BAR FLASHCARDS - CL Part 1_ Powers of the Fed Gov
THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL POWER
Federal judicial power extends to cases involving:
• Interpretation of the Constitution, federal laws, treaties, and admiralty and maritime laws, and
• Disputes between states, states and foreign citizens, and citizens of diverse citizenship
IS THERE A CASE OR CONTROVERSY
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction- No Advisory Opinions.
Must have ripeness, not be moot, must have standing. No Adequate and independent state grounds
Cases and Controversies - REQUIREMENT FOR CASES AND CONTROVERSIES
Article II uses this word. SC interprets this as limits (4 justiciability doctrines). Article III of the Constitution limits the powers of the federal courts using the two words “cases and controversies” . “Justiciable” here means the federal court may hear the case.
Justiciability
Justiciability refers to the concept that a case may be tried in court. In federal courts it is a broad term that encompasses a number of more specific topics, such as ripeness, mootness, and standing.
4 justiciability doctrines
Standing, Ripeness, Mootness, Political Question doctrine.
Standing
Most important. Standing is the issue of whether the plaintiff is the proper party to bring a matter to the court for adjudication. Standing concerns whether the plaintiff is the proper party to bring a matter to the court for adjudication. A person must have a concrete stake in the outcome of a case at all stages of litigation, including on appeal.
4 requirements to have standing
Injury; Causation and redressability; no third party standing; no generalized greivances.
Standing Summary
A person has standing if she can demonstrate a concrete stake in the outcome of the controversy shown by an injury in fact-caused by the government-that can be remedied by a ruling in the plaintiff’s favor (i.e., causation and redressability).
-plaintiff must have a concrete stake in the outcome at all stages of litigation
a. Injury in fact—specific injury, not theoretical
1. Taxpayers—too remote/abstract
a) Exception: Taxing and spending measures that violate the Establishment Clause
b. Remediable by court decision
Standing requirement: injury in fact
To have standing, a person must be able to prove that they have been or imminently will be injured. Plaintiffs may only assert injuries that they personally have suffered. It isn’t enough to show merely that a federal statute or constitutional provision has been violated (and that we all suffer when that happens). However, the injury need not be economic. For example, a person with an interest in the environment could have standing to challenge a government policy that allegedly will discourage recycling.
- Injunctive or Declaratory Relief: Plaintiffs seeking injunctive or declaratory relief must show a likelihood of future harm.
- Test Cases: Standing isn’t defeated simply because the plaintiff wanted to bring a case to test the constitutionality of a particular rule. The injury is still traceable to the government, even if the plaintiff knowingly triggered the application of the rule.
Injury
The plaintiff must allege and prove that he or she has been injured or imminently will be injured
i. Personally suffered. Plaintiffs only may assert injuries that they personally have suffered. (Sierra Club v. Morton) (Clapper)
ii. Plaintiffs seeking injunctive or declaratory relief must show a likelihood of future harm (Lyons).
in most suits by taxpayers involving allegations of violations of the Taxing and Spending Clause, standing will…
in most suits by taxpayers involving allegations of violations of the Taxing and Spending Clause, standing will not be found because the taxpayer’s interest is too remote.
Standing requirement: Causation and redressability.
Redressibility is the part of standing that provides that a decision in the plaintiff’s favor must be able to eliminate/remedy the harm. The plaintiff must allege and prove that the defendant caused the injury so that a favorable court decision is likely to remedy the injury. (Hospitals providing free care case).
Causation: There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of. The plaintiff must allege and prove that the defendant caused the injury (causation) so that a favorable court decision is likely to remedy the injury (redressability). This is because Article III prohibits courts from issuing advisory opinions (discussed further below).
Rule statement: the injury must be traceable to the challenged government conduct and not attributable to a third party, and a declaration that the government conduct is illegal or unconstitutional must be capable of eliminating the harm.
Standing requirement: No third party standing.
