Article 3: Federal Judicial Power Flashcards
Origins of Judicial Power, rules
R: Art. III, Sec. 1
- The judicial power of the US shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish
R: Art. III, Sec. 2
- The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases and Controversies
Standing, Intro
Standing is the determination if whether a particular person is the proper part to present a particular issue to the court for resolution.
- Question of whether the court can provide a remedy for this issue
- Plaintiff bears the burden of showing they have standing
Standing, Rule
(1) Injury in Fact
(a) Concrete and
- Must be real, actually exists. Injury is real if
- - History of the injury in common law. (Does the alleged intangible harm have a close relationship to a harm that has been traditionally recognized at common law?)
- - Congress view is at as an injury. (Congress has the power to define injuries and articulate chains of causation that will give rise to a case/controversy where none existed before)
- can include a risk of harm
(b) Particularized
(c) Actual or imminent
- Actual / currently happening
- Imminent / strong likelihood that its happening to P in the future
- not speculative or conjectural
(2) Causation
- Injury is “fairly traceable” to the challenged law or governmental action
(3) Redressability
- Injury is “likely” to be redressed by a favorable decision
Standing, A: City of LA v. Lyons
Holding that D does not have standing to sue the LAPD for using chokeholds because there is no evidence that there is an actual or imminent injury in fact.
- Suing for injunctive relief for police to not use chokeholds
- Using chokehold is not a part of LAPD policy D cannot show that D will be placed in a chokehold again as some point soon
- This is a past injury, it is not happening now, and there’s no evidence that it is likely that it will happen TO HIM again
- NOT IMMINENT OR ACTUAL (based on the plaintiff’s legal strategy here)
Standing, A: Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife
Holding D did not have standing to sue because there is no imminent injury for the court to remedy
- P challenging a Interior Dept. interpretation of the Endangered Species Act to requires consultation only for projects in the US or high seas (not foreign countries)
- Neither P’s listed have a plan to visit elephants in the immediate future, so no imminent harm
- They are only concerned because they heard about the potential habitat destruction (This is not imminent enough of a harm)
- Court rejects ecosystem nexus argument because it is too broad (No way to limit who is not connected in an interconnected environment)
- Scalia touches on the “redressability” (P’s not asking to court to block the construction of dams, asking that agencies who provide funding for dam project sit down and consult with DOI about the project)
- UNCLEAR whether D’s injury will be redressed funding agencies may still decide to build without DOI input, and foreign countries can reject DOI funding
Standing, A: Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw
Holding P’s did have standing to sue Laidlaw because there was an injury in fact. P’s all lived near the Laidlaw’s facility
- Concrete and particularized = P’s proximity to the plant make the injury concrete
o Actual or imminent
- Neighbors use the river for recreation, want to continue to do so, but stopped because they are afraid that effects of pollution from Laidlaw factory = Inhibiting decisions now = actual harm
o Causation
- Laidlaw discharged mercury into river in violation of CWA
o Redressability
- Civil penalties have a deterrent effect to prevent pollution
- If civil penalties stop Laidlaw from polluting the river, then the court will redress the P’s injuries
Standing, A: Mass v. EPA
Holding that Mass. has standing to sue the EPA to enforce policies that protect the Mass coastline.
Mass given special solicitude because it is a state
- Mass surrendered certain aspects of sovereignty to fed. gov., so it leaves them without recourse to protect certain of their interest.
Injury in fact
- Concrete = there has been a retreat of mountain glaciers, reduction in snow-covered extent, rising sea levels. injury can be widely shared, as long as it is real
- Particularized = Mass has a particular injury to its coast
- Actual/imminent = there is a risk of harm for future environmental problems that are being exacerbated by EPA’s ongoing failure to address the issue
- Mass spending money TODAY to address the issue, but its limited in what it can do b/c of its status as an inferior sovereign
Causation = EPA’s failure to regulate gas emissions contributes to Mass’ injuries
- Risk of harm CAUSED Mass’ injury
- Mass is asking EPA to take an incremental step that will lead to reduction in greenhouse gases, which slows climate change, which mitigates harm suffered by Mass
Redress = b/c P’s frame the harm as a “risk of harm” EPA taking incremental steps by EPA would mitigate the risk
Standing, A: Spokeo v. Robins
Holding that it is unclear whether P suffered a concrete injury for Spokeo’s act of providing inaccurate information about him to a requester.
- Clear that he suffered a particular injury (it happened to him in an individual way)
- Not clear if he suffered a concrete harm
o Can determine an injury is concrete by looking at history and judgment of Congress
- - Here, Congress wanted to curb the dissemination of information by adopting procedures in the law designed to decrease the risk. However, P needs more than “bare procedural violation” need to plead specific facts
Standing, A: Gil v. Whitford
Holding that the P’s in this voter dilution case did not have standing because they could not provide P with an adequate redress for the alleged IIF
No IIF
- The plaintiffs here were not actual b/c the P’s did not live in a cracked district
- A P who complains of gerrymandering by does not live in a gerrymandered district asserts only a generalized grievance against the government
The only redress available is to redraw a specific district, NOT the entire state
- Voting district specific = can only redraw the map for a single district
Kagan suggests rather than making a 14th amendment argument, political gerrymander should be sued under 1st Amendment associational right
Prudential Requirements = MBE maybe
- Based on Court’s judgment of its institutional competencies and resources
- Not constitutionally required, so can be overridden by Congress
Some have been repudiated or called into question
3 Prudential Standing Doctrines
(1) Prohibition on raising generalized grievances
- Constitutionalized as “particularity” in IIF test
- - Ex. I don’t have a particularized grievance to sue the Treasury to see whether my tax dollars go to CIA operations that I don’t agree
(2) Zone of interest protected by statute
- Repudiated in Lemark
- - Flies in face of judicial power - If case/controversy comes before court, should court hear it?
