Constitution Flashcards
Eight areas of conlaw:
- Federal judicial power (15%); 2. Federal legislative power (10%); 3. Federal executive power (10%); 4. Federalism (20%); 5. The structure of the Constitution’s protection of individual liberties (8%); 6. Individual liberties (8%); 7. Equal Protection (8%); 8. First Amendment (20%)
Where are the powers of the federal courts defined?
Article III
Article III defines federal court power using what two words?
Cases and Controversies
The Supreme Court has interpreted the words, Cases and Controversies, how?
As giving rise to a series of limits on the federal judicial power. These limits are sometimes called justiciability doctrines.
What are the four justiciability doctrines that must be met for any federal court at any level to hear the case?
- Standing; 2. Ripeness; 3. Mootness; 4. Political Question Doctrine
Standing: defined
Standing is the issue of whether the plaintiff is the proper party to bring a matter to the court for adjudication.
In order for a plaintiff to have standing, four requirements must be met:
- Injury; 2. Causation and redressability; 3. No third party standing; 4. No generalized grievance.
Injury: Plaintiff must allege and prove _____.
that he or she has been injured or imminently will be injured.
Injury requirements:
- Plaintiffs only may assert injuries that they personally have suffered (Sierra Club v. Morton; standing to challenge ski resort being built by Disney when members walked through the area being targeted);
- Plaintiffs seeking injunctive or declaratory relief must show a likelihood of future harm (City of Los Angelos v. Lyons; could not show that it was likely that he would be harmed (choked down when getting traffic ticket) in the future so lacked standing).
MBE standing strategy if question asks for plaintiff with “best” standing:
Look for: 1. Personal injury; 2. economic loss
Causation and redressability: defined
The plaintiff must allege and prove that the defendant caused the injury so that a favorable court decision is likely to remedy the injury.
The Supreme Court has frequently said that the core of Article III is what?
That the federal courts cannot issue advisory opinions.
What is an impermissible advisory opinion?
If a ruling for the plaintiff would have no effect, it is then just an impermissible advisory opinion.
What is redressability?
A remedy for a harm.
The best way to achieve redressability is how?
To know that the defendant is the CAUSE of the harm. (Case-taxpayers against IRS for giving tax exempt status to hospital even though it refused to give free health care to indigents. No standing because plaintiffs could not prove that IRS caused the harm. The hospital might still deny care to indigents even without the tax exempt status.)
Third party standing: general rule
No third party standing allowed. A plaintiff cannot assert claims of others, of third parties, who are not before the court.
A plaintiff who meets ALL OF THE OTHER STANDING REQUIREMENTS, may have standing for a third party when:
- Third party standing is allowed if there is a close relationship between the plaintiff and the injured third party (usually the one focused on on the bar exam); 2. Third party standing is allowed if the injured third party is unlikely to be able to assert his or her own rights; 3. An organization may sue for its members, if (a) the members would have standing to sue; (b) the interests are germane to the organization’s purpose; (c) neither the claim nor relief requires participation of individual members.
Example of where third party standing is allowed if there is a close relationship between the plaintiff and the injured third party:
Doctor-patient relationship: Doctor’s bring suit against laws that restrict abortions. Laws that restrict abortions cause an injury to the doctors–a loss of business. But unlikely that courts would allow them to bring a case under that. So they bring stronger constitutional claims on behalf of their patients. This is why it was surprising a few years ago when the court would not allow a father to sue on behalf of his daughter to challenge the words “under god” in the pledge of allegiance in public schools. The father did not have legal custody of the daughter.
Generalized grievances: general rule
No generalized grievances are allowed. The plaintiff must not be suing solely as a citizen or as a taxpayer interested in having the government follow the law.
Exception to generalized grievance rule:
Taxpayers have standing to challenge government expenditures of MONEY pursuant to federal statutes as violating the Establishment Clause.
