What this rubric measures
The AP Gov SCOTUS Comparison Rubric (FRQ 3) is the official scoring guide used to evaluate student writing on AP US Government and Politics assessments. It is an Point-based (3 parts, Part B scaled) rubric that scores responses across 3 distinct criteria, allowing teachers to give precise, targeted feedback on each area of writing.
All 3 scoring criteria
Click any criterion to expand its score level descriptors. The language below is taken verbatim from the official College Board and Politics scoring guide.
1 Part A
Correctly identifies the constitutional clause, amendment, or provision that is the basis for the decisions in both cases. Example from the 2025 scoring guidelines: identify the constitutional clause that is the basis for the decisions in both United States v. Lopez (1995) and Wickard v. Filburn (1942), accepting Commerce Clause.
- Names the specific clause, amendment, or provision (e.g., Commerce Clause, First Amendment, Equal Protection Clause).
- Stays on the constitutional basis common to both cases, not one that applies to only one of them.
Does not meet the criteria. Common reasons:
- Names a clause or amendment that does not apply to both cases.
- Provides a vague reference to "the Constitution" without identifying a specific clause.
- Identifies the wrong constitutional basis.
Part A typically asks the student to IDENTIFY the constitutional clause, amendment, or provision that is the basis for the decisions in both cases. The response must name the specific clause or provision; a general reference to the Constitution is not enough.
2 Part B (scaled 0 to 2 points)
Correctly explains how the facts in both Supreme Court cases led to different holdings. Example from the 2025 scoring guidelines:
- In Lopez, a gun was brought into a school and the Court held this was not an economic activity and therefore not subject to the Commerce Clause.
- However, in Wickard v. Filburn, the Court determined Filburn could be punished under federal law for growing excess wheat for personal consumption because it could have an indirect effect on the economy of other states and was therefore covered by the Commerce Clause.
- Connects the factual difference (non-economic activity vs. economic activity with indirect effects) to the different holdings.
Describes relevant information (facts or holding) about the required Supreme Court case but does not fully explain how the facts in both cases led to different holdings. Examples include:
- In Lopez, a student was found to have possessed a weapon on school grounds.
- In United States v. Lopez, the Court held that gun possession was not an economic activity that could be considered interstate commerce.
- Provides accurate information about the required case without fully completing the comparison.
Does not meet the criteria. Common reasons:
- Does not describe facts or holding about the required case.
- Compares the two cases inaccurately.
- Restates the prompt without engaging the cases.
Part B is the scaled point on this FRQ. One point is awarded for describing relevant information (facts or holding) about the required Supreme Court case. Two points are awarded for correctly EXPLAINING HOW the facts in both cases led to different holdings. Part B scoring is independent of Parts A and C.
3 Part C
Correctly explains how the holding in the required case reflects a named course concept. Example acceptable responses from the 2025 scoring guidelines include:
- In Wickard, the Supreme Court held that economic activity in one state could be regulated by the federal government when it impacts the economic activity of another state.
- The holding shows that the struggle for power between the states and the federal government sometimes favors the federal government as seen by the Court making activities performed entirely in one state subject to the Commerce Clause.
- Connects the holding to the specific course concept named in the prompt (e.g., federalism).
Does not meet the criteria. Common reasons:
- Defines the course concept without connecting it to the holding.
- Describes the holding without explaining its relationship to the course concept.
- Provides an explanation unrelated to the course concept specified in the prompt.
Part C typically asks the student to EXPLAIN how the holding in the required case reflects a course concept (federalism, judicial review, civil liberties, etc.). The response must connect the holding to a named course concept and explain the connection.
How to score with the AP Gov SCOTUS Comparison Rubric (FRQ 3).
A practical guide for teachers and norming teams. How to apply each descriptor consistently, the pitfalls that hurt inter-rater reliability, and a workflow for calibrating with colleagues.
Three parts, one scaled
- FRQ 3 has three parts (A, B, C) for 4 total points. Parts A and C are binary at 0 or 1 each.
- Part B is scaled at 0, 1, or 2. One point for describing facts or holding about the required case. Two points for fully explaining how the facts led to different holdings in both cases.
- Each part is scored independently. A student can earn full credit on Part B without earning Part A or C, and vice versa.
The required case anchors Part B
- Part B revolves around the REQUIRED case (the SCOTUS case students learned in the course). Strong responses describe the required case first, then the non-required case for comparison.
- To earn 2 points, the response must EXPLAIN HOW the factual difference produces the different holdings, not just state both holdings.
- The 1-point partial credit is generous; describing accurate facts or holding about the required case is enough.
Common pitfalls to avoid
- Awarding Part A for a clause that applies to only one of the cases.
- Awarding Part B 2 points for a response that states both holdings without explaining how the factual difference led to them.
- Awarding Part C for a course concept definition without connecting it to the specific holding of the required case.
Tips for AP norming
- Anchor your norming session with the College Board's released sample FRQ 3 responses, scored and annotated by AP Readers.
