College Political Science Quiz: Judiciary And Judicial Review

20 questions · exam conditions

0:00

Judiciary And Judicial ReviewQuestion 1 of 20

The Supreme Court rules that a presidential executive order is unconstitutional. The President publicly disagrees with the ruling and directs the relevant federal agencies to continue enforcing the order, stating that the Court has no authority to compel the executive branch. This situation primarily highlights which limitation on the power of the federal judiciary?

The judiciary's lack of enforcement power, requiring reliance on the executive branch to implement its decisions.

The judiciary's vulnerability to having its appellate jurisdiction stripped by Congress.

The judiciary's inability to issue advisory opinions on the constitutionality of executive actions before they are implemented.

The judiciary's dependence on the President for nominating and appointing new justices to the bench.

← Back to quizzes

College Political Science Quiz

College Political Science Quiz: Judiciary And Judicial Review

Practice Judiciary And Judicial Review in College Political Science with focused quiz questions that help you check what you know, review explanations, and build confidence with test-style prompts.

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Judiciary And Judicial Review, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for College Political Science.

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

All questions

Question 1

The judiciary's lack of enforcement power, requiring reliance on the executive branch to implement its decisions. (correct answer)
The judiciary's vulnerability to having its appellate jurisdiction stripped by Congress.
The judiciary's inability to issue advisory opinions on the constitutionality of executive actions before they are implemented.
The judiciary's dependence on the President for nominating and appointing new justices to the bench.

Explanation: The correct answer is A. This scenario is a classic illustration of the principle that the judiciary has 'neither the sword nor the purse.' It can interpret the law and issue rulings, but it has no independent mechanism to enforce them. Enforcement is the constitutional duty of the executive branch. The President's refusal to comply directly challenges this system and exposes the Court's reliance on executive cooperation. B, C, and D are all real limitations on the judiciary, but they are not the specific limitation illustrated by the President's refusal to enforce a ruling.

Question 2

Suppose a constitutional amendment is ratified stating, 'Congress may, by a two-thirds vote of both houses, override any decision of the Supreme Court.' How would this amendment fundamentally alter the system of judicial review established in Marbury v. Madison?

It would enhance judicial review by requiring a congressional supermajority to challenge the Court's constitutional interpretations.
It would establish legislative supremacy over constitutional interpretation, effectively making Congress the final arbiter of the Constitution's meaning. (correct answer)
It would have little effect, as Congress already has the power to override Supreme Court decisions by passing new legislation.
It would align the U.S. system with parliamentary sovereignty, where the judiciary lacks the power to strike down legislation.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. Marbury v. Madison established the principle of judicial supremacy in constitutional interpretation—that the Supreme Court has the final say on what the Constitution means. The proposed amendment would dismantle this by giving Congress the power to have the final word. This would subordinate the judiciary's interpretation to that of the legislature, creating a system of legislative supremacy. A is incorrect because it would fundamentally weaken, not enhance, judicial review. C is incorrect; Congress can override the Court's statutory interpretation by passing a new law, but it cannot override a constitutional ruling without a constitutional amendment. D is close, but this system is a legislative override, not a complete lack of judicial review power; the court could still strike down laws, but the legislature could reverse that decision.

Question 3

A congressional committee is debating a complex new surveillance bill and is uncertain if some of its provisions would violate the Fourth Amendment. To resolve this uncertainty, the committee chairman formally requests that the Supreme Court review the bill and issue a judgment on its constitutionality before the final vote. Why would the Supreme Court refuse this request?

Due to the political question doctrine, as surveillance policy is a matter for the legislative branch.
Due to the doctrine of stare decisis, which prevents the Court from ruling on new types of legislation.
Due to Article III's 'case or controversy' requirement, which prohibits the Court from issuing advisory opinions. (correct answer)
Due to the Eleventh Amendment, which grants states sovereign immunity from federal court review.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. The U.S. federal judiciary's power is limited by Article III of the Constitution to resolving actual 'cases' and 'controversies.' This has been consistently interpreted to mean the courts cannot issue 'advisory opinions'—rulings on the constitutionality of a law or action that is not part of an actual lawsuit between adverse parties. The committee's request is for an advisory opinion, which the Court is constitutionally barred from providing. A is incorrect because while the issue might later be a political question in a specific lawsuit, the primary reason for refusal here is the lack of a case. B is incorrect as stare decisis relates to following precedent, not avoiding new issues. D is irrelevant as it deals with state sovereign immunity.