Exception comes from Flast v. Cohen where taxpayer sued because government giving money to parochial schools. Supreme court said that Establishment Clause was meant to be a limit on Congress’s spending, so the taxpayer had standing. But in the years since, the Supreme Court has consistently narrowed the ruling. 1981 case where federal government giving property to private school. No standing because not a grant of money, but a grant of property. Faith based initiative giving money from general executive revenue to churches, mosques, and synagogues. Taxpayers don’t have standing to challenge expenditures of money from general executive revenue. 2011, Arizona giving tax credits to people who gave money to school tuition. Taxpayers have no standing to challenge tax credits.
Ripeness: defined
Ripeness is the question of whether a federal court may grant pre-enforcement review of a statute or regulation.
Tip: whenever you see a question saying that plaintiff is seeking a declaratory judgment, look at what?
RIPENESS. The usual way of challenging a law is to violate it, be prosecuted, then challenge the validity of the law. But sometimes people don’t want to have to violate the law in order to challenge it. They want a declaratory judgment. But whenever a federal court issues a declaratory judgment they have to make sure there really is a case or controversy. This is when ripeness usually arises.
The Supreme Court says that in assessing ripeness, it will look at 2 criteria:
- The hardship that will be suffered without preenforcement review; The greater the hardship the plaintiff will suffer without preenforcement review, the more likely it is that the federal court will hear the case.
- The fitness of the issues and the record for judicial review. This means, does the federal court have before it all that it needs to decide this issue? Is there a reason that the court should wait before hearing the case?
CASE: Food and drug administration adopted a rule that all prescription drugs had to include the generic name on label. The drug companies sued the FDA. The FDA said they needed to wait until someone violated the rule before they could bring a claim. Supreme court said the hardship would be great on the drug companies because if they did not comply with the rule, criminal penalties might be issued. If they complied with the rule, they wasted millions of dollars if it were struck down. With regard to the fitness of the issues and the record for review, the Supreme Court said this is purely a question of law and nothing would be gained by waiting. So case was found ripe for review.
Mootness: defined
If events after the filing of a lawsuit end the plaintiff’s injury, the case must be dismissed as moot.
A plaintiff must present a live controversy, an ongoing injury, at all stages of the federal court proceedings. If anything happens while the case is pending to end the plaintiff’s injury, the case must be dismissed as moot.
Exceptions to the mootness requirement:
- Wrong capable of repetition but evading review; there must be a chance that it will happen to that plaintiff again. Think of Roe v. Wade. Roe challenged Texas statute prohibited abortion. But by the time her case got to the Supreme Court, she was no longer pregnant. Texas moved to dismiss for mootness. Court said no.
- voluntary cessation; if the defendant voluntarily halts the offending practice, but is free to resume it at any time, the case will not be moot. (Example: lawsuit filed against an employer using a discriminatory test. Employer agrees to not use the test, but can use it whenever wants. So not dismissed as moot.)
- class action suits. If the named plaintiff’s claim becomes moot, a class action will not be dismissed so long as one member of the class has an ongoing injury.
Political Question doctrine: defined
The political question doctrine refers to constitutional violations that the federal courts will not adjudicate.
Political questions include:
- The “republican form of government clause”
- Challenges to the President’s conduct of foreign policy;
- Challenges to the impeachment and removal process;
- Challenges to partisan gerrymandering.
What does “the republican form of government clause” refer to?
A provision in Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution which says that the United States shall guarantee to each state a republican form of government. This has nothing to do with political party. A republican form of government is where the people will elect representatives and the representatives will then make the laws.
Challenges to the President’s conduct of foreign policy refers to what?
EXAMPLES:
1. During 60s and 70s, challenges were brought regarding the Vietnam War, claiming that the President was waging war without a Congressional declaration of war. Invariably dismissed as political questions, because they challenged the President’s conduct of foreign policy.
- In 70s, Jimmy Carter rescinded a treaty with Taiwan as part of recognizing the People’s Republic of China. Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater sued saying that just as the Senate has to approve the making of a treaty, so it should have to approve the recission of a treaty. Dismissed because a challenge to the President’s foreign policy conduct and was therefore a political question.
Challenges to the impeachment and removal process refers to what?
