BIAF-ConLaw-Preliminary

Question 1

Standards of Review

for

Equal Protection

Answer 1

• **Rational Basis: **Under rational basis review, the Plaintiff carries the burden of persuasion to demonstrate that a law is not rationally related to any legitimate government purpose.
  
  • Test
    
    • P’s Burden
    • Any purpose
    • Reasonable relation
  • Note: Least Rigorous (e.g. gay marriage ban not related to any gov interest.)
  • Use: Economonic/Social Legislation and unprotected classes (A WHEN NEW) age, wealth, handicap, elderly, non-residents, non-fundamental rights: education/welfare)
• Intermediate Scrutiny (Substantial Relationship/Narrowly Tailored)**: **Under the doctrine of intermediate scrutiny, the government carries the burden of persuasion to demonstrate that a law is substantially related to an important government government test, i.e. the law must be narrowly tailored (or specifically designed) to achieving the government’s purpose.
  
  • Test
    
    • ​G’s Burden
    • Significant G Purpose
    • Substantially Relates/Narrowly Tailored
  • **Note: **Intermediate standard
  • **Use: **Gender, Illigetimacy, Aliens, Contracts Clause
• **Strict Scrutiny: **Under the doctrine of Strict Scrutiny, the government carries the burden of persuasion to demonstrate that a law is necessary to promote a compelling government purpose and that it is the least restrictive means to accomplish the interest.
  
  • Test
    
    • ​G’s Burden
    • Compelling (vital) G Purpose
    • Least Restrictive Means
  • **Note: **Most rigorous

Question 2

Judicial Authority

and Jurisdiction

Answer 2

**Rule: **Article III of the United States Constitution vests the judicial power of the United States Supreme Court and provides for the creation of lower federal courts by congress.

**SCOTUS Jurisdiction: **The SCOTUS has

• original jurisdiction over:
  
  • ​dusputes arising between the US and a state:
  • actions by a state against the citizens of another state, and
  • cases involving ambassadors, public ministers, or consuls, and
• ​exclusive jurisdiction over:
  
  • ​disputes arising between two states.

**Lower Courts: **The jurisdiction of the lower federal courts is determined by Congress and may be expanded, restricted or modifed through Congressional action. Lower federal courts have jurisdiction over:

• disputes between citizens of different states,
• disputes between a US citizen and a foreign country or citizen,
• issues arising under admiralty or maritime jurisdictions, and
• cases involving the US government.

SCOTUS Appellate Jurisdiciton: The SCOTUS has appellate jurisdiction to hear a case after the highest court of a state, a U.S. Court of Appeals, or a three-judge federal District Court panel has issued a final judgment on the case. (Note: Only for Constitution, federal law, or treaty cases)

• Appellate jurisdiction
• Highest State C, US CoA, 3J Fed Dist C
• Final Judgment
• Con-law, fed-law, treaty

Under the Adequate and Independent State Ground doctrine, the SCOTUS does not have jurisdiction over state court decisions that rest on both federal and state law if the state ground is adequeate and independent of federal law. A Presumption exists that the SCOTUS has jurisdiction based on both federal and state law, which can be overcome only if the state court explicitly states in its judgment that its decision rests on an independent state ground.

• adequate + independent state ground
• explicitly stated in state judgment

Question 3

Abstention

Answer 3

**Definition: **Abstention is a federal court’s act of refraining from interfering with pending state court proceedings though the federal court has jurisdiction. This doctrine is based on the principle that the federal courts respect the sovereignty of states and the independence of state judicial systems.

**Younger Abstention: **A federal court will not interfere with an ongoing state criminal prosecution unless the D was proscuted in bad faith, or other extraordinary circumstances exist.

**Pullman Abstention: **A federal court will abstain from hear ing a case so that state courts can have the opportunity to settle an underlying state law question, the resolution of which may avoid the need to decide a federal question.

Question 4

Justicability

Answer 4

Rule: The Constitution limits the jurisdiction of fedral courts to legitimate cases and controversies. Advisory opinions as to the constitutionality of a proposed law or regulation by the SCOTUS are forbidden. Meeting the case or controversy requirement requires assessment of the standing fo the plaintiff, whether the case is ripe or moot, and whether the case involves a political question.

Question 5

Standing

Answer 5

General Standing: Standing is the issue of whether the Plaintiff is the proper party to bring a matter to the court for adjudication. Generally, in order to establish standing, a Plaintiff must show that they have personally suffered an actual harm, which is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct, and is likely to be redressed by the relief sought.

• Define
• Actual Harm
• Fairly Traceable
• Redressable

**Taxpayer Standing: **Federal taxpayers generally do not have standing to challenge federal taxation or spending based soley on their status as taxpayers or U.S. citizens.

**Exception: **Standing will be recognized if a taxpayer can establish a logical nexus between P’s status as a taxpayer and the claim, i.e. where the challenged law was passed under Congress’s inumerated powers, and violates constitutional limitations specifically imposed on the taxing and spending power. **Note: **Only ever used once, does not apply to discretionary spending by exec., no power re: tax credits.

Third Party Standing: Generally, a Plaintiff does not have standing to bring suit on behalf of a third party. However, third party standing is recognized when:

1. A special relationship exists between the P and the injured third party, and the third party is unlikely to assert their own rights (e.g. Doctor-Patient),
2. The third party would have difficulty asserting their own rights,
3. An organization is suing on behalf of its members and:
   
   • ​​members have standing
   • interests org. seeks to protect are germane to its purpose,
   • neither the claim nor relief require individual participation, and
   • org. members are at risk of imminent and concrete harm. (Specific harm, no general threats, e.g. to the environment)

Question 6

Timeliness:

Ripeness & Mootness

Answer 6

**Ripeness: **An issue is ripe for review when the impact of the law or regulation on the plaintiff is sufficiently direct and immediate to render the issue appropriate for judicial review. In order to demonstrate ripeness, a plaintiff must have suffered an actual harm or threat of imminent harm.

Mootness: A case wil be dismissed as moot if events arising after the filing of a lawsuit terminate the injury or threat of injury to the Plaintiff unless the wrong is capable of repetition, yet evading review (e.g. pregnancy), or the wrongful activity was voluntarily stopped by D and could be restarted. **Note: **Class actions not moot until issue is moot for ALL class members

Question 7

Federal Question

Answer 7

Under the Federal Question Doctrine, federal courts will dismiss actionss based on a political question as non-justicable. A political question will be found if:

1. The issue has been committed to another branch of government by the constitutuion,
2. Judicially manageable standards to decide the case on the merits do not exist and would be too difficult to create,
3. Judicial intervention would show insufficient respect for the other branches of government, or
4. deciding the case would be impossible without engaging in policy decision-making.

Watch for:

• Republican form of government clause,
• Challenges to the duration of war,
• Challenges to presidential decidisons regarding foreign affairs,
• challenges to political parties’ actions.