Constitution Flashcards
Type of Justiciability
- Standing
- Mooting
- Ripeness
- Collusive suits
- Political question
When It is Issue of Justiciability
Not Rule
- whether particular plaintiffs can sue,
- whether the court can hear a particular case,
- sometimes when a plaintiff seeks to vindicate their constitutional rights or the constitutional rights of others
- the call explicitly asks you to discuss a justiciability issue.
- where parties seek a declaratory judgment,
- alleging the government conduct is unconstitutional,
- plaintiffs must show they have a substantial controversy with the government—in essence, does the plaintiff have standing.
- where constitutional rights are asserted as a defense in a civil case or a military court martial case
Declaratory Judgment
Plaintiffs must show they have a substantial controversy with the government – in essence, does the plaintiff have standing
Ripeness
Plaintiff asserts there is an immediate or imminent threat of harm (e.g., the threat of prosecution if the plaintiff sells a particular publication without government approval). A federal court will not hear a case unless plaintiff has been harmed, or there is an immediate or imminent threat of harm.
Ripeness thus requires the imminent threat of possible prosecution or harm. If there is already actual harm, the case is clearly ripe and there is no issue to discuss other than perhaps standing.
Mootness
The court will not hear the case because it is moot when the requested relief has been obtained, or it is no longer a realistic solution.
But, where a party likely will be subjected to the same action and again could not resolve the matter due to the short duration of the situation, the controversy is “capable of repetition and yet evading review,” and will be heard.
Controversy is capable of repetition and yet evading review (pregnancy, elections, divorce)
Type of Standing
- Individual
- Third party
- Organizational
Individual Standing**
A plaintiff must have standing to challenge a federal law in a federal court. Standing requires the plaintiff to show a particularized injury, causation, and redressability.
–
An individual plaintiff must show three components:
(1) a specific injury, greater and different from the injury all persons suffer because the government is engaged in unconstitutional action;
(2) a causal connection between the injury and the defendant’s action complained of; and
(3) a ruling favorable to plaintiff would eliminate the harm to the plaintiff.
Specific Injury
subrule in Individual standing
The plaintiff must show a particularized injury that is specific to the plaintiff.
—
Usually, injuries in fact involve a violation of a common law right (especially a monetary harm), a constitutional right, or a statutory right.
Causation
The plaintiff must show that the defendants conduct is causing the injury.
Redressability
The plaintiff must show that a favorable result will redress the injury.
Third-Party Standing
A plaintiff may assert the constitutional rights of others only if (1) the plaintiff has personally suffered injury; and either (2) third parties find it difficult to assert their own rights or (3) plaintiff’s injury adversely affects plaintiff’s relationship with third parties.
Organizational Standing**
use this rule to create overall organization of the analysis
An organization has standing to challenge action that injures its members if: (1) the injury in fact to members is sufficient to give individual members standing; (2) the injury is related to the organization’s purpose; and (3) individual members in lawsuit do not required participation because of the nature of the claim or the relief
Individual Injury of Members
Subrule - organizational standing
same as individual standing
To show individual members have standing, the organization must show:
1. a specific injury to the members, greater and different from the injury all persons suffer because the government is engaged in unconstitutional action;
2. a causal connection between the injury and the defendant’s conduct complained of; and
3. a ruling favorable to plaintiff would eliminate the harm to plaintiff.
11th Amendment
11th amendment generally bars suits against states in federal courts.
The only time the Eleventh Amendment applies is with a lawsuit against a state government or a state government officer.
However, if plaintiff claims remedy for equal protection / due process violations under 14th amendment – Section 5 of the 14th amendment overrides the Eleventh Amendment and permits a lawsuit against the state or state officers for damages. Thus, Plaintiff in such cases can seek damages against state or state employees
Only consider this issue if the lawsuit is brought in Federal Court against a state government or state officer.
Cases that 11th Amendment Bars
The following cases are barred by the 11th amendment if brought in federal court:
a) Actions against state governments for damages
b) Actions against state governments for injunctive or declaratory relief where the state is named as a party
c) Actions against state government officers where the effect of the suit is that retroactive damages will be paid from the state treasury or where state land would be taken away
d) Actions against state government officers for violating state law
e) Actions contesting immunity of sister state under that state’s law
Congressional Power
Congressonal power is specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
—
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution specifically enumerates powers of the Congress.
Issue for Congressional Power
not rule
Issue is rise:
1. if you are given a statute passed by Congress and
2. you need to determine whether Congress has constitutional power to enact the statute.
List of Congressional Power
not rule
- Commerce clause
- Dormant Commerce Clause
- Spending Clause
- Taxing Power
Commerce Clause
Barbri+ST rule
Congress has plenary power over interstate commerce (commerce among the states, with foreign nations and Native American tribes). Commerce Clause grants Congress power to regulate: 1) the channels of interstate commerce; 2) the instrumentalities of interstate commerce; and, 3) commercial activities that have a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce.
–
Congress has plenary power over interstate commerce (commerce among the states, with foreign nations, and with Native American tribes).
interstate commerce is:
1. channels of interstate commerce
2. instrumentalities in the interstate commerce
3. activities that have substantial economic effect in interstate commerce
Interstate Commerce
Interstate Commerce is:
1. Channels (roads, waterways, etc.)
a) whether the federal law regulates the channels of interstate commerce, such as the roads, rivers, and highways
2. Instrumentalities (trucks, buses, planes, trains, etc.)
a) whether the federal law regulates the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, such as trucks, boats, trains, cars, telephone and telegraph wires, and the internet
3. Substantial Economic Effect on interstate commerce
a) whether the regulated activities have a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce.
Substantial Economic Effect - economic activity
subrule - Interestate Commerce
The regulated activity must be economic in nature. The regulated economic activity may be local if, in the aggregate, it would have a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce or on movement in interstate commerce, alone or in combination with other activites. Congress has a rational basis to regulate an activity based on substantial economic effect of the activity.
Substantial Economic Effect - noneconomic activity and inactivity
If activity is non-economic and has historically been state regulated, then the Court will strike down the regulation or statute as not within the Congress’ enumerated Commerce power.
Inactivity cannot be regulated under Commerce Clause.
10th Amendment Limits on Commerce Clause
[Even if law is supported by Commerce Clause,] the federal law is barred by the Tenth Amendment because the federal statute seeks to regulate state government activities or officials through coercion or commandeering.
The 10th Amendment prohibits Congress from requiring states to act in a certain way, or coercing states to act in a certain way by over-penalizing them for refusing to do so.
Coercion
Coercion is when federal government requires states to act in certain way or else impose substantial penalty for failing to act.
In New York v. U.S., the Court struck down a requirement that states had to either regulate radioactive waste or take title to it.