Question 4

A state legislature passes a law requiring all commercial trucks operating within the state to be equipped with a specific type of side-guard safety rail. A national trucking association sues the state, arguing that this law imposes an undue burden on interstate commerce because it conflicts with less stringent federal safety standards. The subsequent judicial decision to strike down the state law would most directly be based on an application of judicial review to enforce the:

Tenth Amendment.
Full Faith and Credit Clause.
Supremacy Clause. (correct answer)
Necessary and Proper Clause.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. This scenario describes a conflict between state and federal law within an area of federal authority (interstate commerce). When a state law conflicts with a federal law, the Supremacy Clause of Article VI dictates that the federal law prevails. Judicial review is the mechanism through which a court would assess this conflict and strike down the state law for being preempted by federal authority. A is incorrect because the Tenth Amendment reserves powers for the states, which is the opposite principle at play here. B is incorrect as the Full Faith and Credit Clause deals with states' obligations to respect each other's public acts and records. D is incorrect as the Necessary and Proper Clause empowers Congress to pass laws, but it is the Supremacy Clause that resolves conflicts between federal and state law.

Question 5

A plaintiff sues a defendant in state court over a breach of contract, a matter of state law. The plaintiff loses. Under which of the following circumstances could the plaintiff successfully appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court?

If the plaintiff can show that the state law governing the contract violates a provision of the U.S. Constitution. (correct answer)
If the plaintiff argues that the state court's interpretation of the contract was clearly erroneous and unjust.
If the case involves more than $75,000, automatically creating federal diversity jurisdiction for an appeal.
Under no circumstances, as the U.S. Supreme Court cannot hear appeals from state courts.

Explanation: This question tests your understanding of when the U.S. Supreme Court can hear appeals from state courts. The key principle is that the Supreme Court only has jurisdiction over state court cases when federal constitutional issues are involved. Answer A is correct because the Supreme Court can review state court decisions when they involve federal constitutional questions. If a plaintiff argues that the state law itself violates the U.S. Constitution, this creates a federal issue that falls within the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction. The Court's role includes ensuring that state laws comply with the Constitution, making this a proper avenue for appeal. Answer B is wrong because the Supreme Court doesn't review state court interpretations of state law for mere errors in judgment. Questions about whether a state court correctly interpreted a contract under state law are purely matters of state law, and the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to review such decisions unless federal constitutional issues are present. Answer C is incorrect because the $75,000 threshold relates to federal diversity jurisdiction in trial courts, not appellate jurisdiction to the Supreme Court. Even if diversity jurisdiction existed at the trial level, this wouldn't automatically create Supreme Court jurisdiction for appeals. Federal appeals would go through the federal court system, not directly from state court to the Supreme Court. Answer D is too absolute. While the Supreme Court cannot hear most state court appeals, it can hear them when federal constitutional issues are involved. Remember: The Supreme Court serves as the final arbiter of constitutional questions, so any time you see state law potentially conflicting with federal constitutional provisions, think Supreme Court jurisdiction.

Question 6

Following a series of Supreme Court decisions that broadly interpret the Commerce Clause to uphold federal regulations, a frustrated Congress passes a law titled the "Federalism Preservation Act." This Act explicitly removes the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction over any case challenging the constitutionality of a federal law under the Commerce Clause. Which of the following statements best analyzes the constitutionality of this Act?

The Act is unconstitutional because it violates the principle of separation of powers by eliminating the Court's core function of judicial review.
The Act is likely constitutional due to Congress's power under the Exceptions Clause of Article III to make exceptions to the Court's appellate jurisdiction. (correct answer)
The Act is unconstitutional because only a constitutional amendment, not a simple statute, can alter the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
The Act is likely constitutional because Congress possesses plenary power over interstate commerce, which includes determining how that power is adjudicated.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution grants the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction 'with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.' This 'Exceptions Clause' gives Congress significant power to limit, or strip, the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction. While the full extent of this power is debated by scholars, it is the constitutional basis for such an act. A is a strong argument against jurisdiction stripping, but it runs contrary to the explicit text of the Exceptions Clause. C is incorrect because the Constitution itself provides a mechanism for Congress to alter appellate jurisdiction by statute. D is incorrect because Congress's power over commerce does not inherently grant it power over the judiciary's review of that power; the authority comes from Article III.