A plaintiff cannot assert claims of others, of third parties, who are not before the court.
i. Exception: third party standing is allowed if there is a close relationship between the plaintiff and the injured third party. Sufficient identity of interests.
ii. Exception: third party standing is allowed if the injured third party is unlikely to be able to assert his or her own rights
iii. Exception: (assoc’ standing) an organization may sue for its members, if
— the members would have standing to sue;
— the interests are germane to the organization’s purpose; AND
— neither the claim nor relief requires participation of individual members
Standing requirement: No generalized grievances
The plaintiff must not be suing solely as a citizen or as a taxpayer interested in having the government follow the law. AKA neither citizenship standing nor taxpayer standing are sufficient unless an exception applies.
- Exception - Establishment Clause Challenges: taxpayers have standing to challenge government expenditures of money pursuant to federal (or state and local) statutes as violating the Establishment Clause.
- Exception—Challenging Tax Bill: A taxpayer has standing to litigate their tax bill (for example, whether they really owe X dollars).
No generalized grievances Examples:
—Taxpayer has standing to challenge federal law providing monetary aid to parochial schools
—Taxpayers do not have standing to challenge federal government grants of property to religious institutions
—Taxpayers do not have standing to challenge federal government expenditures from general executive revenues
—Taxpayers do not have standing to challenge state tax credits that benefit religious institutions
Taxpayer standing
In general, a taxpayer has no standing to challenge the expenditure of federal funds. The major exception to this rule is where the taxpayer alleges that the expenditure was enacted under Congress’s taxing and spending power and exceeds some specific limitation on that power, in particular the Establishment Clause.
For a taxpayer to have standing, ___ ___ ___ must be involved
For a taxpayer to have standing, remember that Congress’s spending power must be involved
Would a person have standing as a taxpayer to challenge federal government grants of surplus property to religious groups or expenditures of general executive branch funds?
No, no standing as a taxpayer to challenge federal government grants of
surplus property to religious groups (because Congress is using the property power rather than the spending power) or expenditures of general executive branch funds (because the executive branch is doing the spending, not Congress).
Who has the best standing?
economic loss.
Standing of members of Congress to challenge a law
The Supreme Court has held that members of Congress lack standing to challenge a law authorizing the President to exercise a line item veto (such as the statute here), reasoning that the injury is not concrete and personal, but rather is institutional in that it is shared by all members of Congress. [Raines v. Byrd (1997)]
Ripeness
Ripeness is the question of whether a federal court may grant pre-enforcement review (a declaratory action) of a statute or regulation. (harm must actually be threatened). a federal court considers two main factors:
a. The hardship that will be suffered without pre-enforcement review, AND
b. The fitness of the issues and the record for judicial review —that is, does the court have all that it needs to effectively decide the issue?
If the challenger will suffer a hardship because they must choose between taking steps to comply with the rule or law or facing possible sanctions later for not complying, the case will usually…
If the challenger will suffer a hardship because they must choose between taking steps to comply with the rule or law or facing possible sanctions later for not complying, the case will usually be found to be ripe.
Mootness
If events after the filing of a lawsuit end the plaintiff’s injury, the case must be dismissed as moot. —must be real, live controversy at all stages - A real, live controversy must exist at all stages of review, not merely when the complaint is filed; if issue has been resolved, court will not hear. BUT EXCEPTIONS next
Mootness exceptions
a. Exception: Wrong capable of repetition yet evading review - not moot. (Issues concerning events of short duration from a court review standpoint).
b. Exception: voluntary cessation. If the defendant voluntarily halts the offending conduct, but is free to resume it at any time, the case will not be dismissed as moot.
Exception: class action suits. A class action will not be dismissed if the named plaintiff’s claim becomes moot so long as one member of the class has an ongoing injury.
