1. Judicial Review Flashcards
What are the two types of jurisdiction limited by Article 3, Section 2 of the federal courts?
- Law-based Jurisdiction
- Party-based Jurisdiction
What is Law-Based Jurisdiction in federal courts?
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
What is Party-Based Jurisdiction in federal courts?
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
Does Congress have the power to decide what types of cases the U.S. Supreme Court hears?
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.
What does the Eleventh Amendment prohibit?
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.
What are the exceptions where the Eleventh Amendment does not apply?
- Federal suits by one state against another state.
- Suits by the federal government against a state
- Subdivisions of a state (e.g., cities, towns, and counties) do not have immunity
- Suits against state officials for unconstitutional actions
- Private citizens suing to enjoin state officials from violating federal rights
What is required for a state to consent to suit in federal court?
A state must expressly and unequivocally waive its 11th Amendment immunity
What is the rule regarding Congress revoking a state’s immunity?
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
What does Article III, Section 2 restrict federal court jurisdiction to?
Case or Controversy
Real disputes between parties with adverse interests that can be conclusively resolved by a judicial decree
Can The Supreme Court give advisory opinions to either the President or Congress concerning the constitutionality of proposed actions or legislation?
No.
Can Federal courts give an advisory opinion concerning the constitutionality of a proposed action or legislation?
No.
Are State Courts allowed to render advisory opinions?
Yes.
What is the rule regarding Ripeness in federal court cases?
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.
What is the exception to the Ripeness rule?
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,
In what situations may a federal court abstain from hearing a case?
- When the meaning of a state law or regulation is unclear or undecided;
- When there is an ongoing state court proceeding on the same matter
What does it mean for a case to become ‘moot’?
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!
What is the ‘Capable of Repetition, Yet Evading Review’ doctrine?
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.
Voluntary Cessation Doctrine
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.”
What is the Political Question Doctrine?
Federal courts cannot hear cases involving political questions assigned by the Constitution to another branch of government or incapable of judicial resolution
What are the two factors that define a political question?
- The Constitution suggests ultimate decision-making authority is given to another governmental actor
- The required decision is political rather than legal in character
True or False: a claim that a state has redrawn its electoral districts in a racially discriminatory manner is a political question.
False.
True or False: a claim that the state has redrawn electoral district to benefit one political party is a political question.
True.
When are Interbranch disputes involving foreign affairs NOT subject to the political question doctrine?
when they concern the validity of a federal statute.
What are five other areas of political questions?
- The impeachment process;
- The amendment ratification process;
- The president’s power to unilaterally terminate a treaty;
- Foreign affairs; and
- Guaranty Clause issues under Article IV.
What are the three requirements to prove standing in court?
- Injury-in-fact: whether actual or imminent
- Causation: where the injury was caused by the challenged action; and
- 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.
What is the Special Relationship Exception in standing rules?
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
What is the rule regarding US supreme court original jurisdiction?
Supreme Court can exercise jurisdiction over federal causes of action unless Congress explicitly restricts it
What is the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction?
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!
What are the two methods for invoking Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction?
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
Limitations of Congress’ Power with Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction
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.
The Supreme Court has the power to:
- Hold acts of the other branches of the federal government unconstitutional;
- Hold state statutes unconstitutional;
- Review state court decisions to ensure that the states act in conformity with the U.S. Constitution and federal statutes; and
- Decide other state law questions.
Invoking Supreme Court Appellate Jurisdiction
There are two methods for invoking Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction:
- By appeal where jurisdiction is mandatory; and
- 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.
What are grounds for granting a writ of certiorari?
- Conflicts between different federal courts of appeal
- Conflicts between highest courts of two states
- Conflicts between the highest state court and a federal court of appeals
- Important unresolved issues
Yes-Adequate and Independent State Grounds(Supreme Court will not Review)
- 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)
- State supreme court based its decision entirely on the state constitution without addressing the federal constitutional issue.
- 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.
No-Adequate and Independent State Grounds(Supreme Court May Review)
- State court’s decision is based upon a federal interpretation of a similar federal law.
- State court interprets the state constitution and the Constitution co-extensively, and then attempted to follow the relevant federal case law.
- 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.”
- The state court decision is unclear whether it’s based upon state or federal interpretation of statutes.
State Court’s Jurisdiction over Federal Causes of Action
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.