Question 7

A student is suspended from a public university for participating in a protest that the university claims violated its code of conduct. The student sues the university in federal court, arguing the suspension violates her First Amendment rights. The university wins in the U.S. District Court, and the decision is upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals. If the Supreme Court later reverses the Court of Appeals, what is the most likely reason?

The Supreme Court found that the university, as a state actor, applied a policy that unconstitutionally restricted the student's freedom of speech. (correct answer)
The Supreme Court decided that the university's code of conduct was a state law that was preempted by federal education statutes.
The Supreme Court determined that the lower courts lacked jurisdiction to hear a case involving a public university.
The Supreme Court exercised its original jurisdiction because the case involved a conflict between a citizen and a state entity.

Explanation: The correct answer is A. This question requires applying the concept of judicial review to a specific First Amendment scenario. The Supreme Court's role in its appellate capacity is to review lower court decisions for errors in applying constitutional and federal law. Because public universities are state actors, they are bound by the First Amendment. If the Supreme Court reversed the lower courts, it would be because it concluded that the university's action constituted an unconstitutional violation of the student's free speech rights. B is less likely; the core issue is the First Amendment, not preemption by federal statute. C is incorrect as federal courts have jurisdiction over cases involving federal constitutional questions (federal question jurisdiction). D is incorrect as this case would fall under the Court's appellate, not original, jurisdiction.

Question 8

A group of citizens challenges a state law that bans a particular form of political speech. The case eventually reaches the Supreme Court. Numerous interest groups, not parties to the lawsuit, file briefs urging the Court to either uphold or strike down the law. What is the primary role of these 'amicus curiae' briefs in the process of judicial review?

To provide financial support to the litigants and help defray the costs of the Supreme Court appeal.
To demonstrate the public's opinion on the issue, thereby compelling the justices to rule in favor of the majority view.
To serve as a formal petition to the Court, signed by influential groups, demanding that the case be heard.
To provide the Court with additional legal arguments, historical context, and information about the potential real-world impact of its decision. (correct answer)

Explanation: When you encounter questions about Supreme Court procedures, focus on the formal roles different participants play in judicial review. Amicus curiae briefs are a key mechanism through which non-parties can influence important constitutional cases. The correct answer is D because amicus curiae (literally "friend of the court") briefs serve an informational and analytical function. These documents allow interest groups, legal experts, and other organizations to share specialized knowledge, present alternative legal theories, cite relevant precedents the parties might have missed, and most importantly, explain how the Court's decision could affect broader society beyond the immediate case. The justices often reference these briefs in their opinions, demonstrating their value in judicial decision-making. Looking at the incorrect options: A is wrong because amicus briefs don't provide financial support—they're legal documents, not funding mechanisms. B misunderstands the Court's role; while amicus briefs may reflect public opinion, they don't compel justices to follow majority views since judicial review is designed to be independent of popular pressure. C confuses the purpose entirely—amicus briefs are filed after the Court has already agreed to hear a case, not as petitions to get the case heard. Remember this key distinction: amicus briefs are about enhancing the Court's understanding through expert information and broader perspective, not about lobbying, funding, or forcing the justices' hands. When studying judicial review, focus on how different mechanisms serve the Court's need for comprehensive legal analysis rather than political pressure.

Question 9

Congress passes a law, the "Judicial Efficiency Act," which grants the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to hear any lawsuit brought by a state against a federal agency regarding environmental regulations. A state sues a federal agency directly in the Supreme Court under this act. Based on the precedent of Marbury v. Madison, what is the most likely outcome?

