Cases- Judicial Flashcards
Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee (1816); Legal question: What restrains the federal judiciary’s exercise over state courts in enumerated cases/constitutionality of SCOTUS exercising appellate jurisdiction over courts without a lower federal court decision being present?
Does the Supreme Court have appellate jurisdiction over state courts?
Unless expressly constrained by the Constitution, Congress can provide appellate jurisdiction to the Supreme Court to review decisions of State Tribunals
“This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”
Ex parte McCardle (1869)
Legal Question: Were congress’ actions constitutional?
Yes; It was constitutional for congress to repeal writ of habeas corpus. Article III Sec. 2 allows for the stripping of court jurisdiction. “with such exceptions and under such regulations as Congress shall make.”
Chief Justice Robert’s Dissenting opinion in Patchak v. Zinke (2018)
Congress violates Separation of powers when it decides who wins a particular case. (e.g. McCardle applied to a category of cases)
The Gun Lake Act improperly targets a single party for adverse treatment by disposing of the case
Congress executes judicial power, not legislative, when it changes the jurisdictional roles to decide the outcome of a particular case.
New York State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v City of New York (2020)
Mootness. Case worked its way up the federal courts but by the time it made it to SCOTUS, NYC amended the law and allowed intra-city travel of firearms.
Rucho v. Common Cause (2019)
Concept of opting out of cases that ask political questions beyond reach of the federal courts. Also a case on partisan gerrymandering
Flast v. Cohen (1968)
Taxpayer suits. General grievances.
Legal question: what is the proper case for a taxpayer to sue with more than a general grievance.
There must be a logical link between status as a taxpayer and legislation and a constitutional infringement.
Gill v. Whitford (2018)
Concept of advisory opinions. Court would not resolve the constitutionality of state redistricting plan/gerrymandering on procedural grounds. Precedent since Washington that the Supreme Court wouldn’t give out advisory opinions. Opinion quote: “But the opinion of the court rests on the understanding that we lack jurisdiction to decide this case, much less to draw speculative and advisory conclusions regarding others.”
Hollingsworth v. Perry (2013)
Legal question: Does the Equal Protection Clause prohibit California’s Prop. 8 and do the petitioners have standing under Article III?
The proponents of proposition 8 do not have standing to appeal the D.C ruling because their only interest is to vindicate the constitutional validity of a generally applicable law. This being a generalized grievance, is not enough to establish standing.