Holding of a 1993 Supreme Court case titled Nixon v. US; Walter Nixon was a federal district court judge of Mississippi who was recommended for impeachment by the House of Representatives. Then the Senate put together a committee to look at the matter and to make a recommendation to the entire body. Nixon challenged that procedure and said that the entire Senate should try him.
Challenges to partisan gerrymandering refers to what?
Partisan gerrymandering is where the political party that controls the legislature draws election districts to maximize seats for that party.
2004 and 2006, the Supreme Court made it clear that challenges to partisan gerrymandering is a political question and nonjusticiable.
How do virtually all cases come to the Supreme Court?
By writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court has complete discretion as to whether to take the case. If 4 justices vote for certiorari, the court hears it.
What kinds of cases come to the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari?
- All cases from state courts come to the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari.
- All cases from United States courts of appeals come to the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari.
Supreme Court review by appeal:
Appeals exist only for decisions of three-judge federal district courts. When the statutes providing for Supreme Court jurisdiction provide for review by appeal, as opposed to by certiorari, the Supreme Court is required to take the case, if it was requested to do so. However, in 1988, Congress eliminated almost all appeals to the Supreme Court, except for where in some statutes that require that cases be heard by a three judge federal district court, if appealed the case skips the court of appeal and goes right to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is required to take the case.
When does the Supreme Court have original AND exclusive jurisdiction?
For suits between state governments.
What is the final judgment rule?
Generally, the Supreme Court may hear cases only after there has been a final judgment of the highest state court, of a United States Court of Appeals, or of a three-judge federal district court.
The final judgment rule is just a reminder that there generally is no interlocutory review in Supreme Court.
When can’t the Supreme Court review a state court decision?
For a Supreme Court to review a state court decision, there must not be an independent AND adequate state law ground of decision.
If a state court decision rests on two grounds, one state law and one federal law, if the Supreme Court’s reversal of the federal law ground (the only one the Supreme Court can decide) will not change the result in the case, the Supreme Court cannot hear it.
Rules on lower federal court review:
- In order for a lower federal court to hear a case, all the justiciability requirements must be met; 2. State governments cannot be sued in federal or state courts. 3. Abstention.
Why can state governments not be sued in federal or state courts or federal agencies?
The principle of sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment bars suits against states in federal court.
Four situations where state government can be named as a defendant:
- Waiver is permitted; 2. States may be sued pursuant to federal laws adopted under section 5 of the 14th Amendment. Congress cannot authorize suits against states under other constitutional provisions; 3. The federal government may sue state governments; 4. Bankruptcy proceedings.
What is the rule regarding waiver of sovereign immunity?
A state may waive it’s sovereign immunity and allow suits. However, the waiver must be explicit. The state government must expressly consent to be sued.
Why can states be sued pursuant to federal laws adopted under the 14th Amendment?
Because the 14th Amendment came after the 11th Amendment and the 14th Amendment was intended to be a limit on state sovereignty.
Example: Title VII; Civil Rights Act of 1964; prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. Title VII was adopted under the 14th Amendment. But Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act was adopted under the Commerce Clause and cannot be used to sue a state government.
Even when the state government can’t be sued, state officers may be sued when:
- state officers may be sued for injunctive relief; 2. state officers may be sued for money damages to be paid out of their own pockets (individual capacity where officer is personally liable); 3. state officers may not be sued if it is the state treasury that will be paying retroactive damages (damages that compensate for past injury).
What is abstention:
Federal court has jurisdiction and all the justiciability factors are met, but the Federal court abstains from exercising its power.
The only abstention doctrine you need to know for the bar exam is: Federal courts may not enjoin pending state court proceedings.
Where is Congress’s power to act defined?
Article I
In order for Congress to act, there must be what?
Express or implied Congressional power.
There is no general federal police power. State and local governments are said to have the police power.
What are the exceptions where it may be said that Congress has police power?
- If it is legislating for the military, for Indian reservations, for federal lands and territories, or for the District of Columbia. Mneumonic: MILD.