The political question doctrine. (4 types)
Court will not decide issue that is not suitable for judicial branch. The political question doctrine refers to constitutional violations that the federal courts will not adjudicate. Political questions involve issues (1) constitutionally committed to another branch of government or (2) inherently incapable of judicial resolution. 4 types:
a. The “republican form of government clause” - the US shall gaurantee to each state a republican form of gov.
b. Challenges to the President’s conduct of foreign policy
c. Challenges to the impeachment and removal process
d. Challenges to partisan gerrymandering
If a question asks whether a statute violates repub form of gov…
Case dismissed as a Nonjusticiable political question.
Should a lawsuit challenging the validity of a federal statute be dismissed as a political question if the case involves a dispute between branches of the federal government regarding foreign affairs?
No, a lawsuit challenging the validity of a federal statute should not be dismissed as a political question even if the case involves a dispute between branches of the federal government regarding foreign affairs.
No Advisory Opinions:
No Advisory Opinions: Article III bars a court from issuing advisory opinions. Thus, federal courts will not render decisions in moot cases, collusive suits (that is, where the parties aren’t actually adverse), or cases that won’t have a binding effect on the parties.
SC review - appellate jurisdiction
Appellate Jurisdiction: The SC has appellate jurisdiction in all cases to which federal power extends, subject to congressional exceptions and regulation. Cases can come to the Court in one of two ways: Writ of Cert, Appeal.
Supreme Court review (generally)
a. All cases from state courts come to the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari
b. All cases from United States courts of appeals come to the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari
c. Appeals exist for decisions of three-judge federal district courts. Federal Statutes exist that create this. SC is required to hear the case.
d. The Supreme Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction for suits between state governments. State files it with the SC bc SC is the only court that can hear it.
writ of certiorari
Virtually all cases come to the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court has complete discretion to hear these cases. The cases that come by certiorari are:
• Cases from state courts where (1) the constitutionality of a federal statute, federal treaty, or state statute is in issue, or (2) a state statute allegedly violates federal law, and
• All cases from federal courts of appeals.
Appeal
Appeal—Rare Cases: The Supreme Court must hear cases that come to it by appeal. These cases are confined to decisions by three-judge federal district court panels that grant or deny injunctive relief.
SC Original Jurisdiction
Original Jurisdiction: SC has original and exclusive jurisdiction over suits between states, as well as original jurisdiction where just one of the parties is a state. It also has original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors, public ministers, and consuls, but Congress has given concurrent jurisdiction to lower federal courts in all these cases. Congress cannot expand the Court’s original jurisdiction beyond what is provided for in Article III.
Final Judgement Rule
The Supreme Court may hear cases only after…there has been a final judgment of the highest state court, of a United States Court of Appeals, or of a three-judge federal district court.
Adequate and independent state grounds
If a state court decision rests on two grounds, one state law and one federal law, if the Supreme Court’s reversal of the federal law ground will not change the result in the case, the Supreme Court cannot hear it.
A federal court will not hear appeal from state court if adequate and independent nonfederal grounds support state decision. State law grounds are adequate if they are fully dispositive of the case. For the Supreme Court to review a state court decision, there must not be an independent and adequate state law ground of decision.
They are independent if the decision is not based on federal case interpretations of identical federal provisions. If the state court didn’t clearly indicate whether its decision rests on state law, the Supreme Court may hear the case.
Power of Judicial Review
Under its power of judicial review, the Supreme Court may review the constitutionality of acts of other branches of the federal government. It may also review state acts pursuant to the Supremacy Clause.
LOWER FEDERAL COURT REVIEW
First, justiciability reqs must be met.
Federal courts (and state courts) may not hear suits against state governments - State govs must not be sued in fed or state court.
The principle of sovereign immunity
i) The Eleventh Amendment bars suits against states in federal court
ii) Sovereign immunity bars suits against states in state courts or federal agencies
Eleventh Amendment and Sovereign Immunity
Federal courts (and state courts) may not hear suits against state governments.
