FRQ 3 – SCOTUS Comparison

Overview

• Free-Response Question 3 focuses primarily on SCOTUS Application skills
• Worth 4 points (binary scoring for each part)
• Represents 12.5% of your total exam score
• Recommended time: 20 minutes
• Always compares a required case with a non-required case
• The non-required case summary provides all needed information

The SCOTUS Comparison question tests your deep knowledge of the 15 required Supreme Court cases and your ability to apply constitutional reasoning to new situations. You'll compare a case you've studied with one you haven't seen before, identifying similarities or differences in facts, issues, holdings, or reasoning. This question assesses whether you understand not just what the Court decided, but why - and how that reasoning applies to other situations.

For the required cases, you must know: the facts (what happened), the constitutional issue (what question the Court addressed), the holding (what the Court decided), and the reasoning (why they decided that way). The exam provides a summary of the non-required case with all necessary information, so you're never at a disadvantage if you haven't heard of it.

Strategy Deep Dive

The SCOTUS Comparison FRQ requires a systematic approach to case analysis. Success depends on truly understanding the required cases, not just memorizing holdings.

Understanding What Makes Cases Similar or Different

Cases can be similar or different along multiple dimensions, and recognizing which dimension the question targets is crucial. Facts might be similar (both involve speech restrictions) but holdings different (one upheld, one struck down). Constitutional issues might be identical (both about Commerce Clause) but reasoning different (one uses broad interpretation, one uses narrow). Sometimes cases reach the same conclusion through entirely different constitutional paths.

When approaching any comparison, first identify what aspect you're comparing. Are you looking at factual scenarios? Constitutional provisions? The Court's reasoning process? The scope of the decision? This initial categorization shapes your entire response. A comparison of facts requires different analysis than a comparison of constitutional principles.

The non-required case summary provides clues about what matters for comparison. If it emphasizes certain facts, those facts probably parallel or contrast with your required case. If it highlights specific constitutional reasoning, that's your comparison point. Read the summary not just for information but for emphasis - what details did they choose to include?

Mastering the Required Cases

Surface memorization won't earn points. You need to understand each case as a complete story with internal logic. Let's break down what you really need to know:

Facts that matter: Not every detail, but the specific facts that raised the constitutional issue. In Schenck v. US, what matters isn't just that Schenck distributed leaflets, but that he did so during wartime urging draft resistance. These contextual facts shaped the Court's reasoning about clear and present danger.

Constitutional issue precision: Don't just know "First Amendment" - know whether it's about free speech, free exercise, or establishment. Know whether it's about federal power under the Commerce Clause or state power under the 10th Amendment. The specific constitutional provision matters because different provisions trigger different analytical frameworks.

Holdings vs. rules: The holding is what the Court decided in this case. The rule is the broader principle it established. In Miranda v. Arizona, the holding was that Miranda's conviction was overturned. The rule was that police must inform suspects of their rights before custodial interrogation. Both matter, but for different parts of the question.

Reasoning pathways: This is where students often struggle. You need to understand not just what the Court decided but the logical steps it took. Did it balance competing interests? Apply a specific test? Interpret constitutional text? Defer to another branch? The reasoning reveals how the Court approaches similar issues.

Strategic Case Connections

Certain required cases naturally connect to specific themes that appear in non-required cases:

Federalism cases (US v. Lopez, McCulloch v. Maryland) often compare to other Commerce Clause or federal power cases. Look for whether Congress exceeded enumerated powers or whether states are asserting reserved powers.

First Amendment cases (Tinker, Schenck, Engel, Wisconsin v. Yoder) connect to various speech, religion, or press scenarios. Focus on what test the Court applied (clear and present danger, substantial disruption, Lemon test) and whether it's content-based or content-neutral regulation.

Criminal procedure cases (Miranda, Gideon, McDonald) relate to other due process or incorporation scenarios. The key is often whether rights apply against states (incorporation) and what procedures are required for fairness.