Necessary and Proper Clause
Article I, Section 8 says that Congress may adopt all laws that are necessary and proper to carry out its authority.
McColloch v. Maryland: this provides that Congress can choose any means not prohibited by the constitution to carry out its authority.
Congress could create a national bake sale to raise money to carry out its authority to raise an army and a navy.
Taxing/spending power of Congress:
Congress may tax and spend for the general welfare. Congress may create any tax to raise revenue and any spending program to expend the revenue that Congress believes will serve the general welfare.
This was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in June 2012 when it held that the individual mandate is constitutional as an exercise of congress’s taxing power. The individual mandate requires that each person purchase insurance by 2014 or pay a tax (1% of income or $95 in 2014; 2% income and $235 in 2015; money collected by IRS as part of its regular tax collection operations. Any funds generated goes to the federal treasury.). The Supreme Court said this was a tax and that Congress always had the power to tax behavior that it wanted to discourage.
Why is the taxing/spending power of Congress considered to be a general police power?
Because it is enacting legislation for the general welfare. But can only do so under the taxing and spending power.
Commerce Power Clause says what?
Congress can regulate commerce with foreign nations, with Indian tribes, and among the states.
From 1937 until 1995, how did the Supreme Court define the scope of Congress’s Commerce power?
Broadly; during this period no law was ever struck down as exceeding the scope of Congress’s commerce power.
What happened to commerce power in 1995?
United States v. Lopez; Involved federal gun free school act; Supreme court declared this unconstitutional. The court said that congress can act under the commerce clause in any one of three situations.
What are the 3 situations that Congress may act under the commerce clause according to Lopez?
- Congress may regulate the channels of interstate commerce.
- Congress may regulate the instrumentalities of interstate commerce and persons or things in interstate commerce.
- Congress may regulate economic activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. (In the area of non-economic activity, a substantial effect cannot be based on cumulative impact.)
What are channels of interstate commerce?
Places where commerce occurs: the highways, the waterways, the internet.
What are the instrumentalities of interstate commerce?
The things that facilitate interstate commerce; trucks, planes, telephones, the internet.
Who are the persons or things in interstate commerce?
Gibbons v. Ogden, Chief Justice Marshall said commerce refers to all forms of intercourse. Congress can regulate electricity, radio waves, stocks, cattle, even people if they go across state lines.
Wickard v. Filburn
1942 case where Congress was regulating raising of wheat, even when it was only for home use. Court said that if you look at all the wheat being raised for home use, then cumulatively there was a substantial effect on interstate commerce and within the scope of the commerce power.
What did the court say in Gonzales v. Raich in 2005?
Court said that Congress under commerce power could criminally prohibit and punish the cultivation and possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal medicinal use because marijuana is bought and sold in interstate commerce and the cumulative effect of personal cultivation is an economic activity and substantially effects interstate commerce.
What was the holding of US v. Morrison in 2000?
In regulating non economic activity, substantial effect cannot be based on cumulative impact. VAWA case. Congress had found that violence against women cost the US a lot of money every year. Court said doesn’t matter because it was a noneconomic activity.
Why did the dissent in the 2012 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act say that the act was a violation of the Commerce clause?
Congress must be regulating activity. It can’t use this power to regulate inactivity. The individual mandate exceeded the scope because it regulated those who were not purchasing insurance.
Tenth Amendment:
The Tenth Amendment states that all powers not granted to the United States, nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the states or the people.
In the last twenty years, the Supreme Court has revived the Tenth Amendment as a limit on Congress’s power.
Tenth Amendment as a limit on Congressional Powers: 2 rules
- Congress cannot compel state regulatory or legislative action.
Questions on bar exam are usually based on recent cases.
New York vs. United States in 1992 challenged federal act where every state had to clean up its low level nuclear waste by 1996. Any state that failed to do so, would take title for the waste and will be liable for any harm. Court said unconstitutional be Congress was conscripting, commandeering the states by forcing them to make laws regarding nuclear waste.
