Constitution.
B. No, because the statute violates the privileges or immunities - ANS-A. No, because
Congress has plenary authority over immigration and naturalization under Article I of the
Constitution.
The District of Columbia government has the power to levy an income tax. In an effort to
encourage nonresidents to conduct business in the District of Columbia, Congress
enacted a federal statute that prohibits the District of Columbia from imposing an
income tax on individuals who work there but reside elsewhere.
Is the statute likely to be found constitutional?
A. No, because it violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment.
B. No, because it violates the uniformity clause of Article I, Section 8.
C. Yes, under the enclave clause in Article I, Section 8.
D. Yes, under the Sixteenth Amendment. - ANS-C. Yes, under the enclave clause in
Article I, Section 8.
**gives congress legislative power to govern District of Columbia
Several national newspapers ran stories about a dramatic increase in the number of
licensed pharmacists who prescribed controlled substances illegally because they had
lied about their educational background. In response, Congress enacted a statute
requiring state health officials to conduct background checks on pharmacists involved in
the sale of controlled substances that had been previously transported in interstate
commerce.
Is the federal statute constitutional?
A. No, because Congress has no authority to regulate activities that affect traditionally
local matters.
B. No, because Congress has no authority to require state governments to enforce
federal law.
C. Yes, because Congress has the power to legislate for the general welfare.
D. Yes, because Congress has the power to regulate things that move in interstate
commerce. - ANS-B. No, because Congress has no authority to require state
governments to enforce federal law.
and Answers
A legal representative of a resident in a state-owned and state-operated mental health
facility sued an official of the facility in federal court. The representative, who is a citizen
of another state, seeks an injunction to compel the official to comply with a state law
that requires the least-restrictive-environment approach to be used in mental health
facilities. The state official has moved to dismiss the action as unconstitutional under the
Eleventh Amendment.
Should the court grant the official's motion?
A. No, because the action seeks injunctive relief instead of damages as a remedy.
B. No, because the action was brought against a state official rather than the state.
C. Yes, because the action does not involve a fundamental right.
D. Yes, because the action seeks to enforce state law rather than federal law. - ANS-D.
Yes, because the action seeks to enforce state law rather than federal law.
**11th - protects States from being sued by private citizen in Federal Court
A professional basketball player who was a citizen of one state sued an artist who was
a citizen of another state. The artist had created multiple oil paintings of the player's
image from which limited-edition prints were created and sold without the player's
permission or consent. The player sought damages in excess of $80,000 for violation of
his state statutory right to publicity.
The state trial court ruled in the player's favor, but the state appellate court overturned
this decision on the basis that the free speech clause of the state constitution created a
privilege that protected the artist from this action. In making its decision, the appellate
court relied on a recent decision issued by the U.S. Supreme Court. The appellate court
decision denied the player recovery on his state-based cause of action. The state's
highest court declined to hear the appeal. The player then filed a petition for writ of
certiora - ANS-D. Yes, because the state court decision relied on a recent decision
issued by the U.S. Supreme Court.
A man was charged with violating a state criminal statute in state court. While
prosecution was pending, the man filed a civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in federal
district court, alleging that the state statute as applied to him violates the U.S.
Constitution. The man sought an injunction against the state's prosecution of him.
,Should the federal district court hear the man's claim?
A. No, because the man lacks standing since he has not been convicted and sentenced
for a violation of the state statute.
B. No, because the man seeks an injunction against a pending state criminal
proceeding.
C. Yes, because a federal court may enjoin the enforcement of an unconstitutional
statute.
D. Yes, because the man has alleged that the state statute violates the U.S.
Constitution. - ANS-B. No, because the man seeks an injunction against a pending state
criminal proceeding.
In order to discourage the transfer of electrical products that could threaten national
security and to raise revenue, Congress enacted a statute that imposed a tax on the
export of electrical products containing military-grade technology to countries that were
determined to be hostile to the United States.
Is the federal tax likely constitutional?
A. No, because Congress does not have the power to tax exported goods.
B. No, because the tax unduly burdens foreign commerce.
C. Yes, because the commerce clause gives Congress the power to regulate foreign
commerce.
D. Yes, because the taxing and spending clause gives Congress the power to tax for
any public purpose. - ANS-A. No, because Congress does not have the power to tax
exported goods.
**limit on congress's taxing & spending power is on exported goods
A federal statute established a life insurance exchange that allowed U.S. citizens and
noncitizens to purchase affordable life insurance policies through it. U.S. citizens were
immediately eligible to participate in the exchange, but resident noncitizens were not
eligible to participate in it until they had resided in the U.S. for at least five years. A
resident noncitizen who has resided in the U.S. for four years was denied eligibility
pursuant to the statute and has filed suit in federal court challenging the statute on
constitutional grounds. Specifically, the resident noncitizen claims that the statute
violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment due process clause.
Is the resident noncitizen likely to prevail?
, A. No, because Congress has plenary authority over immigration and naturalization
under Article I of the Constitution.
B. No, because the statute violates the privileges or immunities - ANS-A. No, because
Congress has plenary authority over immigration and naturalization under Article I of the
Constitution.
The District of Columbia government has the power to levy an income tax. In an effort to
encourage nonresidents to conduct business in the District of Columbia, Congress
enacted a federal statute that prohibits the District of Columbia from imposing an
income tax on individuals who work there but reside elsewhere.
Is the statute likely to be found constitutional?
A. No, because it violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment.
B. No, because it violates the uniformity clause of Article I, Section 8.
C. Yes, under the enclave clause in Article I, Section 8.
D. Yes, under the Sixteenth Amendment. - ANS-C. Yes, under the enclave clause in
Article I, Section 8.
**gives congress legislative power to govern District of Columbia
Several national newspapers ran stories about a dramatic increase in the number of
licensed pharmacists who prescribed controlled substances illegally because they had
lied about their educational background. In response, Congress enacted a statute
requiring state health officials to conduct background checks on pharmacists involved in
the sale of controlled substances that had been previously transported in interstate
commerce.
Is the federal statute constitutional?
A. No, because Congress has no authority to regulate activities that affect traditionally
local matters.
B. No, because Congress has no authority to require state governments to enforce
federal law.
C. Yes, because Congress has the power to legislate for the general welfare.
D. Yes, because Congress has the power to regulate things that move in interstate
commerce. - ANS-B. No, because Congress has no authority to require state
governments to enforce federal law.
