Marbury v. Madison

Baker v. Carr

Goldwater v. Carter

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld

Rational basis review

Intermediate scrutiny

Strict scrutiny

De novo review

When the decision impinges on fundamental rights

When the decision is based on a misinterpretation of law

When the decision is arbitrary and capricious

All of the above

It bars courts from reviewing agency foreign policy decisions altogether.

It requires courts to defer to the executive branch in matters of foreign policy.

It allows courts to review agency foreign policy decisions, but only if the decision is clearly unconstitutional.

It has no role in judicial review of agency foreign policy decisions.

It requires the plaintiff to show that they have been personally harmed by the agency decision.

It requires the plaintiff to show that they have a stake in the outcome of the case.

It requires the plaintiff to show that the agency decision is unconstitutional.

It has no role in judicial review of agency foreign policy decisions.

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld

Boumediene v. Bush

Medellin v. Texas

All of the above

It ensures that the executive branch does not abuse its power.

It protects individual rights and liberties.

It promotes accountability and transparency in government.

All of the above

It interferes with the executive branch's ability to conduct foreign policy.

It can lead to gridlock and inefficiency in government.

It can undermine the separation of powers between the branches of government.

All of the above

The Court has become more deferential to the executive branch in recent years.

The Court has become more willing to review agency foreign policy decisions in recent years.

The Court's approach has remained relatively consistent over time.

It is difficult to say, as the Court's approach has varied from case to case.

The complexity of foreign policy issues

The lack of transparency in the executive branch's decision-making process

The need to balance national security concerns with individual rights and liberties

All of the above

It can lead to changes in U.S. foreign policy.

It can strengthen the role of the judiciary in foreign policy.

It can increase accountability and transparency in government.

All of the above

Limiting the scope of judicial review

Creating a specialized court to review agency foreign policy decisions

Requiring Congress to pass legislation explicitly authorizing judicial review of agency foreign policy decisions

All of the above

It is likely to become more common in the future.

It is likely to become less common in the future.

It is difficult to say, as the future of judicial review is uncertain.

None of the above

It can require agencies to disclose information about their decision-making process.

It can hold agencies accountable for their actions.

It can deter agencies from making arbitrary or capricious decisions.

All of the above

It can ensure that agencies do not violate individual rights and liberties.

It can provide a forum for individuals to challenge agency decisions that violate their rights.

It can deter agencies from making decisions that violate individual rights and liberties.

All of the above