1. Judicial Review

Question 1

What are the two types of jurisdiction limited by Article 3, Section 2 of the federal courts?

Answer 1

1. Law-based Jurisdiction
2. Party-based Jurisdiction

Question 2

What is Law-Based Jurisdiction in federal courts?

Answer 2

Federal courts have law-based jurisdiction in:
1. Cases arising under the Constitution or federal law
2. Cases arising under a treaty of the U.S.
3. Cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction

Question 3

What is Party-Based Jurisdiction in federal courts?

Answer 3

Federal courts have party-based jurisdiction in:
1. Controversies to which the U.S. shall be a party
2. Controversies between two or more states
3. Cases between a state and citizens of another state
4. Cases between citizens of different states exceeding $75,000
5. Cases affecting ambassadors and consuls

Question 4

Does Congress have the power to decide what types of cases the U.S. Supreme Court hears?

Answer 4

Congress has the general power to decide what types of cases the U.S. Supreme Court may hear, as long as it doesn’t expand the Court’s original jurisdiction beyond the federal judicial power as established by Article 3, Section 2.

Question 5

What does the Eleventh Amendment prohibit?

Answer 5

It prohibits citizens of one state from suing their own state or another state in federal court on federal claims for monetary damages or an injunction without the state’s consent.

Question 6

What are the exceptions where the Eleventh Amendment does not apply?

Answer 6

1. Federal suits by one state against another state.
2. Suits by the federal government against a state
3. Subdivisions of a state (e.g., cities, towns, and counties) do not have immunity
4. Suits against state officials for unconstitutional actions
5. Private citizens suing to enjoin state officials from violating federal rights

Question 7

What is required for a state to consent to suit in federal court?

Answer 7

A state must expressly and unequivocally waive its 11th Amendment immunity

Question 8

What is the rule regarding Congress revoking a state’s immunity?

Answer 8

Congress may revoke a state’s immunity if the act asserts that it is revoking the state’s immunity and is enacted under a grant of power that allows for such revocation

Question 9

What does Article III, Section 2 restrict federal court jurisdiction to?

Case or Controversy

Answer 9

Real disputes between parties with adverse interests that can be conclusively resolved by a judicial decree

Question 10

Can The Supreme Court give advisory opinions to either the President or Congress concerning the constitutionality of proposed actions or legislation?

Answer 10

No.

Question 11

Can Federal courts give an advisory opinion concerning the constitutionality of a proposed action or legislation?

Answer 11

No.

Question 12

Are State Courts allowed to render advisory opinions?

Answer 12

Yes.

Question 13

What is the rule regarding Ripeness in federal court cases?

Answer 13

Ripeness bars consideration of claims BEFORE they have fully developed.

courts cannot review or grant a declaratory judgment of:
i.) a state law BEFORE it is enforced; OR
ii.) where there is NO threat the statute will EVER be enforced.

Relies on uncertain or contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated.

Question 14

What is the exception to the Ripeness rule?

Answer 14

If the plaintiff can show a specific or present harm or a threat of specific future and imminent harm before the law is enforced

when the future events have an immediate impact, even if they rely on uncertain or contingent future events,

Question 15

In what situations may a federal court abstain from hearing a case?

Answer 15

1. When the meaning of a state law or regulation is unclear or undecided;
2. When there is an ongoing state court proceeding on the same matter

Question 16

What does it mean for a case to become ‘moot’?

Answer 16

A case becomes moot when the issues presented are:
1. no longer live; or
2. the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome

Relief is NO LONGER AVAILABLE!

Question 17

What is the ‘Capable of Repetition, Yet Evading Review’ doctrine?

Answer 17

A case will not be dismissed for mootness if the injury is likely to recur but unlikely to be resolved because of the short-term nature of the issue.

Question 18

Voluntary Cessation Doctrine

Answer 18

A case will be considered moot in this situation if subsequent events make it “absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur/start again.”

Question 19

What is the Political Question Doctrine?

Answer 19

Federal courts cannot hear cases involving political questions assigned by the Constitution to another branch of government or incapable of judicial resolution

Question 20

What are the two factors that define a political question?

Answer 20

1. The Constitution suggests ultimate decision-making authority is given to another governmental actor
2. The required decision is political rather than legal in character

Question 21

True or False: a claim that a state has redrawn its electoral districts in a racially discriminatory manner is a political question.

Answer 21

False.

Question 22

True or False: a claim that the state has redrawn electoral district to benefit one political party is a political question.

