Yes.

No, because the town did not cause the injury.

No, because the court cannot order the Plaintiff’s requested relief.

No, because the decorated tree did not cause an “injury in fact.”

Against Pelosi, because the rule articulates an "intelligible principle."

In favor of Pelosi, because the rule gives the President a share of the legislative power.

Against Pelosi, because the validity of the House rule is a political question.

In favor of Pelosi, because the rule deprives members of Congress an opportunity to propose amendments to bills.

No, because the Plaintiff can’t assert the rights of other people.

No, because Plaintiff hasn’t suffered an “injury in fact.”

Yes.

No, because the court can’t order specific performance.

Standing

Sovereign immunity.

Political-question doctrine.

Mootness

The Sentencing Commission was exercising blended power

The Sentencing Commission was exercising legislative power

The Sentencing Commission was exercising executive power

The Sentencing Commission was exercising judicial power

No, because A. and B.

(A) No, because the Plaintiff’s chance of further injury is too speculative.

Yes.

(B) No, because the Plaintiff has failed to prove causation.

Yes, so long as a court concludes that the law does not actually advance the governmental interest in public safety.

No, because the fact pattern does not suggest that the driver has received insufficient process.

No, because the driver does not have a right to drive a taxi.

Yes, because procedural due process requires that the driver receive notice of the law's existence.

No, because the President’s tweet does not give rise to an “injury in fact.”

No, because the group does not have standing to assert the claims of its members.

Yes, if the group can prove that giving Alaska back to Russia would cause economic harm to the people of Alaska.

No, because the President has a First Amendment right to make threats and insult people.

The government wins because it is immune from suit unless it consents.

The Plaintiff wins because the rule that all drivers must stop at stop signs is "clearly established."

The Plaintiff wins because an agent of the government caused his injury.

The government wins because the case is now moot after the Plaintiff's full recovery.

No, because any injury he might personally suffer is highly speculative and non‐ imminent at this point.

Yes, because he is seeking an injunction, not damages.

Yes, because he applied for the earlier job, so his injury is “particular,” not “general.”

No, because he is suing a state governmental entity

No,because the employee hasn’t even spoken yet, much less gotten fired,so there isn’t yet an “injury in fact.”

Yes, because she is suffering harm by having her speech “chilled” by the VCU gag order.

Yes, because the employee’s termination will violate her First Amendment rights.

No, because the employee is choosing not to speak, so there isn’t sufficient causation.

The court has jurisdiction because the National Autobahn Society can assert the intangible injuries of its members.

The court has jurisdiction because the National Autobahn Society can assert its own injuries.

The court lacks jurisdiction because the National Autobahn Society does not have standing to assert the injuries of its members.

The court lacks jurisdiction because the suit involves a governmental contract.

Yes, because the MSA, which went through bicameralism and presentment, gives the Secretary rule making power and includes an intelligible principle.

No, because the regulations did not go through bicameralism and presentment.

No, because the MSA does not articulate an intelligible principle.

Yes, because the case raises a political question.

The suit is not justiciable unless the government has waived sovereign immunity.

The suit is not justiciable because it involves a political question.

The suit is justiciable because the Due Process Clause prevents the government from seizing evidence without a hearing.

The suit is justiciable because there are no "prudential" or Article III justiciability problems.

The delegation must be *congruent and proportional*

The delegation cannot be *excessive or unreasonable*

The delegation must be *necessary and proper*

Congress must announce an *intelligible principle*