Constitution Flashcards
Federal Gov is immune from direct state regulation.
However, Congress may waive this immunity and require the fed gov to comply with state law by clearly indicating federal consent to be bound.
- The court would uphold the penalty if Congress had explicitly required the Army company with state asbestos regulations.
Article 3
Judicial Vesting Clause
Original Juridiction
a court has authority to hear a case right when it starts; rather than hear it on appeal.
Supreme Court has
both 1) original and 2) exclusive jurisdiction over cases between two states.
Public Ministers, Ambassadors, Consuls,
Original jurisdiction
Appellate Juridiction
Some courts have the power to review and modify the decision of the lower court.
Cases can come through appeal
by writ of certiorary (a discretionary appeal that judge have to agree to hear).
Congress can
enlarge or restrict the supreme court’s appellate juridiction.
11th
We don’t want citizens suing a state in Federal Court. Because Federalism.
A state wants to show
it is transparent, moral , and responsive towards it’s citizens, and committed to strengthening its policies through legal challenges.
States view
the federal courts actually a superior forum to litigate.
Federal government sues
state government in federal court;
this is allowed.
Congress can
abrogate a state’s immunity.
Congress can enforce the provisions of the 14th Amendment
through “appropriate legislation.”
- When a sate is fucking with their citizen’s civil rights. Daddy federal government will step in.
Federal Government will abrogate the state’s immunity
in a fucking instant and you are about to meet US District Judge Thomas Walters who will fuck your whole state up.
Congress can authorize suits and damages against states
in Federal Court under the 13th (Slavery), 14th (Equal protection under the laws and civil rights) and 15th (cannot prevent voting based on race).
If a state violates the 13, 14, and 15th
they are now about to be sued in Federal Court.
2 states at war in Federal Court.
OK; so long as one state isn’t secretly bringing the suit on behalf of their citizens.
Suits against State Officers
you ex parte young addicts;
In the case of ex parte young;
there was this state official who was like, “I don’t give a fuck about trains.” they can no longer have wheels.”
Ex Parte Young: Tere was a federal law saying
You cannot mess with trains.
If someone sued him, in Federal Court for violating the federal train law;
State citizen suing state official in Federal Court? Seems a little sketchy for the 11th Amend.
The court decided that a state citizen could only sue state officials
if they were acting outside of their legal authority and violating federal law. and they could only sue them to enjoin them from violating federal law.
that is, only for an injunction to stop them violating the federal law and not money damages.
Ex parte: the State official is messing with the trains.
It is against Federal Law for officials to mess with the trains. He is acting outside of his authority as a state official. they can now bring him into Federal Court to get an injunction on him that says, “stop violating Federal law.”
Suing a state official in Federal court for money damages
which would be paid by non other than the State: would be no different from suing the State itself.
Can you sue a state official in their personal capacity
if they will be paying out of their own pockets? YES.
Suing a state official for money out of their own pockets because
they hit your car: OK.
Suing a state senator and wanting retroactive money damages from the state COFFERS
NO
When can a citizen sue a state in Federal Court?
- State waive their right to be sued to virtue signal.
- Congress abrogates because a state was fucking around with civil rights.
- Fed Gv sues state in Fed Court: this is allowed.
- You can sue a state official for injunctive relief if they are acting outside the scope of their authority by violating Federal Law or in their personal capacity if they hit your car.
the states also lost their sovereign immunity
in Bankruptcy proceedings. so they can be brought into federal court by state creditors as well.
Justiciability doctrine
ensure that courts deal with actual, real and concrete issues.
NOT theoretical or political issues.
The constitution or some shit has a requirement that the courts only hear
true, “cases or controversies.”
The plaintiff must have a sufficient interest
in the dispute to be able to satisfy this case or controversy requirement.
The plaintiff must show that
- They have been injured, or
- They will soon be injured.
