Background & Overview

Question 1

What case determined that the Supreme Court of the United States has the authority to review laws and legislative acts to determine whether they comply with the United States Constitution?

Answer 1

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Question 2

According to Article III, Section 2, Clause 2:

What type of jurisdiction does the Supreme Court have over cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and where a State is a party?

Answer 2

Original Jurisdiction

Question 3

T/F: Writs of Mandamus are included in the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

Answer 3

False - Writs of Mandamus fall under appellate jurisdiction, meaning they must start in the lower courts and work their way up on appeal

Question 4

How many justices must agree for the Supreme Court to grant a writ of certiorari (hear a case)?

Answer 4

At least 4 of the 9

Question 5

What are the two reasons that the Supreme Court grants review?

Answer 5

(1) To resolve conflicting rulings among lower courts

(2) To decide questions of substantial public importance

Question 6

What case involved a 1789 Virginia law invalidating all land grants made to British loyalists by the Crown and resulted in the US Supreme Court saying they can review state court decisions that arise under federal law?

Answer 6

Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee (1816)

Question 7

T/F: A case that is heard regarding laws that fall under the constitution must be able be heard by the Supreme Court

Answer 7

True

Although the Supreme Court may not have original jurisdiction over the case, if it is regarding laws that fall under the constitution they will have appellate jurisdiction at the very least

Question 8

In the federal sovereign system (as opposed to state sovereigns), power is split into 3 branches. What are they and where do they get their power?

Answer 8

Congress - Article I
Executive - Article II
Judiciary - Article III

Question 9

What 2008 Scalia opinion took a textualist approach in determining that the 2nd amendment wouldn’t limit firearm possession to only Militia members? (Name the case)

Answer 9

D.C v. Heller

Question 10

The Lujan Test:
(1) Injury - plaintiff suffered an injury in fact that is
(a) concrete and particularized and
(b) actual or imminent

(2) Causation - the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant, and

(3) Redressable - it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision

What is the Lujan test used to determine?

Answer 10

Whether a plaintiff has Standing

Question 11

What is the Lujan test for Standing?

Answer 11

The Lujan Test:
(1) Injury - plaintiff suffered an injury in fact that is
(a) concrete and particularized and
(b) actual or imminent

(2) Causation - the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant, and

(3) Redressable - it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision

Question 12

T/F: In Lujan, there was no standing because the complaint was generalized harm suffered by all citizens as opposed to an individual injury

Answer 12

True (no injury in fact)

Question 13

T/F: An association has “standing” to sue on behalf of its members when (1) its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right, (2) the interests at stake are germane to the organizations purpose, and (3) neither the claim asserted, nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit

Answer 13

True

Question 14

T/F: If a plaintiff does not meet the elements of “standing” laid out in the Lujan test, courts still have the power to hear the case

Answer 14

False

Question 15

What is the term for when a case becomes irrelevant because the dispute between the parties has ended?

Answer 15

Moot or Mootness

Question 16

What is a case lacking when the Court views it as inadequately factually developed?

Answer 16

Ripeness

Question 17

When may an otherwise “moot” case still be adjudicated?

Answer 17

(1) When it is one of voluntary cessation

(2) When it is capable of repetition but evading review

For example, abortion, by the time proceedings develop it may be too late and important topics wouldn’t get decisions

Question 18

What is the standard of “mootness” as described in Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Environmental Services?

Answer 18

If subsequent events made it absolutely clear that the alleged wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur

Question 19

Article III extends Judicial Power to all “_______” and “______________”

Answer 19

cases & controversies

Question 20

T/F: The Supreme Court can be called upon to exercise judicial power to give advice

Answer 20

False

Question 21

Name the 2007 case:

Says States are granted “special solicitude” from the Court’s standing analysis when they bring a lawsuit in the federal court system

Because states are sovereigns over the people within their borders - they don’t have to show as much injury when they bring their lawsuit

(Hint: was related to shoreline deterioration and global warming)

Answer 21

Massachusetts v. EPA

Prof Fallone says: this is one of the worst Supreme Court decisions because it turns political disputes into lawsuits in federal court thereby allowing the court to decide political issues