(3) Prohibition on raising person’s legal rights
- Exception includes associational standing exception
- - Organization can get standing based on injuries of its members if
- - - Member of the org would have standing to bring action
- - - Lawsuit relates to the purposes of the org
- - - Claim asserted and relief requested do not requires participation of the individual members
Limits on Federal Judicial Power: PQ, Rule
Federal Courts will not adjudicate constitutional questions that are inappropriate for judicial review because certain provisions of the Constitution are left to the political branches to interpret and enforce. If one of the Baker factors present, then the Court will not rule on the issue.
Political Q only arises in cases presenting constitutional questions
Only invoked in rare instances where
o P has standing
o Ripe for a decision
o But Court still believes it does not have the authority to adjudicate the case
Case is political if (Baker factors)
o Constitution textually commits issue to another branch
o Lack of a manageable standard
o Impossibility of deciding issue without initial policy determination
o Disrespect for coordinate branches
o Need for unquestioning adherence
o Potential embarrassment of multiple pronouncements
Justiciability of Gerrymander Cases
- Gerrymander under Guarantee Clauses are non-justiciable political questions
- BUT Baker v. Carr = racial gerrymander under 14th amendment & justiciable
- However, it’s a squishy argument b/c the 15th amendment says that if a state does not give Black people the right to vote, then their representation in the House will go down
Davis v. Bandemer = political gerrymander under 14th Amendment & justiciable
Veith = political gerrymander MAYBE non-justiciable
- Kennedy + Plurality
- Agree on the outcome, these P’s lose no gerrymander claim
- Plurality
- Political gerrymander are non-justiciable b/c no workable standard
- Kennedy + dissent
- Agree that gerrymander claims are justiciable
- Disagree on what standard to use
Political Question, A Powell v. McCormack
Holding that House cannot deny a member of Congress his seat by his colleagues.
- TEXTUALLY COMMITTED THIS Q TO ANOTHER BRANCH
- Constitution provides its own, explicit criteria for membership of the House (Art. 1, Sec. 2)
- Court says that Art. 1, Sec. 5 (House having adjudicatory power to determine house member qualifications) only allows House members to judge whether a member has met the qualifications in Art. 1, Sec. 2
- Policy argument:
- Democracy would be undermined if House excluded members whom received support from voters (Democracy would be undermined)
- Structural argument
- Need 2/3 to expel
- Does not make any sense to not allow member to sit in the first place with a simple majority if you need 2/3 to expel
Political Question, A Goldwater v. Carter
Holding the decision to rescind a treaty is a political question, and court will not make a decision on this kind of case.
**Stresses the importance of not interfering in foreign relations
Textual commitment?
- Constitution silent about rescission
Lack of Judicially manageable standards?
- There are different rescission procedures may be appropriate for different treaties
- Constitution does not provide the procedures
- b/c need to select procedures before, that is political
Policy predicate? (No)
Disrespect for coordinate branches?
Need for unquestioning adherence?
Potential embarrassment?
- If Congress confronts the Pres about this issue, the Court can relieve embarrassment of deciding whose right
Political Question, A: Zivotofsky v. Clinton
Holding the decision about whether congressional statute respecting Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel is a case the Court can decide.
- Pres has a long standing policy to be silent about the status of Jerusalem
- Congress does not like this position and passes a law to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel
- Congressional action makes this different than Goldwater
- Textually committed to another branch?
- No b/c the issue here is whether section 214 is constitutional the Court is not being ask to decide the political status of Jerusalem
- Lack of judicially manageable standards?
- There are ways to decide the constitutionality of statutes
- Impossibility of deciding the issue w/o an initial policy determination of a kind of clearly for the political branches?
- Majority says no
- Breyer says Court must look at the implications of listing Jerusalem, Israel on passports
- Risk of judicial disrespect for coordinate branches?
- B/C Congress passed the statute, no judicial disrespect will happen (If Congress has the constitutional authority to pass the statute, no one being disrespected = Pres. did sign the bill to become law) (If Congress out of bounds, then Pres will win on the merits)
- Unusual need to unquestioning adherence to political decision already made?
- Not at war, not going to cause war
- Potential embarrassment from multiple pronouncements?
- That’s what’s going on now
Political Question, A: Nixon v. US
Holding impeachment proceedings are within the sole control of the Senate, so Court cannot make a decision.
- Federal judge wants Court to make a decision about whether the Senate used unconstitutional procedures by only allowing the Judiciary committee to hear the evidence rather than the full Senate
- Textually commits question?
- Impeachment proceedings are within the sole control of the Senate.
- Policy consideration
- Separating impeachment from criminal trial allows the criminal trial to go through entire judiciary without worry of double jeopardy
- Strong interest in finality = esp. when impeaching a President
