Constitutional Law - Federal Judicial Power Flashcards
The Federal Judicial Power
from big MBE outline - just an overview slide
Defined by Article III of the Constitution. Article III provides that federal courts shall have judicial power over all “CASES AND CONTROVERSIES” arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the U.S. (and a bunch of other subjects..e.g. in which the U.S. is a party, between two or more states, between citizens of different states…etc)
Review of OTHER Branches of Federal Government
from big MBE outline - just an overview slide
Constitution does not explicitly state that the Supreme Court may determine the constitutionality of acts of other branches of government. However, judicial review of other branches of the federal government was established in MARBURY v. MADISON - the Constitution is the “LAW” and it is the province and duty of the judiciary to declare what the law is
Whether the court will hear a case (ie whether or not a case is “JUSTICIABLE”) depends on whether a “case or controversy” is involved
What are the 5 requirements for a case to be “JUSTICIABLE”? (note: fine points gives us 5, lecture outline gave us 4, we talked about all of them in the lecture but he didn’t call them all justiciability requirements)
SARMA
(1) STANDING
(2) NO ADVISORY OPINIONS
(3) RIPENESS
(4) MOOTNESS
(5) ABSTENTATION
What is “Standing?”
STANDING is the issue of whether the P is the proper party to bring the matter to court
What are the FOUR REQUIREMENTS for a P to have “Standing?”
(1) INJURY - the P must allege and prove that he or she has been injured or imminently will be injured
- - Injury is NOT established with only “mere ideological objection” (aka not enough to “not like” something)
- - Plaintiffs only may assert injuries they have PERSONALLY suffered
* *– Plaintiffs seeking INJUNCTIVE RELIEF must show a likelihood of future harm
(2) CAUSATION & REDRESSABILITY - P must allege and prove defendant caused the injury and favorable court decision is likely to remedy the harm
- - If the fed ct ruling would have no effect, then it is an “Advisory Opinion” and is, therefore, not allowed
(3) NO THIRD PARTY STANDING - aka P cannot assert claims of others who are not before the court bc P must present personally suffered injuries (there are exceptions)
(4) NO GENERALIZED GRIEVANCES - P can’t sue solely as a citizen or taxpayer (exception for suing under Establishment Clause, and 10th amendment)
What are the exceptions to the “No third party standing” rule?
(Standing Requirements)
(1) CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS - third party standing is allowed if thee is a “close relationship” between the P and the injured third party which means the P can be trusted to ADEQUATELY REPRESENT the interests of the third party
- -e.g. Dr.-patient [abortion cases for example] or custodial parent-child
- -Note: noncustodial parent held to lack standing when tried to sue on behalf of daughter bc not “close relationship” - must be CUSTODIAL parent to have “Standing”
(2) injured third PARTY is UNLIKELY TO ASSERT ITS OWN RIGHTS
- -e.g. juror knocked off jury due to race
(3) 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
What are the EXCEPTIONS to the “No Generalized Grievances” rule (for standing) ?
(1) taxpayers have standing to challenge government expenditures pursuant to federal statutes as VIOLATING THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE
- e.g. Fed govt adopted program giving financial aid directly to parochial schools and taxpayer sued under est. clause- ct found standing
- BUT no taxpayer standing to challenge a law granting tax credits to persons who contribute to organizations that provide scholarships to students who attend private schools - these tax credits do not fall under E-clause exception, even if credits are available for religious school scholarships bc the program does NOT involved the transfer of govt funds
(2) if alleging VIOLATION of 10TH AMENDMENT by interfering with the powers reserved to the States as long as the person can show injury in fact and redressability
What does it mean when the court says it will not render “ADVISORY OPINION” ?