The Court would hear the case, as Congress has the authority under the "Exceptions Clause" to regulate the Court's jurisdiction.
The Court would refuse to hear the case, ruling that the act unconstitutionally expands the Court's original jurisdiction as defined in Article III. (correct answer)
The Court would hear the case, because disputes between a state and the federal government are matters of significant national importance that warrant its attention.
The Court would refuse to hear the case, sending it to a lower federal court because the "case or controversy" requirement has not yet been met.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. The logic of Marbury v. Madison established that Congress cannot expand the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction by statute beyond what is enumerated in Article III of the Constitution. Article III specifies the limited cases in which the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction (e.g., cases affecting ambassadors, or in which a state is a party). This law attempts to add a new category, which is unconstitutional according to the Marbury precedent. A is incorrect because the Exceptions Clause applies to the Court's appellate jurisdiction, not its original jurisdiction. C is incorrect because while the issue may be important, that does not override the constitutional limits on the Court's jurisdiction. D is incorrect because a lawsuit between a state and a federal agency would constitute a valid case or controversy; the issue is one of jurisdiction, not justiciability in that sense.

Question 10

A non-profit organization dedicated to fiscal responsibility files a lawsuit against the federal government, arguing that a specific appropriation in the national budget for a new federal building is a wasteful expenditure and therefore harms all U.S. taxpayers. The government moves to dismiss the case. What is the most likely legal reason the court would grant the dismissal?

The case is not yet ripe for review because the funds have not been fully disbursed and construction has not begun.
The organization lacks standing because its members' alleged injury as taxpayers is a generalized grievance, not a concrete and particularized harm. (correct answer)
The issue constitutes a "political question" because it involves budgetary appropriations explicitly delegated to Congress.
The organization cannot sue the federal government for this type of claim due to the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. The Supreme Court has consistently held that a taxpayer's interest in the lawful use of tax revenue is generally too remote and widely shared to constitute the 'concrete and particularized' injury required for standing under Article III. This is known as the prohibition on generalized grievances. A is incorrect because the alleged harm (the appropriation itself) has already occurred, making the issue ripe. C, while plausible, is a secondary issue; the court would first address the threshold question of standing before considering if the issue is a political question. D is incorrect because the federal government has waived sovereign immunity for many types of lawsuits, and the primary barrier here is standing, not immunity.

Question 11

In a dissenting opinion, a Supreme Court justice writes: 'The majority opinion invents a new fundamental right that has no basis in the text or history of the Constitution. Our duty is to interpret the Constitution as it was understood by those who ratified it, not to update it to reflect contemporary social values. To do otherwise is to usurp the role of the legislature and substitute our own policy preferences for the will of the people.'

The judicial philosophy expressed in the passage is best described as:

Judicial activism, because it actively seeks to limit the power of the other branches of government.
Living constitutionalism, because it acknowledges that constitutional meaning must evolve with social values.
Originalism, because it prioritizes the historical understanding of the Constitution's text at the time of its adoption. (correct answer)
Stare decisis, because it argues for strict adherence to the Court's previously established precedents.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. The dissent's emphasis on interpreting the Constitution 'as it was understood by those who ratified it' and its rejection of updating the text to reflect 'contemporary social values' are the core tenets of originalism. A is incorrect because the dissent is arguing against what it perceives as judicial activism. B is the exact opposite of the view expressed; the dissent is criticizing the principles of living constitutionalism. D is incorrect because while an originalist might also value stare decisis, the central argument presented here is about the source of constitutional meaning (original understanding) rather than adherence to precedent.

Question 12

A case originating in a U.S. District Court is appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirms the lower court's decision. The losing party wishes to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. For the Supreme Court to hear this case, which of the following must typically occur?

The Chief Justice must decide that the case presents a significant constitutional question.
A majority of the justices on the Supreme Court must vote to grant a writ of certiorari.
At least four justices on the Supreme Court must vote to grant a writ of certiorari. (correct answer)
The case must involve a dispute where the United States is a party, guaranteeing an automatic right of appeal.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. The vast majority of cases reach the Supreme Court through a writ of certiorari, which is an order to a lower court to send up the records of a case for review. For the Court to grant this writ, an unwritten custom known as the 'Rule of Four' requires that at least four of the nine justices must agree to hear the case. A is incorrect because the Chief Justice alone does not make this decision. B is incorrect because a majority (five justices) is not required; the Rule of Four is the standard. D is incorrect as there is no automatic right of appeal for most cases, even those involving the U.S. government.