Equal protection cases (Brown, Roe) connect to other discrimination or fundamental rights scenarios. Pay attention to what level of scrutiny the Court applied and whether it found a compelling government interest.

Rubric Breakdown

We need to look at what earns each point, with specific strategies for maximizing your score.

Part (A): Identify similarity or difference - 1 point

This point requires correctly identifying a relevant similarity or difference between the cases. The key word is "relevant" - the comparison must relate to facts, issues, holdings, or reasoning, not peripheral details.

What earns the point:

• Clearly stating whether you're identifying a similarity or difference
• Making a specific comparison between the cases
• Ensuring the comparison is legally relevant
• Being accurate about both cases

What loses the point:

• Being too vague ("both involve the Constitution")
• Comparing irrelevant details ("both were decided in winter")
• Mischaracterizing either case
• Trying to do both similarity and difference when asked for one

Example strong response: "Both US v. Lopez and NLRB v. Jones and Laughlin Steel address whether Congress can regulate activities under the Commerce Clause." This identifies a specific, relevant similarity in constitutional issues.

Part (B): Describe required case - 1 or 2 points

This part tests your knowledge of the required case. You might earn 1 point for partial description or 2 points for complete description, depending on what's asked.

What earns full points:

• Accurately stating the relevant facts that created the constitutional issue
• Correctly identifying the constitutional question the Court addressed
• Stating the holding (what the Court decided)
• Explaining the reasoning or rule the Court applied

What earns partial credit:

• Getting most elements correct but missing or misstating one
• Being accurate but incomplete in description
• Focusing on irrelevant aspects of the case

What loses all points:

• Confusing the case with another
• Misstating the holding or reversing it
• Being too vague to show real knowledge

Example strong response for US v. Lopez: "In US v. Lopez, a student brought a gun to school, violating the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act. The Court held that Congress exceeded its Commerce Clause power because gun possession near schools is not an economic activity that substantially affects interstate commerce. The Court established that Congress cannot regulate non-economic activity merely because it might indirectly affect commerce."

Part (C): Explain similarity or difference - 1 point

This point requires deeper analysis - explaining why the similarity or difference matters for understanding constitutional law.

What earns the point:

• Building on your Part (A) identification
• Explaining how the cases' reasoning relates or differs
• Showing understanding of constitutional principles
• Making connections between factual and legal differences

What loses the point:

• Simply restating Part (A) without explanation
• Focusing on surface similarities without legal analysis
• Misunderstanding the constitutional significance
• Being too general without case-specific analysis

Example strong response: "While both cases involve Commerce Clause challenges, they reached opposite conclusions because Lopez involved non-economic activity (gun possession) with no clear connection to interstate commerce, while Jones and Laughlin involved labor relations at a steel company engaged in interstate commerce. This difference shows how the Court distinguishes between activities that directly impact interstate commerce and those that would require multiple inferential steps to connect to commerce."

Part (D): Explain broader significance - 1 point

This point requires connecting the cases to larger principles of American government or showing how the decision impacts constitutional interpretation.

What earns the point:

• Explaining how the case affects balance of power (federalism, separation of powers)
• Showing how it changes or reinforces constitutional interpretation
• Connecting to democratic principles or individual rights
• Demonstrating understanding beyond just the specific case

What loses the point:

• Being too vague about impacts
• Simply stating a principle without connection to the case
• Misunderstanding the case's significance
• Focusing on policy preferences rather than constitutional principles

Example strong response: "The holding in Jones and Laughlin expanded federal power under the Commerce Clause by allowing Congress to regulate activities that affect interstate commerce, even if the activity itself is local. This shifted the federal-state balance toward national authority, enabling the federal government to regulate labor relations, civil rights, and other areas previously considered state domain. This represents judicial interpretation expanding federal power beyond the Founders' narrower conception of interstate commerce."