Printz v. United States 1997: hand gun control act required that state and local law enforcement officials must do background checks before issuing permits for firearms. Unconstitutional because Congress was commandeering/conscripting the states to enforce a federal mandate.
- Congress may prohibit harmful commercial activity by state governments.
Reno v. Condon 2000; Supreme court upheld the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act which prohibited state DMVs from selling personal information. Court said that Congress was not putting an affirmative duty on the states, rather it was prohibiting harmful commercial behavior.
Even though Congress may not conscript/commandeer states, what may it do?
It may induce state government action by putting strings on grants, so long as the conditions are expressly stated and relate to the purpose of the spending program.
example: when congress wanted the states to have a 21 year old drinking age, it said that any state that didn’t have that drinking age, would lose 5% of highway funds.
However, the conditions cannot be unduly coercive. Supreme court made this clear in June 2012 in the Affordable Care Act decision. One provision of the Affordable Care Act said that any state taking federal medicaid funds must include in its medicaid program those within 133% of the federal poverty level. Federal govt was paying 100% of the cost until 2019 and 90% thereafter. The Supreme Court said that this was unconstitutional because given amount of money the states had no choice. The states were being coerced.
Congress’ power under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment:
Congress may not create new rights or expand the scope of rights. Congress may act only to prevent or remedy violations of rights recognized by the courts and such laws must be “proportionate” and “congruent” to remedying constitutional violations.
City of Boerne v. Flores, 1997
Delegation of Congressional powers: limits
No limit exists on Congress’s ability to delegate legislative power.
There was a time prior to 1937 when the supreme court enforced the nondelegation doctrine which stated that congress could not delegate its legislative powers, such as to executive agencies. But since 1937, not one federal law has been struck down as an excess of delegation. It doesn’t matter how broad the delegation is. Every delegation has been upheld.
Legislative vetos and line item vetos:
Unconstitutional.
For Congress to act, there always must be bicameralism (passage by both the House and the Senate) and presentment (giving the bill to the President and sign or veto). The President must sign or veto the bill in its entirety.
A legislative veto is where congress attempts to overturn an executive action without bicamerlism and presentment. (like a new agency rule)
Line item veto is where president attempts to veto part of the veto while signing the rest into law. Congress passed an act allowing line item veto for the president, but the supreme court found it unconstitutional.
Delegation of executive power to Congress or its officers:
Unconstitutional due to separation of powers rules.
Where is the power of the President and the Executive branch found?
Article II.
Power of the President and the executive branch can be divided into two subparts:
- Foreign Policy; 2. Domestic affairs.
Treaties: defined
Treaties are agreements between the United States and a foreign country that are negotiated by the President and are effective when ratified by the Senate.
Treaties: rules
- Treaties prevail over conflicting state laws (state laws that conflict with treaties are invalid).
- If a treaty conflicts with a federal statute, the one adopted last in time controls.
- If a treaty conflicts with the United States Constitution, it is invalid.
Executive agreements: defined
An executive agreement is an agreement between the United States and a foreign country that is effective when signed by the President and the head of the foreign nation.
Do not require Senate approval to be effective.
Executive agreement: rules
- Executive agreements can be used for any purpose.
2. Executive agreements prevail over conflicting state laws, but never over conflicting federal law or the Constitution.
President’s power to use American troops in foreign countries.
The President has broad powers as Commander in Chief to use American troops in foreign countries.
Has NEVER been declared as unconstitutional by Supreme Court. Even where there is no declaration of war. Case is usually dismissed as a political question case.
Who possesses the appointment power?
- The President appoints ambassadors, federal judges and officers of the United States. The Senate must confirm the nomination in order for the person to take office, but the appointment power rests solely with the President.
- Congress may vest the appointment of inferior officers in the President, the heads of departments or the lower federal courts. Supreme court has never really defined what is an inferior officer, but says it is those who can be fired. Attorney General can fire US Attorneys, so these are inferior officers. Under Secretary of state can be fired by the Secretary of State.
- Congress may not give itself or its officers the appointment power.