Art. III Judicial Power

Question 1

Art. III, § 1

Answer 1

Requires single SCOTUS & Congressional lower court creation power

Question 2

Art III, § 2

Answer 2

SCOTUS has OG Jurisdiction in Enumerated and Appellate Jurisdiction in all others
Enumerated Cases: “affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party”
Appellate Jurisdiction is subject to Congressional exceptions & regulations

Question 3

Scope of Fed. Judicial Power

Answer 3

1. Federal courts can review executive actions if there is an individual right giving rise to a legal duty, as opposed to matters where executive has discretion. Latter is political issue (Marbury v. Madison (1803)).
2. Article III is the ceiling of federal court jurisdiction. Article III authorizes the maximum jurisdiction of the federal courts. As a result, Congress cannot authorize federal courts to hear cases beyond what is specified in Article III, and federal courts cannot gain jurisdiction by consent (Id.).
3. Courts have power to declare legislative and executive actions unconstitutional (judicial review) (Id.).
4. Supreme Court also has power to review state court judgements implicating federal law (Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee (1816); Cohens v. Virginia (1821)).

Question 4

Advisory opinions

Answer 4

Fed. Barred from answering hypothetical questions

Question 5

What is an Advisory Opinion?

Answer 5

1. There is no actual dispute between adverse parties (e.g., Opinion of the Justices); or
2. The courts’ final decision will not have a binding or dispositive effect (e.g., Hayburn’s Case; Plaut v. Spendthrift).

Question 6

Basic Idea of Standing

Answer 6

Parties must have a sufficient concrete and individual interest in the outcome to be entitled to a judicial resolution.

Question 7

What are the Art. III standing requirements?

Answer 7

1. Injury in fact
2. Causation
3. Redressability

Question 8

What are the Prudential standing requirements?

Answer 8

1. No 3rd Party Standing
2. No “general grievances”

Question 9

What is “injury in fact”?

Answer 9

First, the plaintiff must allege that he or she has suffered or imminently will suffer a legally cognizable injury.
· Injury must be concrete, particularized, imminent, actual and not conjectural (e.g., Mass v. EPA; LA v. Lyons; Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife; Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l)
· Must be a type of injury the law recognizes as a harm (E.g., TransUnion v. Ramirez)

Question 10

What is “causation”?

Answer 10

The plaintiff must allege that the injury is fairly traceable to the defendant’s conduct (e.g., Allen v. Wright; Mass v. EPA; Linda S v. Richard D.; Warth v. Seldin; Simon v. Eastern KY Welfare Rights Org.)

The injury must be traceable to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct (e.g., Allen v. Wright; Mass v. EPA; Linda S v. Richard D.; Warth v. Seldin; Simon v. Eastern KY Welfare Rights Org.)

Question 11

What is “redressability”?

Answer 11

A favorable federal court decision is likely to redress the injury (e.g., Allen v. Wright; Mass v. EPA; Linda S v. Richard D.; Warth v. Seldin; Simon v. Eastern KY Welfare Rights Org.)

Question 12

What is “no third-party standing”?

Answer 12

Party generally must assert only his or her own rights and cannot raise the claims of third parties not before the court. (Singleton v. Wulff (1976))

Question 13

What is “no ‘general grievances’”?

Answer 13

o Generally, one’s interest as a citizen or taxpayer is insufficient for standing to challenge government policy.
o The Court has allowed taxpayer standing when the policy is (1) an exercise of Art. 1, Sec. 8 taxing and spending power; and (2) allegedly violating other constitutional limitations (namely, the establishment clause) (Flast v. Cohen (1968)).

Question 14

Basic Idea of Political Question Doctrine

Answer 14

Certain provisions of the Constitution are not judicially enforceable, and certain constitutional questions are not appropriate for judicial resolution, because they involve questions best left to political branches.

Question 15

Baker v. Carr Prominent Features Involving ‘Political Questions”

Answer 15

1. Textually demonstrable commitment of an issue to political branches
2. Lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards
3. Impossibility of deciding the question w/out making a policy determination of a kind clearly not for judicial discretion
4. Impossibility of undertaking judicial resolution w/out expressing a lack of respect due to the coordinate branches
5. Unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made
6. Potential embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments.

Question 16

Partisan Gerrymandering

Answer 16

Rucho v. Common Cause (2019): Partisan gerrymandering is an nonjusticiable political question.

Question 17

Basic Idea of Ripeness

Answer 17

Courts should not address challenges when it is uncertain how or whether the law or policy in question will be enforced, and how or whether it will harm the plaintiff.

Question 18

Basic Idea of Mootness

Answer 18

Basic Idea: There must be a live controversy at all stages of the litigation. If something ends the dispute (e.g., settlement, policy change, death of a party), there is no longer a live controversy.

Question 19

Three Exceptions to Mootness

Answer 19

(1) Capable of repetition yet evading review (Roe v. Wade (1973));
(2) Voluntary cessation (Friends of Earth v. Laidlaw (2000));
(3) Class actions