---
title: "AP US Government SCOTUS Comparison FRQ Practice"
description: "69 SCOTUS Comparison questions written in the AP format, each scored part by part."
canonical: "https://fiveable.me/ap-gov/frqs/scotus-comparison"
type: "frq-type-practice"
subject: "AP US Government"
---

# AP US Government SCOTUS Comparison FRQ Practice

## What the SCOTUS Comparison FRQ asks

The SCOTUS Comparison question is FRQ 3 on the AP US Government exam. You get a summary of a Supreme Court case that isn’t on the required list and compare it to one of the required cases from the course.

- **20 min**: suggested writing time
- **4 points**: across parts A to C
- **12.5%**: of your exam score

| Part | What it asks | Points |
| --- | --- | --- |
| A: Identify | What the two cases share, usually a constitutional clause | 1 |
| B: Compare | The required case’s facts and holding, and why the outcomes differ or match | 2 |
| C: Connect | How a holding reflects a broader principle, like federalism | 1 |

## How SCOTUS Comparison FRQ practice works

1. **Read the case summary.** The summarized case and all three parts, A through C, laid out the way the exam shows them.
2. **Write on a 20-minute timer.** The time to plan for on exam day. Pause it or turn it off, and your response saves as you go.
3. **Submit for a score out of 4.** Your response is scored against the scoring guidelines written for that question. Your first score is included.

## Sample question

**Constitutional apportionment and representational equality principles**

Instructions: This question requires you to compare a Supreme Court case you studied in class with one you have not studied in class. A summary of the Supreme Court case you did not study in class is presented and provides all of the information you need to know about this case to answer the prompts.

Provided Court Case:
  Case Name: <strong><em>Reynolds v. Sims</em></strong> (1964)
  Background: In 1961, M.O. Sims, David J. Vann (of Vann v. Baggett), John McConnell (McConnell v. Baggett), and other voters from Jefferson County, Alabama, challenged the apportionment of the state legislature. Lines dividing electoral districts had resulted in dramatic population discrepancies among the districts. The state constitution required at least one representative per county and senatorial district. However, the district in Jefferson County, which is near Birmingham, contained 41 times as many eligible voters as those in another district of the state. Sims and the other voters argued that this lack of proportionality prevented them from effectively participating in a republican form of government.
  Holding: The Court ruled 8-1. Equal protection requires that state legislative districts should be comprised of roughly equal populations if possible. In an 8-to-1 decision authored by Justice Earl Warren, the Court upheld the challenge to the Alabama system, holding that Equal Protection Clause demanded "no less than substantially equal state legislative representation for all citizens...." Noting that the right to direct representation was "a bedrock of our political system," the Court held that both houses of bicameral state legislatures had to be apportioned on a population basis.

Response Instruction: Respond to parts A, B, and C.

Part A (1 point):
  Prompt: Identify the constitutional clause that is common to both *Shaw v. Reno* (1993) and *Reynolds v. Sims* (1964).
  Verb: identify
  Focus: Identify common constitutional principle

Part B (2 points):
  Prompt: Explain how the facts in *Shaw v. Reno* and *Reynolds v. Sims* led to similar holdings.
  Verb: explain
  Focus: Compare case facts and holdings

Part C (1 point):
  Prompt: Explain how the holding in *Reynolds v. Sims* reflects the concept of republicanism.
  Verb: explain
  Focus: Connect holding to constitutional concept

## Questions

**How many responses can I get scored?**

You can read every question without a plan. Your first scored response is included. A plan unlocks unlimited scoring.

**Do I need to know the case in the summary?**

No. The summary gives you its facts, issue, and holding. You need to know the required case the question names.

**Why is Part B worth 2 points?**

One point is for describing the required case accurately. The other is for explaining why the two cases led to similar or different outcomes.

**Are these real College Board questions?**

No. We wrote them in the AP format, with the same three parts, and wrote scoring guidelines for each one.

**Can I write my answer by hand?**

Yes. Switch the editor to handwrite, write on paper, and add a photo of your page.

## Related

- [SCOTUS Comparison FRQ exam guide](/ap-gov/ap-us-government-exam/ap-gov-frq-scotus-comparison/study-guide/ap-gov-frq-scotus-comparison)
- [AP US Government Concept Application FRQ practice](/ap-gov/frqs/concept-application)
- [AP US Government Quantitative Analysis FRQ practice](/ap-gov/frqs/quantitative-analysis)
- [AP US Government Argument Essay practice](/ap-gov/frqs/argument-essay)
- [AP US Government FRQs](/ap-gov/frqs)
- Any question by id: the `get_frq` tool on the [Fiveable MCP server](/mcp/docs)

## About This Document

Canonical Fiveable pages are available as Markdown at the same path plus `.md`.

- [llms.txt](https://fiveable.me/llms.txt): index of Fiveable's sections and URL patterns
- [llms-full.txt](https://fiveable.me/llms-full.txt): complete subject and unit listing
- [MCP server](https://fiveable.me/mcp): call Fiveable as tools instead of fetching pages (`https://fiveable.me/api/mcp`)
- [MCP server for AP teachers](https://fiveable.me/mcp/teachers): a teacher's classes, assignments and AP-rubric grading (`https://fiveable.me/api/mcp/teacher`)