Chapter 2

Question 1

Where does judicial power come from?

Answer 1

Article III of the Constitution and the Judiciary Act of 1789.

Question 2

What 3 constraints does Article III place on the Judiciary Branch?

Answer 2

1. Jurisdiction: courts must have the Constitutional and/or Statutory authority to hear a case.
2. Justiciability: the dispute must be of a type appropriate of judicial resolution.
3. Standing: the case must be brought by an appropriate party.

Question 3

Article III divides the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction into 2 categories:

Answer 3

1. Original Jurisdiction:
   In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction.
2. Appellate:
   In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

Question 4

Details of the McCardle case

Answer 4

Relevant Case Facts:
After the Civil War the Republican Congress instituted Reconstruction Laws on the South. Specifically, it placed the South under military rule. McCardle wrote editorials opposing these measures, and urged resistance against them. He was arrested for publishing “incendiary and libelous articles” and was held for trial before a military tribunal. McCardle argued that he was a citizen and not a member of militia and was therefore being illegally held. He filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus as allowed under Congressional Act of 1867. When this effort failed, he turned to the Supreme Court for help. Before the Court could hear the case, Congress repealed the Habeas Corpus Act, removing the Supreme Court’s authority to hear such cases.

Legal Issue: Can the Supreme Court hear a petition for a writ of habeas corpus when Congress has taken away such authority?

Ruling: The power to make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of this court is given by express words to Congress. The provisions of the Act of 1867, affirming the appellate jurisdiction of the Court in cases of habeas corpus, was expressly repealed by Congress. Therefore, the Court has no jurisdiction to hear the case since it is an appeal brought under the Act of 1867.

Question 5

Outcome of U.S. v. Klein (1872):

Answer 5

Congress can take away or add appellate jurisdiction to the Court, but cannot tell the court how to decide its cases.

Question 6

Outcome of Patchak v. Zinke (2018):

Answer 6

Congress violates Article III when it “compel[s]… findings or results under old law.” But Congress does not violate Article III when it “changes the law.”

Question 7

Define justiciability and what it means for the Federal Courts.

Answer 7

Justiciability: appropriate and suitable for a federal tribunal to hear and resolve.
Article III restricts judicial power to cases and controversies, which limits the Court to “questions presented in an adversarial context and in a form historically viewed as capable of resolution through a judicial process.”

Question 8

The 6 categories that make a case non-justiciable

Answer 8

1. Advisory Opinions
2. Collusive Suits
3. Mootness
4. Ripeness
5. Political Questions
6. Standing to Sue

Question 9

Advisory Opinions

Answer 9

Either the executive or legislative branch asks for advice.
Federal Courts do not render advice in hypothetical suits, they only take cases where there is an actual case or controversy. Therefore, a request for an advisory opinion to a federal court creates a non-justiciable case.

Question 10

Collusive Suits

Answer 10

Litigants want the same outcome. No real adversity between litigants. A mere test of the law.
Basically both parties can’t agree with each other, there must be a controversy.

Question 11

Moot Cases

Answer 11

Court will not decide cases that are no longer in controversy. Exception: capable of repetition, yet evading review.
For example, Roe v. Wade. A pregnant woman will eventually no longer be pregnant but still has a case because it can happen again.

Question 12

Ripeness

Answer 12

Opposite of Mootness. That is, a case is not yet ready to be decided. A case is nonjusticiable if the controversy is premature – has insufficiently gelled – for review. No one is yet injured by the law, the injury is only hypothetical. The party bringing the case has failed to exhaust all available administrative and lower court remedies before seeking redress in the courts.
Basically something has to happen first before a case is made.

Question 13

Political Questions

Answer 13

Questions that should be solved by the other branches of government.
The Court will not address questions that in their nature are political, even if the questions implicate the Constitution, because the questions are better handled by the elected branches of government.
Examples: Baker v. Carr (1962) and Nixon v. United States (1993).