Memory Strategies for Required Cases

Memorizing 15 cases with all their details can seem overwhelming. Here are proven strategies for mastering them:

Thematic Grouping

Group cases by constitutional theme:

• Commerce Clause/Federalism: McCulloch, US v. Lopez
• First Amendment Speech: Tinker, Schenck, Citizens United
• First Amendment Religion: Engel, Wisconsin v. Yoder
• Criminal Procedure: Miranda, Gideon, McDonald
• Equal Protection: Brown, Roe
• Presidential Power: Marbury, Baker v. Carr, Shaw v. Reno

Within each group, understand how cases relate. Tinker protects student speech; Schenck limits dangerous speech. This relational understanding helps you remember distinctions.

Constitutional Timeline

Arrange cases chronologically to see constitutional evolution:

• Marbury (1803): Establishes judicial review
• McCulloch (1819): Broad federal power interpretation
• Schenck (1919): First Amendment has limits
• Brown (1954): Separate but equal overturned
• Continue through Citizens United (2010)

This shows how constitutional interpretation changes over time and helps you understand each case in historical context.

Mnemonic Devices

Create memorable associations:

• "Tinker's TAB": Tinker allows speech that's not Too Awfully Bad (substantial disruption)
• "Miranda's Warning": Miranda Warns About Rights - Right to remain silent, Ngaging attorney
• "Lopez's Limit": Lopez Limits Congress - Local crimes aren't commerce

Case Comparison Charts

Create charts comparing similar cases:

• Schenck vs. Tinker: When can speech be limited?
• McCulloch vs. Lopez: When can Congress act?
• Brown vs. Shaw: When is race-conscious action permitted?

These comparisons, which you might see on the exam, help clarify distinctions.

Time Management Reality

Twenty minutes for four parts requires efficient execution. Here's a realistic approach:

Minutes 1-3: Read and analyze Read the non-required case summary carefully, annotating key facts, issue, holding, and reasoning. Identify which required case to use for comparison. This initial analysis is crucial - don't rush it.

Minutes 4-6: Part (A) Identify your similarity or difference. Be specific and legally relevant. Write 1-2 clear sentences. Don't overthink - if you know your cases, this should be straightforward.

Minutes 7-11: Part (B) Describe your required case thoroughly. Include all requested elements (facts, issue, holding, reasoning). This is where your case knowledge pays off. Be complete but concise.

Minutes 12-15: Part (C) Explain why your identified similarity/difference matters. Show deeper understanding by connecting factual differences to legal outcomes or similar reasoning to consistent principles. This requires analysis, not just description.

Minutes 16-19: Part (D) Connect to broader significance. Think about federalism, separation of powers, individual rights, or democratic principles. Explain impact beyond the specific case. Use course vocabulary naturally.

Minute 20: Review Verify you've answered all parts and made specific references to both cases. Check that your comparisons are accurate and your explanations show constitutional understanding.

Final Thoughts

The SCOTUS Comparison FRQ rewards deep understanding of constitutional reasoning over surface memorization. The College Board wants to see that you understand how the Supreme Court shapes American government through its decisions - not just what it decides, but why and with what consequences.

Success requires knowing the required cases as complete stories, not just holdings. Understand the factual context that created constitutional questions. Know what specific constitutional provisions were at stake. Grasp the Court's reasoning process. See how decisions fit into larger patterns of constitutional interpretation.

When comparing cases, think like a constitutional lawyer. What makes these situations legally similar or different? How does the Court's reasoning in one case apply to another? What broader principles emerge from these specific decisions? This analytical approach earns more points than rote memorization ever could.

The non-required case isn't there to trick you - it's carefully chosen to connect meaningfully with required cases. Trust your preparation. If you truly understand the required cases, you'll see connections naturally. The summary provides all needed information; your job is to apply your constitutional knowledge to analyze it.

Remember that Supreme Court decisions don't exist in isolation. They build on previous cases, respond to changing circumstances, and shape future interpretations. When you understand cases this way - as part of an ongoing constitutional conversation rather than isolated events - the SCOTUS Comparison FRQ becomes an opportunity to show sophisticated understanding of how American constitutional law develops. Master this perspective, and these four points become consistently achievable.