Question 13

The Supreme Court is considering a case that could potentially overturn a 70-year-old precedent regarding corporate campaign contributions. According to the principle of stare decisis, which of the following questions would be most central to the justices' decision to uphold or overturn the prior ruling?

Has the political party composition of the Court changed significantly since the original precedent was set?
Does the precedent align with the current policy preferences of the majority of American voters?
Has the precedent proven to be unworkable in practice, or have its factual and legal underpinnings been significantly eroded? (correct answer)
Did the justices who decided the original case follow a proper originalist or living constitutionalist methodology?

Explanation: The correct answer is C. Stare decisis, which means 'to stand by things decided,' is the doctrine of upholding precedent. When considering overturning a precedent, the Court traditionally weighs factors such as whether the original ruling has become unworkable, whether the legal principles it rests on have been eroded by subsequent decisions, and whether the factual assumptions underlying it are no longer valid. These are institutional, legal considerations. A and B relate to political factors that, while potentially influential, are not part of the formal legal doctrine of stare decisis. D is a question about judicial philosophy, which might inform a justice's view, but the core stare decisis analysis focuses on the viability and consistency of the precedent itself.

Question 14

The President nominates a candidate to the Supreme Court who is widely seen as a judicial activist. During confirmation hearings, senators from the opposition party argue that the nominee's philosophy would lead to the Court creating new laws rather than interpreting them. This scenario best illustrates that the judicial appointment process is a check on the Court's power because it:

ensures that only individuals with extensive prior judicial experience are appointed to the Supreme Court.
allows the legislative and executive branches to influence the ideological direction and interpretive philosophy of the Court. (correct answer)
prevents the Court from exercising judicial review over laws passed by the sitting Congress.
gives the Senate the power to remove sitting justices whose rulings are deemed to be overly political.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. The requirement that the President nominate and the Senate confirm federal judges is a primary way the elected branches can influence the judiciary. By selecting nominees with particular judicial philosophies (e.g., restraint, activism, originalism) and using the confirmation process to scrutinize them, the President and Senate can shape the long-term ideological balance and approach of the Court. A is incorrect as there is no constitutional requirement for prior judicial experience. C is incorrect as the appointment of a new justice does not limit the Court's power of judicial review. D is incorrect as removal of justices can only happen through impeachment for 'high crimes and misdemeanors,' not for their judicial philosophy or rulings.

Question 15

A lawsuit is filed challenging a federal agency's new regulation, which is set to take effect in two years. The agency argues that the case should be dismissed. Which justiciability doctrine would be the most relevant basis for dismissal at this time?

Mootness, because the regulation's effects are no longer relevant.
Standing, because the plaintiff cannot demonstrate a concrete injury.
Political question, because regulations are the province of the executive branch.
Ripeness, because the regulation has not yet gone into effect and the alleged harm is speculative. (correct answer)

Explanation: The correct answer is D. The ripeness doctrine requires that a case must be brought at a point when the facts are sufficiently developed, and the injury is imminent or has already occurred. Since the regulation will not take effect for two years, a court would likely find that any potential harm is speculative and the case is not yet 'ripe' for judicial review. A is the opposite of the situation; mootness applies when the issue has already been resolved or disappeared. B might be related, but the core issue is timing; the injury is not concrete yet, which is the essence of ripeness. C is incorrect as courts routinely review agency regulations for constitutionality and statutory compliance.

Question 16

In The Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton argued that the judiciary would be the 'least dangerous' branch because it possessed 'neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment.' Which aspect of the modern federal judiciary most directly challenges Hamilton's assessment?

The power of judicial review to declare laws and executive actions unconstitutional. (correct answer)
The practice of senatorial courtesy in the appointment of district court judges.
The ability of Congress to impeach and remove federal judges for misconduct.
The reliance on the Department of Justice to argue cases on behalf of the government.