Question 14

Synopsis of Baker v. Carr (1962)

Answer 14

Relevant Case Facts: Tennessee had not reapportioned its congressional districts since 1900, and based on Colegrove v. Green (1946), it was not constitutionally mandated to do so. However, disparities in voting power between rural and urban voters in Tennessee were continuing to increase as more people moved into urban centers. Colegrove also indicated that those who wanted to force reapportionment could not use the Guaranty Clause of the Constitution. As such, they looked to the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment, which says that “no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction, the equal protection of the laws.” In short, failure to reapportion led to unequal treatment.

Legal Issue: Does a lawsuit that seeks to protect a political right – in this case reapportioning districts to make representation equal – mean that the case raises a political question?

Ruling: Ultimately, for a case to involve a political question it must meet one of several criteria—all of which are ground in the separation of powers.
1. There must be a “textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department;” or,
2. There must be a lack of judicially discoverable standards for resolving the dispute; or,
3. The impossibility of deciding the issue without the court making a policy determination of the kind clearly made by one of the elected branches; or,
4. The impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government.

Question 15

Synopsis of Nixon v. U.S. (1993)

Answer 15

Facts: Nixon was appointed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi in 1968. In 1984, he was investigated for taking a bribe from Wiley Fairchild to intervene in a case on behalf of Fairchild’s son. Nixon was tried in 1986 for committing perjury during the grand jury hearing in this case. At trial, he was acquitted of the bribery charges but was convicted of perjury. After his conviction, the U.S. House of representatives impeached Nixon, and the case went to trial in the Senate. The Senate referred the matter to a committee to hear evidence and report back to the whole Senate. Nixon argued that the Constitution says the whole Senate, and not a committee, must try all impeachments. He took his case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Legal Issue: Does the Senate have the power to refer an impeachment hearing to a committee or must the whole Senate, pursuant to the impeachment clause of Article I Act?

Ruling: The word “sole” in this clause indicates that the Senate is the only body that can try impeachments. It must, thus, do so without interference from another other branches of government. Judicial review here would be detrimental to checks and balances, and while the Court should have judicial review in some cases, this case involves an issue clearly left to another coordinate branch of government.

Question 16

Synopsis of Bush v. Gore (2000)

Answer 16

Facts: The Presidential election in 2000 came down to 250 votes between George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore after an automatic machine recount was triggered. Charges of voting irregularities led to lawsuits and protests. The major issue of debate was over undercounted ballots, whereby voting machines had not registered a Presidential preference. Gore supporters asked for a hand recount of these ballots. However, three deadlines were on the horizon: November 18 (when the secretary of state would certify the election results); December 12 (the safe harbor deadline); and December 18 (when electors would cast their votes). The recount was not going to be done by November 18, and the Florida Supreme Court extended the certification date until November 26. The U.S. Supreme Court set aside this decision and asked the Florida court to explain its decision. Meanwhile, the secretary of state certified the election results on November 26 (with Bush winning by 537 votes). Again, the State Supreme Court spoke, and ruled in favor of a statewide manual recount. Bush appealed this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Legal Issue: Did the Florida Supreme Court violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment when it ordered a recount to take place without setting a single uniform standard for determining vote intent?

Ruling: The right to vote is protected, as well as is the manner in which the exercise is carried out, by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment. A state may not, by later arbitrary treatment, value one person’s vote over another. The lack of criteria for establishing voter intent when making a vote in Florida using the process required, and the overall recount process is inconsistent with the minimum procedures necessary to protect the fundamental rights of each voter.

Question 17

Standing to Sue

Answer 17

The proper party must bring the case – they must have a stake in the outcome of the case.
According to the Court’s interpretation of Article III, standing requires:
1. The party bringing suit must have suffered a concrete injury or be in imminent danger of suffering such an injury;
2. The injury must be “fairly traceable” to the challenged action of the defendant; and,
3. The party must show that a favorable court decision is likely to provide redress of the wrong or injury alleged.
For example: Flast v. Cohen (1968).

Question 18

Synopsis of Flast v. Cohen (1968)

Answer 18

Relevant Case Facts: A group of taxpayers challenge the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Under this law, states could apply to the federal government to assist in the education of low income families. The taxpayers allege that some of the funds were used to fund education at sectarian schools. Applying the standing rule from Frothingham v. Mellon, a three-judge district court dismissed the suit saying that no harm was suffered.