Injury
or a very likely future injury
Redressability
The Plaintiff MUST actually show that the defendant caused the injury so that a court decision will actually resolve the injury
The court doesn’t issue
“Advisory opinions”
3rd Party Standing
A plaintiff can’t assert claims on behalf of people that are not before the court.
The 3rd party standing
- Close relationship between Plaintiff & Injured Party (i.e., Abortion cases brought by doctors on behalf of Patients).
- Injured party is unlikely to assert their own rights (Parent or guardian suing on behalf of incapacitated minor).
- Assignee of A Contract can sue even if the money will go to the assignor (Contracts shits)
- Organizational Standing.
Organizational STanding
- Members would have standing to sue themselves.
- Claims are Germane to the organization’s purpose.
- Neither the claim or relief requires the participation of individual members.
Ripeness
The Plaintiff is NOT entitled to a review of a statute or regulation before its enforcement unless they will suffer some immediate harm or immediate threat of harm.
- No speculative harm allowed.
The facts must have matured into an
existing controversy that warrants judicial intervention.r
y hasn’t occurred yet;
or if the harm is speculative; or perhaps if the facts have not developed enough for litigation to commence; it NOT ripe.
If I have a raw goat milk factory and I try to sue the FDA for considering putting higher restrictions on raw goat milk;
I can’t. They are only considering putting the restrictions on goat milk. they haven’t actually started enforcing them yet.
Moot
When we are talking about mootness; we are talking about the requirement that there needs to be an ongoing injury or there won’t be a case or controversy in front of the court.
Mootness Exception #1
Voluntary Cessation.
Mootness Exception #2.
Class Action suits won’t be dismissed for mootness so long as one member of the class still has an ongoing injury.
Mootness Exception #3
A wrong capable of repetition but evading review.
Mootness Exception #3 > a wrong capable of repetition but evading review;
- The challenged action only lasts a short time, and it can’t be fully litigated prior to its logical end;
- The complaining party will likely get hit with the same injury again.
Moot이 아닌 경우.
- 선거 중 광고 문제> 선거 끝나도 소송할 수 있음.
- 임신기간 9개월> 소송기간 1년> 끝나도 소송할 수.
- Collateral Consequences at play.
–> if you get convicted sex crime but want to challenge your status as a sex offender; yes you have already been convicted but it’s not necessarily moot because there is a smaller shit we still need to deal with.
Political Question
- Challenges to the president’s foreign policy.
e.g., how the fuck are the courts supposed to decide if we recognize BOSNIA as our ally? - Challanges to removal and impeachment process.
Gerrymandering
- Racial
- Political gerrymandering.
Racial gerrymandering issues
actually can be decided by the courts.
this is when politicians split up the map so voters of one race are all grouped together to dilute their votes.
Racial Gerrymandering
- Packing (that is, placing all black voters into one district) or
- Cracking (that is, evenly distributing out black voters so they are a minority in every single jurisdiction)
Racial gerrymandering
is illegal and can definitely be decided by the courts.
Racial gerrymandering
is not a political question because it is clear cut racial discrimination which the court has strong standards in place to resolve.
Purely political gerrymandering
dividing up the map based on the political affiliation of certain populations to gain a voting advantage; well it’s kind of hard for the court to develop standards to judge or regulate this.
How can SCOTUS determine
if an AMBASSADOR from a foreign county should be forced to leave the US? They can’t.
The validity of a motherfucking federal statute
Supreme Court decide an issue regarding Russia/Ukraine war? Obviously not. It’s a political question.
There was a federal statute related to
trade embargoes saying that aid given to Ukraine would be taxed through the Federal Tax Embargo Statute don’t worry about that but could the Supreme Court Rule on that maybe?
it is nonjusticiable question because
it deals with foreign affairs but statutes are justiciable.
S. Ct
can rule on federal statutes; they love federal statutes even ones related to war and foreign affairs.
Abstention
principal that says Federal Courts should not interfere in certain cases which involve state law issues.
Federal Court
should dismiss a federal case if there is an identical state case happening to promote judicial efficiency.
