law beginner 10 sample questions

Judicial Review MCQ Practice Test

Court authority over legislation

Q1. Which of the following is a key consideration in the judicial review of a statute that contains a "saving provision"?

Explanation: A saving provision is a provision in a statute that attempts to preserve the validity of the statute despite a constitutional challenge. In reviewing a statute with a saving provision, the court must strictly construe the provision to determine whether it is sufficient to overcome the constitutional challenge.

Q2. In the case of Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court established the principle of judicial review, but also set a limit on its own power by stating that it could only declare a law unconstitutional if it was "repugnant" to the Constitution. What does the term "repugnant" mean in this context?

Explanation: The term "repugnant" was used by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison to describe a law that is inconsistent with the Constitution. This term was later replaced by the more modern concept of "substantially overreaches" or "violates" the Constitution.

Q3. In the landmark case of “Fraser v. South Wales Miners”, the House of Lords held that the “margin of appreciation” principle, derived from the European Convention on Human Rights, does not apply to the UK Parliament’s interpretation of its own constitutional laws. This decision was based on the notion that the UK Parliament’s sovereignty is not limited by the Human Rights Act 1998. Which of the following best describes the consequence of this ruling?

Explanation: The House of Lords in “Fraser v. South Wales Miners” held that the margin of appreciation principle, which allows for a degree of flexibility in the interpretation of human rights, does not apply to the UK Parliament’s interpretation of its own constitutional laws. This decision was based on the notion that the UK Parliament’s sovereignty is not limited by the Human Rights Act 1998.

Q4. In the landmark case of "Chadha v. INS, 462 U.S. 919 (1983)", the Supreme Court held that the legislative veto provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act was unconstitutional because it violated the "presentment clause" of Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution. What was the primary constitutional principle that the Court reinforced in this decision?

Explanation: The Chadha case reinforced the principle of separation of powers by invalidating the legislative veto, which allowed Congress to overturn executive actions without following the procedures outlined in the Presentment Clause (Article I, Section 7) of the Constitution. This decision affirmed the distinct roles of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches.

Q5. In the context of judicial review, which of the following is a correct statement regarding the doctrine of constitutional avoidance?

Explanation: The doctrine of constitutional avoidance is a principle of judicial review that allows courts to interpret statutes in a way that avoids constitutional issues when possible, rather than striking down the statute. This doctrine is based on the idea that the judiciary should give effect to the intent of the legislature whenever possible, rather than striking down a statute that may have been poorly drafted or ambiguous.

Q6. In the landmark case of "INS v. Chadha" (1983), what was the Supreme Court's ruling regarding the legislative veto?

Explanation: In the landmark case of "INS v. Chadha" (1983), the Supreme Court ruled that legislative vetoes, which allowed Congress to overturn actions of the executive branch without presenting the matter to the President for approval, were unconstitutional. The Court held that such vetoes violated the principle of separation of powers by allowing Congress to exercise powers belonging to the executive branch.

Q7. In European Court of Human Rights case law, the 'margin of appreciation' doctrine holds that:

Explanation: The European Court of Human Rights grants states a margin of appreciation — latitude to restrict rights according to national conditions — balanced by European supervision (Handyside v. United Kingdom, 1976). Least-intrusive-means review belongs to proportionality analysis, a separate doctrine.

Q8. Which of the following statements accurately describes the doctrine of "non-justiciability" in the context of judicial review?

Explanation: The doctrine of non-justiciability is a principle that guides the judiciary in determining the scope of its authority to review certain political questions. It recognizes that there are some matters that are inherently political in nature and that the judiciary should not interfere with the decision-making processes of the other branches of government.

Q9. In the landmark case of “United States v. Nixon” (1974), the Supreme Court held that the President is not absolutely immune from judicial review for actions taken in his official capacity, but rather that he can be held in contempt of court for withholding evidence. However, the Court also established a new standard for determining when a President can be required to turn over documents or testimony in a criminal investigation. According to this new standard, a President can be required to turn over documents or testimony only if there is a "substantial need" for the information. What is the term used to describe the President's ability to withhold information from a criminal investigation, as established in this case?

Explanation: The Supreme Court in “United States v. Nixon” established the concept of Executive Privilege, which allows the President to withhold information from a criminal investigation if there is a valid reason for doing so. However, the Court also established a new standard for determining when a President can be required to turn over documents or testimony, which requires a "substantial need" for the information.

Q10. In the landmark case of “Chadha v. INS”, the Supreme Court held that the legislative veto power exercised by Congress over the Attorney General’s decision to grant a visa to a non-citizen was unconstitutional because it:

Explanation: The “Chadha v. INS” case is significant because it established that Congress cannot exercise a legislative veto power over executive branch decisions, as it would undermine the separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches.

That was just a sample. Sign up to unlock the full question bank with timed tests and certificates.

Sign Up Free
Judicial Review MCQ Practice Test | Mind Hustle