Constitutional Law Flashcards
What Must You Consider When Approaching A Constitutional Law Question?
STEP 1: JUDICIAL AUTHORITY & REVIEW
A) Authority of the Courts
B) Jurisdiction
C) Judicial Review (Justiciable Case or Controversy)
STEP 2: TYPE OF CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE
A) Separation of Powers
B) Relationship between Federal & State Powers (Federalism)
C) Constitutional Protections of Individual Rights
Preliminary Issue: Rational Basis Review
State the Rule
Rule: Under rational basis review, the Plaintiff carries the burden of persuasion to demonstrate that a law is not rationally related to any legitimate government purpose.
Note: A law reviewed under the rational basis test will be deemed constitutional if there is any conceivable legitimate government purpose for the law and the law is reasonably related to achieving or further that objective.
Preliminary Issue: Intermediate Scrutiny
State the Rule
Rule: Under intermediate scrutiny, the government carries the burden of persuasion to demonstrate that a law is substantially related to an important government purpose.
Note:
1) “Substantially related” means the law must be narrowly tailored to achieving the government’s objective.
2) The “important government purpose” element requires that the government’s actual purpose be significant.
Preliminary Issue: Strict Scrutiny
State the Rule
Rule: Under strict scrutiny, the government carries the burden of persuasion to demonstrate that a law is necessary to achieve a compelling government purpose.
Note:
1) “Necessary” means the law must be the least restrictive means to achieving the government’s objective.
2) The “compelling government purpose” element requires that the government’s actual purpose be vital.
Preliminary Issue: What is the Difference Between the Narrowly Tailored Test & the Least Restrictive Means Test?
Rule: The narrowly tailored test is not as stringent as the least restrictive means test:
1) The narrowly tailored test requires that a law be designed to achieve the stated goal.
2) The least restrictive means test requires that there be no less restrictive way of achieving the stated goal.
Judicial Authority & Review: From Where Do Federal Courts Derive Their Authority?
Article III of the United States Constitution vests the judicial power of the United States in the United States Supreme Court and provides for the creation of lower federal courts by Congress.
Explain the Jurisdiction of Federal Courts
Rule: Federal courts have jurisdiction over all cases that arise under the Constitution, federal laws, or federal treaties.
Supreme Court: The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over:
1) Disputes between the United States and a state,
2) Actions by a state against the citizens of another state, AND
3) Cases involving ambassadors, public ministers, or consuls.
Note: The Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction only over disputes arising between two states. All other disputes can also be heard by lower federal courts.
Lower Federal Courts: The jurisdiction of the lower federal courts is determined by Congress and may be expanded, restricted, or modified through Congressional action. Lower federal courts have original jurisdiction over:
1) Disputes between citizens of different states,
2) Disputes between a US citizen and a foreign country or citizen,
3) Issues arising under admiralty or maritime jurisdictions, AND
4) Cases involving the US government.
Jurisdiction: Supreme Court’s Appellate Jurisdiction
State the Rule
Rule: The Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction to hear a case after the highest court of the state, a US Court of Appeals, or a three-judge federal District Court panel has issued a final judgment on the case.
Note: Even if the procedural requirements are satisfied, the Supreme Court will have appellate jurisdiction to hear cases only if the US Constitution, a federal law, or a federal treaty is implicated.
Jurisdiction: Adequate & Independent State Ground Doctrine
State the Rule
Rule: Under the Adequate and Independent State Ground Doctrine, the US Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction over the judgment of a state court that rests on both federal and state law if the state ground is:
1) Adequate to support the judgment, AND
2) Independent of federal law.
Note: A presumption exists that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over judgments based on both federal and state law. The presumption will be overcome only if the state court explicitly states if its judgment that its decision rests on an independent state ground.
Abstention
Define & State the Rule
Definition: Abstention is a federal court’s act of refraining from interfering with pending state court proceedings through the federal court has jurisdiction.
Younger Abstention: A federal court will not interfere with an ongoing state criminal prosecution unless the Defendant was prosecuted in bad faith, or other extraordinary circumstances exist.
Pullman Abstention: A federal court will abstain from hearing a case so that state courts can have the opportunity to settle an underlying state law questions, the resolution of which may avoid the need to decide a federal question.
Note: Abstention is based on the principle that federal courts respect the sovereignty of states and the independence of state judicial systems.
Justiciability: Justiciable Case or Controversy Requirement
State the Rule
Rule: The constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to legitimate cases and controversies. Advisory opinions as to the constitutionality of a proposed law or regulation by the Supreme Court are forbidden.
Note: The four justiciability doctrines have been derived from Article III’s case or controversy requirements.
List the 4 Justiciability Doctrines
1) Standing
2) Ripeness
3) Mootness
4) Political Question
Justiciability: Standing
Define & State the Rule
Definition: Standing is the issue of whether the Plaintiff is the proper party to bring a matter to the court for adjudication.
Rule: Two requirement generally must be met to establish a Plaintiff’s standing:
1) The Plaintiff must have personally suffered an injury or be threatened with future injury, AND
2) The Plaintiff must be reasonably allege that prevailing in the suit will redress or prevent the harm.
Note: To obtain injunctive or declaratory relief, the Plaintiff must show a likelihood of future harm.
Standing: Taxpayers & Citizens
State the Rule
Rule: Federal taxpayers generally do not have a standing to challenge federal taxation or spending based solely on their status as taxpayers or U.S. citizens.
Exception: Standing is recognized if a taxpayer can establish a logical nexus between the Plaintiff’s status as a taxpayer and the claim. A logical nexus will be found where the challenged law:
1) Was passed under Congress’ Article I, Section 8 authority, AND
2) Violates constitutional limitations specifically imposed on the taxing and spending power.
Note:
1) This exception has been recognized by the Supreme Court only once, where the Court held a taxpayer had standing to challenge federal education spending by Congress as a violation of the establishment clause.
2) Citizens/taxpayers do not have standing to bring suit challenging discretionary executive branch expenditures.
Standing: Third Party
State the Rule
Rule: A Plaintiff generally does not have standing to bring suit on behalf of a third party:
Exception: Third-party standing is recognized when:
1) A special relationship exists between the Plaintiff and the injured third party, and the third party is unlikely to assert her own rights (e.g., Physician-Patient),
2) The third party would have difficulty asserting her own rights, OR
3) An organization is suing on behalf of its members and:
a) The members would have standing to sue,
b) The interests the organization seeks to protect are germane to its purpose,
c) Neither the claim asserted nor relief requested require individual participation, AND
d) The organization’s members are at risk of imminent and concrete harm.
Note: An organization must identify a specific harm its members will suffer to establish third-party standing. Generalized threats (e.g., to the environment) are not sufficient.