Abstention
Federal court should dismiss a federal case if there is an identical state case happening to promote judicial efficiency.
so if someone fills a federal and state law challenge to the SAME exact thing;
The Federal courts will ABSTENT themselves from hearing it.
Pullman Abstention doctrine
The federal courts want to respect the independence of the state courts.
So if there is a state law case which has an unresolved state law issue and federal issue at the same time but
A resolution of the State Law issue would eliminate the need for the federal court to decide the federal issue. Well federal courts should abstain from hearing the case and let state courts do their thing.
State law: requires everyone paint their houses in one of forty approved shades of Mauve
The state law is fucking nuts. The homeonwers get so pissed they bring a state law claim challenging the law as unconstitutional under the state constitution and federal freedom of speech claim in Federal court saying this shit violates their 1st amendment.
The federal court should stay in the lawsuit.
If the state courts say the law is unconstitutional under the STATE constitution, well we don’t need to get into the murky federal law waters.
If the state invalidates the law;
the feds are not needed.
Pullman abstent that federal lawsuit
respect the damn states.
Colorado River Abstention Doctrine
About concurrent jurisdiction and 2 cases going on at once; when both a federal court and a state court could hear the case simultaneously; the federal case is delayed or dismissed to allow the state’s to do their thing.
Pullman abstention doctrine
is about resolving unclear issues of state law first in a given case before getting to the federal issues. If the state law issues are resolved, we may not even need the federal analysis.
Congress cannot overrule
the Supreme Court by statute
Supreme Court strikes down a law stating that all houses must be painted mauve, saying it violates the Constitution’s freedom of Speech clause;
1.
The U.S. S. Ct has the power
to review and potentially reverse state court decisions.
The Supreme Court will not take
any appeal that invalidates a statute where the state grounds for invalidating that statue are independent from the Federal Grounds invalidating that statute.
Adequate and independent state court grounds
Adequate: means we have a good law.
If the law is vague or overbroad, or not proper in the situation;
the law would be inadequate.
The federal gov wants to respect the states.
So if a decision is independently supported by state law; there is no need for Daddy Federal Gov to step in.
Adequate and Independent State Grounds Doctrine #1
Peanut Butter & Jelly: If the highest state court decides an issue on BOTH independent state and federal grounds; and the Supreme Court’s reversal of the Federal issue will not change the result in teh case; it won’t be reviewed by SCOTUS.
–> Reversal based on fed law: won’t change anything because it still rests on independent and adequate state court grounds.
Adequate and Independent State Grounds Doctrine #2.
The decision fully rests on independent state court grounds; no federal issues involved.
They won’t review if the decision rests fully on state law.
Adequate and independent State Grounds Doctrine #3.
If it is unclear whether it is based on federal or state law; the Supreme Court may review.
Adequate and Independent State Grounds Doctrine #3.
If it is unclear whether it is based on Federal or state law; the S Ct may review.
Adequate and Independent State Grounds Doctrine #4.
If the highest state court’s decision is based on the state and federal issues which are intertwined; the Supreme Court will reverse the state court and remand to the State Court for further proceedings.
Federal Laws
protect baseline right to privacy for example; things like medical records and consumer credit reports and financial stuff is all private Unreasonable searches and seizures.
In Cal, the same thing plus alpha.
Federal Law
Floor (e.g., privacy law)
State law
Ceiling (더 구체적이어도 됨).
The federal rights are
a lower standard than the state rights.
Valid Excuse Doctrine
Neutral rule regarding court administration constitutes valid excuse for state to refuse to hear federal cause of action.
Neutral in valid excuse applies equally to federal and state laws.
Neutral procedural rules that have excused state courts
- Rules dismissing claims in actions in which neither the plaintiff nor the defendant was a forum state resident,
- Rules arising outside of the forum state’s territory.
- Implicating doctrine of forum no conveniens.
The state rights are
more grand if you will