AP Gov SAQ Practice Prompt Answers & Feedback

Free-response practice is one of the best ways to prepare for the AP U.S. Government and Politics exam! Review student writing practice samples and corresponding feedback from Nicole Johnston. This prompt is a SCOTUS Comparison-style FRQ.

The FRQ Practice Prompt

In 1996, California legalized medical marijuana. However, that state law conflicted with the federal Controlled Substances Act, which made the possession of marijuana illegal. When federal agents from the Drug Enforcement Agency confiscated the drug from a medical marijuana user’s home, a group of people prescribed medical marijuana sued the federal government. They argued that the Controlled Substances Act exceeded the government’s authority since the use of medical marijuana was within the state of California, not between states. The case reached the Supreme Court in 2004 in Gonzales v. Raich. The Court ruled 6:3 that the government did have authority to prohibit medical marijuana possession and use, even though it was legal in California. It reasoned that since marijuana sales are part of a national market, the federal government can control marijuana possession.

1. Identify the constitutional clause that is common to both Gonzales v. Raich and US v. Lopez.
2. Based on the constitutional clause identified in Part A, explain why the facts of Gonzales v. Raich led to a different holding than the holding in US v. Lopez.
3. Describe an action that California users of medical marijuana might take to limit the impact of the ruling in Gonzales v. Raich.

more resources to help you study

cheatsheetsscore calculatorAMSCO guided noteskey terms

Sample High-Scoring Response

A. The constitutional clause common to both cases is the Commerce Clause.

B. In Gonzales v. Raich, the Court held that Congress could regulate even intrastate possession and cultivation of marijuana because it was part of a broader national market that substantially affected interstate commerce. In U.S. v. Lopez, the Gun-Free School Zones Act was struck down because possessing a gun in a school zone was not, by itself, an economic activity closely tied to interstate commerce.

C. California medical marijuana users could lobby state and federal representatives to change marijuana policy, such as urging Congress to amend federal law or pressing state officials to continue protecting medical marijuana access under state law.

Point Guidance

• 1 point for correctly identifying the Commerce Clause
• 1 point for explaining why the facts led to different holdings in Raich and Lopez
• 1 point for describing a plausible action to limit the ruling’s impact

Writing Samples and Feedback

SCOTUS Comparison Practice Submission 1

1. The constitutional clause that is shared is the commerce clause because Gonzales v. Raich and US v. Lopez challenged laws relating to purchasing goods within and out of state lines.
2. In Gonzales v. Raich the decision was that the government could, indeed, control where marijuana is legal and can be sold. While in US v. Lopez it was decided that the gun-free school act was invalid. US v. Lopez came to that decision because if a gun was in a school zone and committed a crime it was unlikely that the person who committed the crime would go to another state, therefore making guns in school zones not a problem of interstate commerce. Gonzales v. Raich was different because Marijuana could be taken outside of California which means it would go into 49 other states that does not have legal medical marijuana. Marijuana is a national market and therefore was apart of interstate commerce, making it so the national government could restrict. It is also more likely from someone to bring marijuana they got legally into a state where it is illegal, which was in US v. Lopez the justification for making the act they did.
3. People from outside of California could go to California and get marijuana to use. They could also start using marijuana illegally. Since it was ruled that the federal government could restrict, they hadn’t yet, they could continue their practices of medical marijuana. If those practices were threaten the Californians could move to somewhere else or could figure out how to work with the new restrictions.

Teacher feedback:

How this would score:

• Part A: 1/1 — Correctly identifies the Commerce Clause.
• Part B: 1/1 — Explains that marijuana was treated as part of interstate commerce, while gun possession in a school zone was not sufficiently connected to interstate commerce.
• Part C: 0/1 — The response is too vague. It needs a clearer plausible action, such as lobbying Congress to change federal marijuana law or urging elected officials to adopt policies that reduce the practical impact of federal enforcement.

Estimated score: 2/3

SCOTUS Comparison Practice Submission 2

1. The constitutional clause that is common to both cases is the commerce clause, which says that the government can regulate interstate commerce.
2. US v Lopez was a case in which a law was passed that said no guns in a school zone, based on the commerce clause. Lopez was a student who got caught with a gun in a school zone and was held accountable. He appealed to the Supreme Court saying that the law was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled in his favor. The difference between the two cases is that in Lopez, commerce really does not have anything to do with guns in a school zone, while regulating marijuana does.
3. These medical marijuana uses can protest and appeal to their representatives, who can pass a law that would give more freedom to medical marijuana users.

Teacher feedback:

How this would score:

• Part A: 1/1 — Correctly identifies the Commerce Clause.
• Part B: 1/1 — This earns the point because it distinguishes non-economic gun possession from marijuana regulation tied to commerce, though more detail would make it stronger.
• Part C: 1/1 — Describes a plausible political action by contacting representatives and seeking policy change.

Estimated score: 3/3

Quick Tips for This FRQ Type

• Start with the specific constitutional clause or principle named in the prompt.
• In the comparison, focus on why the facts matter to the Court’s holding.
• For prompts like this one, make sure your final part gives a realistic action a person or group could take.
• Keep your response direct and specific—you do not need a full essay for this question.