law
beginner
10 sample questions
Equal Protection MCQ Practice Test
Non-discrimination principles
Q1. In Vlandis v. Kline (1973), the Supreme Court struck down Connecticut's rule presuming married students from out of state were permanently nonresidents for tuition. What was the rationale?
-
A. An irrebuttable presumption of fact denied individuals a meaningful chance to prove their actual residency ✓
-
B. Tuition rates are a fundamental right
-
C. The law discriminated by race
-
D. Connecticut had no authority over universities
Explanation: Vlandis held that a state may not conclusively presume an individual's status (permanent nonresidency) without an opportunity to rebut it with the actual facts — the classic irrebuttable-presumption doctrine.
Q2. In the 1964 case of Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 could be applied to a business that discriminated against which of the following groups?
-
A. Aliens
-
B. Undocumented workers
-
C. African Americans ✓
-
D. Minority-owned businesses
Explanation: The Heart of Atlanta Motel case involved a motel that refused to serve African Americans. The Supreme Court upheld the Civil Rights Act of 1964, finding that Congress could use its power under the Commerce Clause to prohibit racial discrimination in places of public accommodation.
Q3. Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in public accommodations based on which grounds?
-
A. Race, color, religion, or national origin ✓
-
B. Political party membership
-
C. Eye color and height
-
D. Professional occupation
Explanation: Title II outlaws discrimination in public accommodations (hotels, restaurants, theaters) on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin; sex was added to other titles (e.g., employment under Title VII).
Q4. A state law requires all restaurants to provide a 10% discount to residents of a neighboring state, but not to its own residents. Which of the following is the best description of the legal issue with this law?
-
A. It violates the dormant commerce clause
-
B. It violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
-
C. It violates the privileges and immunities clause of Article IV, Section 2 ✓
-
D. It violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
Explanation: The law discriminates against out-of-state residents, denying them a privilege enjoyed by in-state residents. This violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause, which prevents states from discriminating against citizens of other states regarding fundamental rights or privileges.
Q5. Which of the following actions would most likely violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment?
-
A. A state providing significantly more funding per student to affluent school districts than to low-income school districts. ✓
-
B. A state imposing a higher tax rate on out-of-state businesses than on in-state businesses.
-
C. A state prohibiting individuals under the age of 21 from purchasing alcohol.
-
D. A state requiring all residents to pass a literacy test to vote.
Explanation: The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. This means that similarly situated individuals must be treated alike. While the Supreme Court has not mandated perfect equality in school funding, significant disparities based on wealth or location are often challenged under the Equal Protection Clause. Option A presents a scenario where such a violation is most likely. The other options are either permissible under the law or address different constitutional issues.
Q6. Which of the following is the most accurate statement regarding the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment?
-
A. The Equal Protection Clause primarily addresses discrimination based on race and national origin.
-
B. The Equal Protection Clause prohibits state governments from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ✓
-
C. The Equal Protection Clause requires all state laws to be identical in their application.
-
D. The Equal Protection Clause only applies to federal laws.
Explanation: The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. This means that states cannot discriminate against individuals based on race, national origin, gender, or other protected characteristics without a compelling government interest and narrowly tailored means.
Q7. A state imposes different divorce waiting periods on married couples versus long-separated couples. What standard of review applies under the Equal Protection Clause?
-
A. Rational basis review, because marital-status classifications are neither suspect nor quasi-suspect ✓
-
B. Strict scrutiny, because divorce is a fundamental right
-
C. Intermediate scrutiny, because marriage is quasi-suspect
-
D. No review at all
Explanation: Divorce waiting periods do not implicate a fundamental right or suspect class, so courts apply rational basis review — upholding the law if any conceivable rational relationship to a legitimate state interest exists.
Q8. Which of the following Supreme Court cases held that a state law requiring a notary public to be a resident of the state for at least one year did not violate the Equal Protection Clause because it was rationally related to a legitimate state interest?
-
A. The case of Bolling v. Sharpe (1951) held that a federal law requiring a notary public to be a resident of the state for at least one year did not violate the Equal Protection Clause.
-
B. The case of Shelley v. Kraemer (1948) held that a state law requiring a notary public to be a resident of the state for at least one year did not violate the Equal Protection Clause.
-
C. The case of Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) held that a state law requiring a notary public to be a resident of the state for at least one year did not violate the Equal Protection Clause.
-
D. The case of Madden v. Kentucky (1940) held that a state law requiring a notary public to be a resident of the state for at least one year did not violate the Equal Protection Clause because it was rationally related to a legitimate state interest. ✓
Explanation: The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from denying anyone equal protection of the laws. In the case of Madden v. Kentucky (1940), the Supreme Court held that a state law requiring a notary public to be a resident of the state for at least one year did not violate the Equal Protection Clause because it was rationally related to a legitimate state interest. This case illustrates the rational basis test, which is a standard used to determine whether a law is constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause.
Q9. Which of the following cases addressed the issue of women's right to practice law or equal protection under the law?
-
A. Bradwell v. Illinois ✓
-
B. Muller v. Oregon
-
C. Plessy v. Ferguson
-
D. Brown v. Board of Education
Explanation: In Bradwell v. Illinois, the Supreme Court upheld the denial of a law license to a woman, arguing that it did not violate the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court stated that the right to practice law was not a privilege of national citizenship.
Q10. Which of the following Supreme Court cases held that a state law requiring a 30-minute rest break for employees, but exempting employees of small businesses, was unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause?
-
A. Reed v. Reed
-
B. Olsen v. Nebraska ✓
-
C. Frontiero v. Richardson
-
D. Craig v. Boren
Explanation: The Supreme Court held that the state law was unconstitutional because it created a suspect classification based on the size of the business, and the state failed to provide a compelling interest to justify the distinction.
That was just a sample. Sign up to unlock the full question bank with timed tests and certificates.
Sign Up Free