Explanation: This question tests your understanding of the separation of powers and how the judiciary's actual role has evolved beyond the Founders' original vision. Hamilton's argument in Federalist 78 portrayed the courts as passive interpreters of law, lacking the executive's "force" (enforcement power) or the legislature's "will" (lawmaking power). The power of judicial review fundamentally challenges Hamilton's "least dangerous" assessment because it gives courts the ability to nullify the will of the other branches. When the Supreme Court declares a law unconstitutional, it's effectively exercising a form of "will" by imposing its interpretation over that of elected officials. This power, established in Marbury v. Madison (1803), wasn't explicitly outlined in the Constitution and represents a significant expansion of judicial authority that Hamilton didn't fully anticipate. Choice A is correct. Choice B is wrong because senatorial courtesy is actually a limitation on judicial power—it gives senators input into district court appointments, constraining rather than expanding judicial authority. Choice C is incorrect because impeachment represents a check on the judiciary, not an expansion of judicial power that would make it more "dangerous." Choice D misses the mark because the Department of Justice arguing cases doesn't enhance judicial power; it's simply part of the adversarial system where DOJ represents the government's position. Remember that questions about judicial power often focus on judicial review as the key mechanism that transformed the "least dangerous" branch into a co-equal partner in governance. Always consider how modern practices compare to the Founders' original expectations.

Question 17

A city passes an ordinance restricting the possession of certain firearms. The ordinance is challenged in court and ultimately struck down by the Supreme Court as a violation of the Second Amendment. In response, a majority of members of Congress, who disagree with the ruling, propose a constitutional amendment to explicitly authorize cities to enact such regulations. This entire process demonstrates that:

Supreme Court rulings on constitutional matters can be effectively overturned by the legislative branch through ordinary legislation.
the power of judicial review is absolute and final, leaving no recourse for the other branches of government.
the Supreme Court must defer to Congress on matters related to public safety, even when constitutional rights are implicated.
the constitutional amendment process under Article V serves as an ultimate, though difficult, check on the Supreme Court's power of judicial review. (correct answer)

Explanation: This question tests your understanding of the checks and balances system and how different branches can respond to each other's actions. When you see scenarios involving inter-branch conflicts, focus on what constitutional mechanisms are available to resolve them. The scenario demonstrates the constitutional amendment process as a check on judicial power. When the Supreme Court strikes down the city ordinance as unconstitutional, Congress cannot simply pass a law to override this ruling—the Court has declared the action fundamentally incompatible with the Constitution. However, Congress can propose amending the Constitution itself through Article V, which would change the constitutional framework the Court used for its decision. This represents the ultimate democratic check on judicial review, though it requires supermajorities and is deliberately difficult. Answer A is wrong because ordinary legislation cannot overturn Supreme Court constitutional rulings—if the Court says something violates the Constitution, a regular law cannot fix that contradiction. Answer B incorrectly suggests judicial review is absolute; while Court decisions are final interpretations of existing constitutional text, the Constitution itself can be changed through Article V. Answer C misunderstands the relationship between branches—the Supreme Court does not defer to Congress on constitutional matters, regardless of the policy area involved. The Court's job is to interpret the Constitution as written, not to weigh policy preferences. Remember this key principle: Supreme Court constitutional decisions can only be overturned by subsequent Court decisions or constitutional amendments—never by ordinary legislation. This maintains the Constitution's supremacy while preserving democratic control through the amendment process.

Question 18

The Court would hear the case, as Congress has the authority under the "Exceptions Clause" to regulate the Court's jurisdiction.
The Court would refuse to hear the case, ruling that the act unconstitutionally expands the Court's original jurisdiction as defined in Article III. (correct answer)
The Court would hear the case, because disputes between a state and the federal government are matters of significant national importance that warrant its attention.
The Court would refuse to hear the case, sending it to a lower federal court because the "case or controversy" requirement has not yet been met.

Question 19

Has the political party composition of the Court changed significantly since the original precedent was set?
Does the precedent align with the current policy preferences of the majority of American voters?
Has the precedent proven to be unworkable in practice, or have its factual and legal underpinnings been significantly eroded? (correct answer)
Did the justices who decided the original case follow a proper originalist or living constitutionalist methodology?

Question 20

The case is not yet ripe for review because the funds have not been fully disbursed and construction has not begun.
The organization lacks standing because its members' alleged injury as taxpayers is a generalized grievance, not a concrete and particularized harm. (correct answer)
The issue constitutes a "political question" because it involves budgetary appropriations explicitly delegated to Congress.
The organization cannot sue the federal government for this type of claim due to the doctrine of sovereign immunity.