- The Part B scaled point is where most norming time is spent. Practice distinguishing 1-point responses (facts or holding about the required case) from 2-point responses (full explanation of how the facts led to different holdings).
- Students who memorize the required SCOTUS cases by clause (Commerce Clause cases, First Amendment cases, etc.) tend to perform well on this FRQ.
Notes for the AP Gov SCOTUS Comparison Rubric
FRQ 3 is the SCOTUS Comparison task. Students compare a non-required Supreme Court case (provided in the stimulus) to a required SCOTUS case from the AP US Government and Politics course. The required cases are listed in the Course and Exam Description; teachers should ensure students have memorized facts and holdings for all of them.
Total possible is 4 points across three parts. Part B is the only scaled part on this FRQ and is worth 1 or 2 points depending on whether the student describes the required case (1 pt) or fully explains the comparison (2 pts).
The most common pattern of point loss is on Part B 2, where students state both holdings but fail to connect the factual difference to the different holdings. Strong 2-point responses use a structure like "In [Required Case], the facts were X, and the Court held Y. In [Non-Required Case], the facts were different (Z), so the Court held differently (W). The factual difference produced the different holdings because..."
20 minutes of suggested writing time. Most strong responses are 1 paragraph per part, with Part B running longer to accommodate the full comparison.
See this rubric in action.
EnlightenAI scores student writing on this exact rubric, with per-criterion feedback that mirrors how you grade by hand. The sample response below shows how the rubric applies to a real piece of student writing, scored against every criterion.
SCOTUS Comparison on the Commerce Clause, Lopez vs Wickard
Part A
The constitutional clause that is the basis for the decisions in both United States v. Lopez and Wickard v. Filburn is the Commerce Clause of Article I, Section 8, which grants Congress the power to regulate commerce among the several states.
Part B
In Wickard v. Filburn, a farmer named Roscoe Filburn grew wheat in excess of federal quotas for personal consumption on his own farm. The Court held that even though Filburn's wheat never crossed state lines and was consumed at home, his activity could be regulated under the Commerce Clause because, when aggregated with similar activity by other farmers, it had a substantial indirect effect on the interstate wheat market. In United States v. Lopez, by contrast, a high school student brought a gun to school in violation of the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act. The Court held that gun possession in a school zone was not an economic activity and had no substantial connection to interstate commerce, so the federal law exceeded Congress's Commerce Clause authority. The different holdings came directly from the factual difference: Wickard involved an economic activity (wheat production) with measurable aggregate effects on interstate markets, while Lopez involved a non-economic activity (gun possession at school) that the Court refused to fold into commerce reasoning.
Part C
The holding in Wickard v. Filburn reflects the concept of federalism because it shows how the constitutional balance of power between the federal government and the states can shift in favor of the federal government when the Supreme Court reads the Commerce Clause expansively. By holding that Filburn's purely intrastate wheat production was subject to federal regulation through its aggregate effects on interstate commerce, the Court allowed the federal government to reach activities that would otherwise fall within state regulatory authority. Wickard marked a high-water moment in the expansion of federal power within the federal system and remains a touchstone case in debates over the proper boundary between state and national authority under the Commerce Clause.
Correctly identifies the Commerce Clause as the common basis
Names the Commerce Clause AND adds the Article I, Section 8 location. Clause applies to both cases (regulation of commerce). Goes beyond a vague reference to "the Constitution". Earns Part A 1.
Full 2-point comparison with facts and holdings linked
Describes both cases' facts (wheat production vs. gun possession), both holdings (regulable vs. not), AND explains how the factual difference (economic vs. non-economic activity, aggregate effects) produced the different holdings. Earns the scaled Part B 2.
Connects the Wickard holding to federalism explicitly
Defines federalism through the federal-state balance AND connects the Wickard holding to that balance shifting toward the federal government. Names the mechanism (aggregate effects expanding federal reach). Earns Part C 1.
Score this rubric consistently, with the feedback students actually use
EnlightenAI is trained on your standards and your exemplars, then scores at the speed of your classroom.
Trained on your rubric
Upload this rubric, or any custom one, and the AI learns your exact criteria, descriptor language, and score level boundaries.
Per-criterion feedback
Students receive specific, actionable comments tied to each criterion, exactly the way you'd grade by hand.
Built for K–12 schools
Roster sync, FERPA-aligned data handling, and per-school configuration so every campus uses the same standards.
About the AP Gov SCOTUS Comparison Rubric (FRQ 3)
What is the AP Gov SCOTUS Comparison rubric?
Which Supreme Court cases do I need to know for AP Gov FRQ 3?
How is the scaled point in Part B awarded?
Can students earn Part C without earning Part A or B?
How long is FRQ 3 on the AP Gov exam?
Is this rubric the official version from College Board?
Where can I find the source document?
Can EnlightenAI score student writing using this rubric?
Use this rubric in EnlightenAI
Train EnlightenAI on the AP Gov SCOTUS Comparison rubric and start scoring student FRQ 3 responses with consistent per-part feedback, including the scaled Part B, in a single class period.