• The Eleventh Amendment bars suits against states in federal court
• Sovereign immunity bars suits against states in state courts or federal agencies
Exceptions where States may be sued
States may be sued under the following circumstances:
i) Waiver is permitted. Waiver must be express, no implied waiver. Most states have expressly waived sovereign immunity, at least to a limited extent, in their tort claims acts.
ii) States may be sued pursuant to federal laws adopted under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment (Like Title 7 of the CRA). it must be unmistakably clear that Congress intended to remove the protection. Congress cannot authorize suits against states under other constitutional provisions (like commerce clause).
iii) The federal government may sue state governments. Other states can also sue state governments.
iv) “Plan of the Convention” - When they joined the federal union, states implicitly agreed that their sovereign immunity would yield to certain federal powers: Bankruptcy proceedings under BK Clause (Plan of the Convention) and suits pursuant to statutes adopted by Congress under its power to raise and army and a navy. This exception extends to suits brought by the federal government as well as to suits by private parties if Congress delegates its power.
Other exception to state immunity
Suits against state officers are allowed
— state officers may be sued for injunctive relief-enjoin the official from future conduct that violates the Constitution or federal law, even if this will require prospective payment from the state.
— state officers may be sued for money damages to be paid out of their own pockets (even if state has chosen to indemnify the officer)
— state officers may not be sued if it is the state treasury that will be paying retroactive damages (except for indemnifying which you can still sue for).
BUT, a suit against a state official is prohibited by sovereign immunity to the extent that it seeks retroactive damages.
Actions Against Local Governments
Local governments (for example, a city or county) are not protected by sovereign immunity. Neither are entities like police departments. So these entities can be sued.
Abstention
Federal court has js but declines (abstains).
- If action already going on in state court on unsettled question of state law, federal court will abstain so state can settle issue. If state law is unclear and state court clarification of that law could make a federal constitutional ruling unnecessary, then the federal court will abstain.
- Federal courts may not enjoin pending state court proceedings.
11th Amendment and Sovereign Immunity
Generally cannot sue state in federal court for damages (without state’s permission).
Waiver—Can be express (explicit consent) or structural (implicit consent to yield immunity with respect to certain federal powers based on the plan of the Constitution)
Exceptions: Actions against state officers and removal of immunity under 14th Amendment
IS LAW WITHIN CONGRESS’S POWER (fed legislative power)?
The federal government has limited powers. Every exercise of federal power must be traced to the Constitution.
For congressional power, need…
Must have Express or implied authority to act. Police power is wrong answer bc congess generally doesnt have police power.
Congress police power
congess generally doesnt have police power. No fed police power EXCEPT:
military, indian tribes in indian land, federal lands or territories (doesnt extend to wild animals), DC. (Congress just has a MILD police power)
No Federal Police Power
Congress may act only pursuant to an express or implied power in the Constitution. Congress has no general police power (that is, it has no general power to adopt laws for the health, safety, and welfare of citizens). Exceptions: Congress has police power type powers over the District of Columbia, federal lands and territories, military bases, and Indian reservations (based on its power over the capital and its property power).
Necessary and Proper Clause
Congress has the power to make laws necessary and proper (appropriate) for executing any power granted to any branch of federal government. Congress may choose any means not prohibited by the Con’ to carry out its Con’ authority.
Can a law be supported by the Necessary and Proper Clause?
The Necessary and Proper Clause standing alone can’t support federal law. It must work in conjunction with another federal power. So, an answer choice that states that a law is supported by the Necessary and Proper Clause (or is valid under Congress’s power to enact legislation necessary and proper) will be incorrect unless another federal power is linked to it in the question.
Taxing/spending power
a. Congress may tax and spend for the general welfare - Congress can raise any tax and make any spending program for the welfare. SC has never struck down one. Taxing and spending may be for any public purpose not prohibited by the Constitution.
General welfare clause
The federal government can tax and spend for the general welfare; it can’t directly legislate for it. Thus, nonspending regulations can’t be supported by the General Welfare Clause.
