Constitutional Law Flashcards
Article III
Judicial Power vested in Supreme Court and other inferior Courts as Congress can establish.
Gov’t power limited by Constitution. Fed gov’t has power over all cases and controversies.
Cases and Controversies / Scope (Limitation) of Fed Judicial Pwr (Jx)
1) Cases (law/equity) arising under Const, laws, treaties of U.S.
2) Cases affecting ambassadors, public ministers, consuls
3) Cases of admiralty and maritime jx
4) Controversie s to which US is party
5) Controversies btwn 2+ states
6) Cases btwn state and citizen of another state
7) Cases btwn citizens of different states (diversity of citizenship)
8) Cases btwn citizens of same state claiming lands under grants of diff states (?)
9) Sup Ct will not give advisory opinions to Congress/president re constitutionality of proposed action / legislation (but declaratory jdgmt ok - legality of proposed conduct w/o damage/injunc award); state courts may give advisory opinions
Eleventh Amendment
Governmental / Sovereign Immunity - Gov’t cannot be sued w/o consent.
- States have governmental immunity in fed question and diversity cases.
- Citizens cannot sue own or other state in fed court on fed claims for money damages or injunction w/o state’s consent. Officers may be sued.
- Cities/towns/counties do not have immunity.
Eleventh Amendment Exceptions
1) Suits against state officials for abusing pwr in enforcing unconstitutional state statute.
2) Fed suits brought by one state against another state, or by fed gov’t against state.
3) Most suits for injunctions against state officials violating the private citizen’s fed constitutional rights.
Waiver of Eleventh Amendment
States may consent to suit in fed court if waives 11th Am immunity either expressly / unequivocally or voluntarily invoking fed court’s jx. Waiver not implied/constructive by engaging in fed-regulated conduct (i.e. infringing fed granted patent).
Congress May Abrogate Immunity
1) act asserts abrogation
2) enacts act under grant of pwr that may abrogate
Case and Controversy Requirements
Has to be real and substantial legal dispute between parties of adverse interests, at every stage of litigation, that can be resolved by conclusive judicial decree. RAMPS: Ripeness, Abstention/Adequate State Grounds, Mootness, Political Question, Standing
Mootness
If controversy/matter resolved, case dismissed as moot.
Exceptions:
- Even if principal issue resolved, if still collateral matters party interested in resolving, not dismissed.
- If issue capable of repetition yet evading review (impossible to adjudicate before becomes moot)
- Voluntary cessation of P doesn’t automatically dismiss / deprive fed court of pwr to determine legality, bc may allow D to return to acts
- Stringent standard - only moot if absolutely clear that allegedly wrongful conduct cannot be reasonably expected to recur (burden of persuasion on party asserting mootness).
Ripeness
Claims barred from consideration unless they have fully developed.
- Review/grant of declaratory judgment of state law not done before statute enforced or no real threat of enforcement.
Exception:
- If P can show before enforcement that law presents specific or present harm, or threat of specific imminent future harm, court may grant declaratory judgment.
Standing
Person litigating const question must show:
1) Injury-in-Fact; P must show direct/personal injury, actual/imminent, caused by action challenged. If P not suffered psnl injury/harm, does not have standing.
2) Causation; inj must be caused by viol of duty affecting P’s rights arising under Const of fed law.
3) Redressability; P must show that he will benefit from remedy sought in litigation.
* General rule - fed taxpayers do not have standing to challenge allegedly unconstitutional fed expenditures bc inj is comparatively minute and indeterminative, adn interest is too remote.
Third Party Standing
Litigant lacks standing to assert rights of third parties not before court, unless he himself has suffered injury, and
1) special relationship exists btwn them and
2) third party unable to or find it difficult to bring suit on own behalf.
Association has standing to assert claims of members even if assoc not suffered injury itself if
1) members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right,
2) interest asserted is germane to association’s purpose, and
3) neither claim nor relief would require participation by individual in suit.
Abstention
Fed court may refuse to hear case when undecided issues of state law present; state court may resolve issue of state law, making decision of constitutional issue unnecessary; deference to state court. Fed court may abstain if state law/reg unclear; state court may interpret statute to avoid const issue. If state crim proceeding pending, fed ct will abstain in suit seeking injunction agst state prosecution, absent bad-faith harassment on part of state prosecutors. Extended to cases where state civil proceeding commenced and where civil contempt hearings began.
Two areas where fed courts decline to hear cases: 1) probate exception to fed ct jx, fed ct always decline to probate estates, viewing these traditionally belonging to state, 2) fed ct generally do not hear fam law claims, belong to states.
Political Question
Fed ct cannot hear case involving political questions - matter assigned to another branch by cnostitution or incapable of judicial answer. Sup Ct set forth relevant factors to determine if applicable:
1) if there is textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of issue to a coordinate political dept
2) lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it
3) impossibility of deciding w/o initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion
4) impossibility of ct’s undertaking independent resolution w/o expressing lack of respect due coordinate branches of gov’t
5) unusual need for unquestioning adherence to political decision already made
6) potential for embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various depts on one question
(1, 4, 5, 6 - separation of powers; 2, 3 - limitations of judiciary in resolving certain controversies).
Also political questions include decisions re: 1) impeachment process, 2) amendment ratification process, 3) pres’s pwr to terminate treaty, 4) foreign affairs, 5) Guaranty Clause issues under Article IV
Supreme Court Jurisdiction
Original jx over ambassadors/public ministers/consuls where state is party; appellate jx law/fact in all other cases.
- May hold acts of other branches of fed govt unconstitutional
- May hold state statutes unconstitutional
- May review state ct decisions to ensure conformity with US const and fed statutes
- May decide other state law questions in diversity jx (will defer to existing state ct interpretation of state law, interpret state law not yet interpreted by state ct based on prediction of how it will interpret, will abstain from decision if state ct interpretation of unsettled state law could end dispute and cannot predict how state ct will rule)
- Invoking appellate jx 1) by appeal with mandatory jx, and 2) writ of certiorari 4+ justices vote to hear case in discretionary review
- Certiorari grounds: 1) conflicts btwn diff fed cts of appeal, 2) btwn highest cts of two states, 3) btwn highest state ct and fed ct of appeals, 4) cases from state ct or US ct of appeal involving imp yet unresolved issues.
Adequate and Independent State Grounds
Even if fed question involved, if state court judgment can be supported on adequate/independent state ground, SC will not take jx bc it would be like rendering advisory opinions (Herb v Pitcairn); if state court clearly states that state law violates other state law/provision of state constitution, that decision will be an adequate and independent state ground regardless of whether it also decides that the state law violates fed law.
If state ct decision based on fed interpret of similar fed law, adeq indep st gr not applicable - SC may review
situation.
If unclear if state ct made decision on st or fed interp of statute, SC may take case but has pwr to dismiss or remand for clarification from st ct - indep prong focuses on whether apparent from four corners that opinion in state ct judgmt was settled based on st ct interp of state law precedent or st const. If not SC may obtain clarif from st ct, or presume st ct dec rooted in fed law and review case.
Separation of Powers
Constitution separates gov’t into branches; SOP doctrine prohibits courts legislature from interfering with court’s final judgment; security agst tyranny thru flexibility, checks/bal btwn branches.
Powers of Congress
Legislative, commerce, taxing, spending, war/defense, investigatory, property, eminent domain, admiralty/maritime, bankruptcy, postal, copyright/patent, speech/debate, civil war amendments.
Legislative Power
a
Commerce Power
a
Taxing Power
a
Spending Power
a
War and Defense Power
a
Investigatory Power
a
Property Power
a