Answer 22

True.

Question 23

When are Interbranch disputes involving foreign affairs NOT subject to the political question doctrine?

Answer 23

when they concern the validity of a federal statute.

Question 24

What are five other areas of political questions?

Answer 24

1. The impeachment process;
2. The amendment ratification process;
3. The president’s power to unilaterally terminate a treaty;
4. Foreign affairs; and
5. Guaranty Clause issues under Article IV.

Question 25

What are the three requirements to prove standing in court?

Answer 25

1. Injury-in-fact: whether actual or imminent 2. Causation: where the injury was caused by the challenged action; and 3. Redressability: where the plaintiff must show that they will benefit from the remedy sought in the litigation and that the court can provide that remedy.

Question 26

What is the Special Relationship Exception in standing rules?

Answer 26

A party can raise the constitutional rights of a third party if: 1. They have suffered injury 2. A special relationship exists with the third party because of the connection between the interests of the claimant and the constitutional rights of the third party; and 3. The third party is unable to bring suit

Question 27

What is the rule regarding US supreme court original jurisdiction?

Answer 27

Supreme Court can exercise jurisdiction over federal causes of action unless Congress explicitly restricts it

Question 28

What is the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction?

Answer 28

The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in cases affecting ambassadors, public ministers, consuls, and those in which a state is a party Congress may neither enlarge nor restrict the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction. This is FIXED!

Question 29

What are the two methods for invoking Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction?

Answer 29

Congress has full power to regulate and limit the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction. Article III itself suggests that Congress may place certain limits on: i.) the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction; and ii.) on the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts

Question 30

Limitations of Congress' Power with Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction

Answer 30

Congress does NOT have unlimited power to tamper with the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction. Possible limitations on such congressional power have been suggested: (i) Congress may eliminate specific avenues for Supreme Court review as long as it does NOT eliminate all areas; (ii) Congress may eliminate Supreme Court review of certain cases within federal judicial power, but it MUST permit jurisdiction to remain in some lower federal court; (iii) Congress would violate due process of law If they: denied all Supreme Court review of an alleged violation of constitutional rights; or even go further and deny a hearing before any federal judge on such a claim.

Question 31

The Supreme Court has the power to:

Answer 31

1. Hold acts of the other branches of the federal government unconstitutional; 2. Hold state statutes unconstitutional; 3. Review state court decisions to ensure that the states act in conformity with the U.S. Constitution and federal statutes; and 4. Decide other state law questions.

Question 32

Invoking Supreme Court Appellate Jurisdiction

Answer 32

There are two methods for invoking Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction: 1. By appeal where jurisdiction is mandatory; and 2. By writ of certiorari which is discretionary review of four or more justices vote to hear the case. REJECT Cases that have NOT been decided by the lower court.

Question 33

What are grounds for granting a writ of certiorari?

Answer 33

1. Conflicts between different federal courts of appeal 2. Conflicts between highest courts of two states 3. Conflicts between the highest state court and a federal court of appeals 4. Important unresolved issues

Question 34

Yes-Adequate and Independent State Grounds(Supreme Court will not Review)

Answer 34

1. State court clearly states that a state law violates other state law or a provision of a state constitution(regardless of whether the opinion also decides that the state law violates a federal law as well) 2. State supreme court based its decision entirely on the state constitution without addressing the federal constitutional issue. 3. State court holds that a state law violates both the state and federal constitutions, with no indication that the constitutional interpretations were co-extensive. The Court does NOT have appellate jurisdiction over any decisions that find state laws in violation of the federal Constitution.

Question 35

No-Adequate and Independent State Grounds(Supreme Court May Review)

Answer 35

1. State court’s decision is based upon a federal interpretation of a similar federal law. 2. State court interprets the state constitution and the Constitution co-extensively, and then attempted to follow the relevant federal case law. 3. The state court decision relied on an interpretation of federal law, and without any additional discussion, also found the statute inconsistent "with the identical provisions of our state constitution." 4. The state court decision is unclear whether it’s based upon state or federal interpretation of statutes.

Question 36

State Court’s Jurisdiction over Federal Causes of Action

Answer 36

State courts can exercise jurisdiction over federal causes of action, even if a federal court has not previously decided an issue, AS LONG AS there has been NO explicit or implied restriction by Congress that the jurisdiction be strictly federal. State courts may NOT discriminate against a case solely because it arises under federal law.