Con Law Flashcards
Standing
Federal court can’t decide a case unless plaintiff has standing. Plaintiff must established:
- Inject in fact
- Causation
- Redressability
Taxpayer Standing
Generally taxpayers don’t have standing to file a federal lawsuit just because they believe the govt has allocated funds in an improper way. BUT taxpayers have standing to litigate whether or how much they owe on their tax bill AND taxpayers have standing to challenge governmental expenditures as violating the Establishment Clause.
3rd Party Standing:
Generally, you can’t assert the constitutional rights of others to obtain standing, but a claimant with standing in their own right can also assert the rights of 3rd party if:
1. The 3rd party would experience difficulty or is unable to assert their own rights
2. there is a special relationship between plaintiff and 3rd party. OR
3. P’s injury adversely affects P’s relationship with the 3rd party
Organizational Standing:
An organization can bring an action when it has suffered an injury. It can also bring one on behalf of its members even if it has suffered an injury IF
1. It’s members would have standing to sue in their own right
2. The interests at stake are related the the org’s purpose
Timeliness
Ripeness (whether claim is fully developed)
-Plaintiff must have experienced a real injury or imminent threat of one
Mootness (whether there is still a controversy)
- A live controversy must exist at each stage of review except:
1. Cases that are capable of repetition
2. When D has voluntarily ceased but could recommence behavior
3. Class Actions
Congress’ Powers: Necessary and Proper
Power to make all laws necessary and proper for executing any power granted to any branch of the federal government
MUST work in conjunction with another federal power –cannot stand alone
TIP: If fact pattern creates scenario where Congress passes new law, discuss which enumerated power(s) give the ability to make that law. If MBE question, the ability to make that law can’t come from N&P clause alone.
Congress’ Powers: Taxing and Spending
Taxing: Under Congress’ power to tax, most taxes will be upheld if
- They have a reasonable relationship to revenue production OR
- Congress has the power to regulate the activity taxed
Spending: Congress may spend to “prove for the common defense and general welfare”
–Spending can be for any public purpose
–Congress has no general police power. Can only SPEND for general welfare
Congress’ Powers: Commerce Power
Power to regulate all foreign and INTERstate commerce. Federal law regulating interstate commerce must either regulate:
- Channels of interstate commerce,
- Instrumentalities of interstate commerce and persons and things in interstate commerce, OR
- Activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
When regulating INTRAstate under Prong 3, the Court will uphold the regulation if
- It’s economic or commercial activity, AND
- The court can conceive of a rational basis on which Congress could conclude that the activity in the aggregate substantially affects interstate commerce
If the regulated INTRAstate activity is noneconomic and noncommercial, the Court generally won’t aggregate the effects and the regulation will only be upheld if Congress can show a direct substantial economic effect on interstate commerce (usually it can’t)
Executive Powers
Domestic Powers:
- Pardon federal offenses (except impeachment)
- Appoint officers of US WACOS
- Remove executive appointed
- Veto bills (but no line item veto)
Foreign Powers
- Commander in Chief
- Negotiating treaties
- Entering into executive agreements
Congress & Scope of Exec. Power (Youngstown Framework)
Express or implied authorization of Congress: Action presumed valid
Congress has’t spoken: Action invalid if it interferes with the operations or power of another branch
Congress has spoken to the contrary: Action likely invalid
Dormant Commerce ClauseIf
If Congress hasn’t enacted legislation in a particular area of interstate commerce, then states are free to regulate as long as the state/local action does NOT
- Discriminate against out of state commerce
- Unduly burden interstate commerce
a. State laws that discriminate against interstate commerce in a way that operates as a tariff or trade barrier against out of state interests is subject to strict scrutiny and usually unconstitutional
b. A nondiscriminatory state law (one that applies equally to in state and out of state participants) that imposes an incidental burden on interstate commerce will be unconstitutional if the burden it imposes is clearly excessive in relation to the local benefits - Regulate fully out of state activity
Legislation that does any of the above is generally unconstitutional UNLESS
- State is acting as a market participant rather than a market regulator
- The legislation favors state or local govt entities that are performing a traditional govt function, or
- Congress explicitly permits the legislation
State Action Requirement for Individual Rights
State action required to trigger individual rights protections because Const. protects against wrongful acts by govt, not private parties EXCEPT when
- Private party does activities traditionally performed exclusively by the state OR
- There are sufficient mutual contacts between the conduct of a private party and the govt
14A Equal Protection
Prohibits STATE (not federal) actor from denying citizens equal protection of the laws. Applies when laws classify people into groups and discriminate on group basis. Constitutionality of the law depends on the type of classification made.
Suspect Classification: Strict Scrutiny
–Categories: Race, ethnicity, national origin, or alienage (alienage is only suspect if the classification is made by state law)
–Standard: Government must prove that the regulation is the LEAST RESTRICTIVE means to achieve a COMPELLING govt interest
Quasi-Suspect Classification: Intermediate Scrutiny
–Categories: Gender or legitimacy/non-marital children
–StandardL Govt must show that regulation is SUBSTANTIALLY RELATED to an IMPORTANT government interest
REMEMBER: For strict or intermediate scrutiny, the must be a govt INTENT to discriminate. Discriminatory effect or disparate impact alone is NOT enough. Show govt intent through
- A law that is discriminatory on its face
- A discriminatory application of a facially neutral law
- A discriminatory motive behind a facially neutral law
All other classifications: Rational Basis
–Standard: Regulation must be RATIONALLY RELATED to any LEGITIMATE govt interest.
–NOTE: For rational basis, the burden is on the plaintiff (to prove standard is’t rationally related). For heightened scrutiny, burden is on the govt.
TIP: If law limits liberty of all people to engage in some activity, it’s usually a due process issue. If a law treats a person or class of people differently, it’s usually an EP issue.
5A and 14A Due Process: Procedural Due Process
No person shall be denied life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Requires a fair process (notice and hearing) for a govt agency to individually take life, liberty, or property. One intentional (not negligent) deprivation violates Due Process.
3 part balancing test to determine the type and extent of PDP required weighs:
- Importance of individual’s interest that is being affected
- The value of specific procedural safeguards to that interest
- The government interest in fiscal and administrative efficiency
5A and 14A Due Process: Substantive Due Process
A govt regulation that infringes upon a fundamental right is subject to strict scrutiny, while a govt regulation that doesn’t infringe on a fundamental right is subject to rational basis.
Strict Scrutiny: GOVERNMENT must prove that the regulation is the LEAST RESTRICTIVE means to achieve a COMPELLING govt interest (very difficult to prove)
Rational Basis: CHALLENGER must prove the regulation is NOT RATIONALLY RELATED to any LEGITIMATE govt interest (very difficult to prove)
Fundamental Rights: 1. Right to interstate travel 2. Right to vote 3. Right to privacy, including: –Right to marry –Right to use contraceptives –Right of adults to engage in non-commercial, consensual sex –Right of parents to make decisions regarding their kids –Right of relatives to live together