Legal Issue: Do taxpayers have the right to challenge federal expenditures that are used for sectarian education? More generally, do they have standing?

Ruling: First, there must be a logical nexus between the status of the litigant and the status of the claim (here, it means a link between their status and congressional power under the tax clause of Article I Section 8). Second, there must be a logical nexus between the law and a precise constitutional infringement. When both links are shown, the taxpayer has a stake in the case, and the Court may hear the case.

Question 19

Power of Supreme Court to Review Acts of Other Two Branches Under the Constitution

Answer 19

The Constitution says nothing about the Supreme Court’s power over the other branches.

Question 20

Marbury v. Madison: Background and Political Context

Answer 20

1. The Election of 1800 was controversial—it was the first presidential election in the U.S. to be thrown to the House. The federalists lost control of both Congress and the White House. As a result, before January 1801, the federalists attempted to keep control of the judiciary. One measure outgoing president Adams took was to appoint John Marshall—a staunch federalist—to be Chief Justice of the United States.
2. The new Jeffersonian administration was the antithesis of the federalist Adams administration.
3. During this time, the Supreme Court was a trivial part of the federal government. It had little prestige and little authority. In fact, as the text point out, John Jay quit being chief justice so that he could become the governor of New York.
4. Given the controversial midnight appointments—especially that of William Marbury—and that President Jefferson had Congress abolish the Court’s summer session of 1802, the prestige and even relevance of the Supreme Court was at stake.
5. The Jefferson administration even considered having Marshall and Justice Samuel Chase impeached because of their federalist views.
6. Some of the commissions did not get sent out in time before Jefferson took over, including Marshall’s, and Jefferson with-held the papers and did not allow Marshall and others into their appointed positions. This led to the court case.

Question 21

Key Rulings in Marbury v. Madison

Answer 21

The Purpose and Role of the Supreme Court:
It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.
Those who apply the law to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that law.
If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.

What Presidential Acts are Reviewable:
Where the heads of federal departments are the political or confidential agents of the president, merely to execute the will of the president, or rather to act in cases in which the president possesses a constitutional or legal discretion, nothing can be more perfectly clear than that their acts are only politically examinable.
But, where a specific duty is assigned by law, and individual rights depend upon the performance of that duty, it seems equally clear that the individual who considers himself injured, has a right to resort to the laws of his county for a remedy.

Power of Supreme Court to Review Governmental Acts:
The federal courts have the power to review government actions and invalidate those that are incompatible with the Constitution.
In Marshall’s opinion, such authority – the power of judicial review – while not explicit in the Constitution, fits with the Constitution’s system of checks and balances and the framers’ vision.

Question 22

Synopsis of Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee (1816)

Answer 22

Facts: Lord Fairfax, a British subject, inherited land in Virginia prior to the Revolutionary War. He died and left the land to his nephew Denny Martin, a British subject, on the condition that he changes his name to Fairfax. A Virginia statute said that no “enemy” could inherit land, and therefore, the state took the land and started proceedings to sell pieces of it. Fairfax simultaneously began to sell parts of his land (some of which was bought by John Marshall). This conflict resulted in a suit contesting title. A lower court upheld Fairfax’s claim to the land, but the Virginia high court reversed it. Fairfax won an appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court (by a vote of 3-1), as the justices argued that the Virginia law conflicted with the 1783 Treaty of Paris, which stated that Congress would recommend returning confiscated lands to British loyalists. The Virginia Supreme Court refused to follow the U.S. Supreme Court decision, and struck down Section 25 of Judiciary Act of 1789. Another appeal to the Court ensued.

Legal Issue: Does the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction extent to reviewing state court decisions? Does a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court bind the state of Virginia to follow the ruling in question?

Ruling: The Constitution gives the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction in all cases in which it does not have original jurisdiction. It, therefore, meant for the appellate power of the Supreme Court to apply to state court decisions as well as to decisions of the U.S. Courts. In short, it is the case, not the court that gives the Supreme Court jurisdiction. In short, if cases before state courts do not fall under the Court’s appellate jurisdiction, then the appellate power does not extend to all cases.