Published on April 17, 2026
CHICAGO — "War with Iran 'going along swimmingly,'" President Trump stated recently, also highlighting a strong blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. These comments coincide with Hezbollah's stated adherence to the Israel-Lebanon ceasefire, as reported by ABC News International, and have sparked immediate discussion among bar candidates in Chicago.
President Trump's statements are dominating international headlines due to fears of global economic fallout from disrupted oil supplies. For law students, however, the phrasing and implications of such declarations immediately connect to critical constitutional law topics relevant to the bar examination.
Outside DePaul University College of Law, at 25 East Jackson Boulevard, bar candidates were overheard in diners critiquing Trump's phrasing during their lunch breaks. These students were linking the President's comments directly to constitutional war powers essays they are diligently cramming for the 2026 bar exam.
Professor Mark Johnson, a constitutional law expert at DePaul, observed the heightened engagement. "When a President uses language like 'going swimmingly' regarding military actions, it forces a re-evaluation of executive power, particularly in an era of undeclared wars," Johnson explained during a public lecture at the law school's Lewis Center. "Our students are rightly questioning the constitutional boundaries here."
Their discussions reveal a deep concern about the checks and balances inherent in the U.S. system of government. Many students were specifically referencing Article I and Article II powers of the Constitution.
Meanwhile, on the West Coast, Stanford Law School students in Palo Alto parks are debating energy law implications during pickup games. Groups are live-streaming reactions to potential sanctions cases, focusing on the economic repercussions of actions in the Strait of Hormuz.
The global economy's reliance on oil passing through this critical chokepoint makes any disruption a major legal and economic issue. This creates complex hypotheticals concerning international trade law, sanctions, and economic warfare, directly relevant to the bar exam's commercial law sections.
Legal institutions like Yale Law School have seen faculty host pop-up seminars on campus lawns. Students there voice worries about exam topics shifting to international trade disruptions, emphasizing the need for comprehensive knowledge in commercial and international law. Students are also discussing recent trends in bar exam passage rates in relation to these complex issues.
The President's authority to commit troops to conflict without a formal declaration of war from Congress is a perennial topic in constitutional law. Trump's remarks, coupled with actions regarding the Strait of Hormuz blockade, provide fresh context for this long-standing debate.
Bar exam essays frequently test candidates on their understanding of the War Powers Resolution, the Commander-in-Chief clause, and congressional powers to declare war and fund military operations. The current geopolitical climate offers a real-world application of these complex legal doctrines.
Candidates must be prepared to articulate the arguments for and against broad presidential power in foreign affairs. This includes analyzing historical precedents and contemporary interpretations of constitutional text and intent.
The blockade of the Strait of Hormuz could trigger significant energy shocks and prompt pushes for nuclear power in Asia and Africa. These consequences fall squarely within the realm of international trade law and energy policy, areas increasingly relevant for bar exam candidates.
Potential sanctions imposed or threatened by the U.S. government against entities involved in trade through the Strait introduce layers of legal complexity. These involve questions of jurisdiction, extraterritoriality, and the enforcement of international economic policy.
Law students specializing in these areas are likely to see their expertise tested on the exam. The interconnectedness of global events means that what happens in the Middle East can directly affect legal questions in Chicago or Palo Alto, prompting deeper study into understanding the Multistate Bar Examination nuances.
Questions concerning presidential war powers are commonly tested on the bar exam within the Constitutional Law section. These typically involve analyzing the President's authority as Commander-in-Chief versus Congress's power to declare war and control funding. Examinees often need to understand the War Powers Resolution of 1973, its effectiveness, and judicial interpretations regarding executive actions in military conflicts. Hypotheticals might present scenarios where the President takes military action without congressional approval, requiring students to argue the constitutionality of such actions. The debate over the President's power in foreign affairs remains a highly contested area, making it a fertile ground for complex bar exam questions that test both knowledge of doctrine and critical legal reasoning. Chicago law students, with proximity to a major economic hub, often analyze the interplay of these powers with economic policy.
Newstrix
CEO
Get the latest updates on bar exam changes, announcements, and important deadlines
delivered directly to your inbox.