Article III, Judicial Power

Question 1

Marbury v. Madison

Answer 1

1. Article III gives SCOTUS authority to review laws to determine whether they comply with the United States Constitution
2. Congress cannot create more jurisdiction than is enumerated in the Constitution

Question 2

Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee

Answer 2

Article III § 2: “The Judicial Power shall extend to ALL Cases in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States…”

1. SCOTUS has authority to exercise appellate review of state-court decisions regarding Federal law.
2. The decision is binding on the lower courts.

Question 3

Interpretive methods

Answer 3

1. originalism
2. textualism (form of originalism)
3. purposivism
4. pragmatism (multiple forms)
5. realism (all a front for preference)

all affected by
1. natural law
2. precedent
3. foreign law

Question 4

District of Columbia v. Heller

Answer 4

Facts: DC denied Heller’s application for firearm registration based on a law requiring a license. Heller sued arguing the law violated the second amendment right to bear arms.

Rule (Scalia): Subject to certain safety limitations, the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution creates an individual right to keep and bear arms apart from any military purpose.

Dissent (Breyer): A better approach would be an “interest-balancing inquiry” between the statute and 2nd amendment

Dissent (Stevens): the right to keep and bear arms was designed to be solely for the purpose of preserving a well-regulated militia.

Question 5

NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION v. BRUEN

Answer 5

Facts: NY law required a special need for self-defense beyond that of the ordinary public to obtain a concealed carry license

Rule: A government restriction on the right to keep and bear arms is unconstitutional if the restriction is inconsistent with America’s historical tradition of firearms regulation.

Dissent (Breyer): The majority limits the ability of states to address the gun-violence problem by focusing too heavily on history and refusing to apply an interest-balancing test.

Question 6

Comparison of NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION v. BRUEN to Obergefell (fundamental rights)

Answer 6

Both cases seem to avoid Glucksberg in the fundamental rights analysis

Question 7

Article III Section II says the court may only hear “cases and controversies.” The Court throws out suits which are “non justiciable.” Those are:

Answer 7

1. Advisory Opinions
2. Suits with no standing
3. Issues still developing (ripeness)
4. Issues that are moot
5. Political Questions

Question 8

Advisory Opinions

Answer 8

The court will not issue advisory opinions.

Court refused to advise GW on neutrality during war between France and England because federal branches are supposed to be “checks” upon each other.

Question 9

Standing (must have)

Answer 9

1. Injury in fact
   
   • Concrete and particularized, and
   • Actual or imminent
2. Causation
3. Redressible

Question 10

Mootness

Answer 10

Standing must exist throughout the proceedings.

Exceptions:
1. Voluntary cessation, where the defendant may return to the challenged conduct (FOE v. Laidlaw)

2. Cases which are capable of repeating while “evading review”

Question 11

Ripeness

Answer 11

The Court may consider a case premature if it is “inadequately developed” factually. Further actions, such as by a federal agency adopting a rule that harms individuals may make a case ripe.

Question 12

Political Question Factors from Baker v. Carr

Answer 12

(1) Text of the Constitution shows it is an issue for another branch

(2) A lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving the issue (Only factor not tied to separation of powers)

(3) Impossible to decide the issue without making an initial policy determination not suitable for judicial discretion

(4) Independently resolving the case would show a lack of respect for the other branches

(5) An unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made

(6) The potential for government embarrassment by branches taking varying stances on the issue

Question 13

Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (Mootness)

Answer 13

Facts:
1. P argued the injury is not being able to enjoy the river and nearby area due to pollution.
2. D argued the issue was moot. D had already paid the state regulator a fine and entirely dismantled the water treatment plant.

Rules:
1. Injury can be shown through the reduction of “aesthetic and recreational” value.
2. For a case to be moot, it must be “absolutely clear” that the allegedly wrongful conduct could not reasonably be expected to recur.

Result: Court remanded for fact finding on mootness

Question 14

Massachusetts v. EPA (Standing)

Answer 14

Facts:
1. Massachusetts and other states allege EPA neglecting to regulate greenhouse gasses
2. P says injury is rising sea levels reducing P’s coastal land
3. EPA does not dispute causal connection, but argues no injury in fact and therefore no standing

Rule: States have a lower threshold to show injury for standing because they are sovereign entities

Question 15

Lujan (mountain goats case) (example for no standing)

Answer 15

Facts: guy wanted to see mountain goats, but had no plane ticket or concrete plans to go see them

Rule: mere desire to go see the mountain goats in the future is not an injury in fact, therefore, the plaintiff has no standing.

Question 16

Baker v. Carr (Gerrymandering case gives us PQ factors)

Answer 16

Facts:
1. P argues Tennessee’s 1901 apportionment act is unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment
2. TN argues this is a political question and is thus non justiciable

Rule: A challenge to malapportionment of state legislatures brought under the Equal Protection Clause is not a political question and is thus justiciable.

Question 17

Rucho v. Common Cause (Political Q)

Answer 17

Rule: Partisan gerrymandering is a nonjusticiable political question.

Using the Baker Factors, there is no manageable standard for allocating power among political parties.