Overview
Exams must be uploaded via Canvas by 11:59 p.m. on Friday, November 22nd. If you have technological difficulties, email your exam directly to your TA. You will be graded on your knowledge of course material, the strength and clarity of your argument, and your ability to analyze and apply what you have learned. Your response should be 6-8 pages in length, double-spaced, with standard font size and margins (or comparable length for those entering text directly into Canvas). This is the total page limit for all questions combined. You must respond to all of the below questions. Each question is worth 25 points. Given the equal point distribution, I expect that each response will be approximately 1 ½ - 2 pages. Please only use course material. For that reason, you will not need a works cited page as we are relying on the same sources. It is sufficient, e.g., to write: “Today, the Court discards that balance” (Dobbs dissenting opinion, p. 2). Due to page limitations, you will want to choose your quotes wisely so that they succinctly substantiate your argument.
- Briefly explain the power of judicial review and how it is seen as a check on a purely majoritarian democracy. What are the positive and negative aspects of judicial review? Explain how these issues are demonstrated in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015). Provide at least one quote from the majority decision and/or Scalia’s dissent as an example of one side of the debate over judicial review (25 points).
- Identify and briefly explain two modes of constitutional interpretation. Apply your selected modes of interpretation to Dobbs v. Jackson’s Women’s Health (2022) to show how different approaches can lead to different outcomes. In doing so, include one quote from the dissenting opinion to provide an example of each mode of interpretation you identify. Stated differently, your response must include two quotes from the case which exemplify two different modes of interpretation. As the dissent repeatedly refers to the majority decision, you will have several options (25 points).
- We have discussed how the establishment clause can run up against the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. How is Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (2020) an example of this? How does it also serve as an example of what Schwartzman and Tebbe describe as the Roberts Court systematic reworking of the establishment clause? While you are not required to include quotes in this response, you may find that textual substantiation helps to ground your argument (25 points).
- No on E v. Chui provides examples of reasons that impact whether the Supreme Court will – or won’t - grant cert and hear a case. Provide one such issue from the case and explain why that factor should either encourage the justices to hear the case or limit their ability to grant cert. Turning to the merits of the case, do you believe the San Francisco regulation is a violation of free speech? Why or why not? Be sure to make a legal – not personal – argument. Make sure to not merely parrot the arguments made by the petitioners and respondents (25 points).