(Justiciability Requirement)
The court will not settle hypothetical disputes, there must be an actual live controversy.
federal courts will not render decisions in moot cases, collusive suits, or cases involving challenged to governmental legislation or policy whose enforcement is NEITHER ACTUAL nor THREATENED
What does it mean for a claim to be “RIPE” ? (aka Ripeness requirement)
(Justiciability Requirement)
RIPENESS is the question of whether a federal court may grant pre-enforcement review of a statute or regulation
A plaintiff generally is not entitled to review of a state law before it is enforced (i.e. may not obtain a declaratory judgment) BUT courts will consider:
(1) the HARDSHIP that will be suffered without pre-enforcement review (greater the hardship, the more likely ct will grant pre-enforcement review)
- -e.g. FDA adopts rule requiring all prescription drug ads to state generic name of drug in ad, drug co. sues saying FDA doesn’t have that authority, even though not enacted yet and no one has been prosecuted under it, drug cos either comply, which would cost millions, or don’t and subject themselves to liability down the road so ct. allows it to be heard now
(2) the FITNESS OF THE ISSUES and the record for judicial review (aka if ct doesnt have all the info it needs to render a decision, it will be better to wait)
What is “MOOTNESS” ?
Justiciability Requirement
If events after the filing of a lawsuit end the P’s injury, the case must be dismissed as moot because a P must present a live controversy, though a nonfrivilous money damages claim will keep the case alive
EXCEPTION: the wrong is CAPABLE OF REPETITION but evades review bc of its inherently limited time duration (basically - abortion cases - bc no woman will still be pregnant by time case comes up)
EXCEPTION 2: VOLUNTARY CESSATION- D could stop doing something then start up again, ct won’t consider it moot
EXCEPTION 3: CLASS ACTION SUITS - as long as at least 1 person still has a problem it wont be dismissed
What is the idea of “ABSTENTATION” ?
Justiciability Requirement
Federal Courts may not enjoin pending state court proceedings
When a federal constitutional claim is premised on an unsettled question of state law, the fed ct should stay its hand (abstain) so as to give state cts chance to settle the underlying state law question and thus potentially avoid the needless resolution of the federal constitutional issue
POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE
The court will not decide POLITICAL QUESTIONS which are
(i) those issues committed by the Constitution to another branch of government; or
(ii) those inherently incapable of resolution and enforcement by the judicial process
refers to the constitutional violations that the federal courts will not adjudicate (bc the questions are better left to other branches of government)
What kinds of cases are dismissed under the POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE?
Cases that will be dismissed under this doctrine:
(1) any case about what constitutes “the REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT”
(2) challenges to the President’s conduct of FOREIGN POLICY
(3) Challenges to the IMPEACHMENT AND REMOVAL procedures
(4) Challenges of partisan GERRYMANDERING
(5) Whether a number of votes a candidate for Congress received is sufficient to elect him and whether the candidate meets the age and residency requirements for office
11th amendment restrictions on Federal Courts and the principle SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY
11th amendment bars suits against states in federal court. That is, state governments generally cannot be named as Ds in federal court cases.
SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY also bars suits against states in STATE COURTS or FEDERAL AGENCIES and even on federal law claims
EXCEPTIONS: states may be sued ONLY under the following 4 circumstances
(1) WAIVER - a state may expressly consent to be sued
(2) States may be sued pursuant to federal laws adopted under SECTION 5 of 14th AMENDMENT (congress cannot authorize suits against the states under any other constitutional provisions or power)
(3) federal govt MAY sue state governments (so sovereign immunity does not bar fed govt suing state govt)
(4) BANKRUPTCY PROCEDINGS - 11th amendment doesn’t apply to Federal Laws exercised pursuant to Congress’s bankruptcy powers so it does not bar actions of the US Bankr. Cts.
NOTE: suits against state officers are allowed even if the state govt cannot be named as D
-state officers can be sued for injunctive relief, and money damages to be paid out of their own pockets
Supreme Court Review: How do cases come to the Supreme Court?
First, all justiciability requirements must be met
Virtually all 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 the US Court of Appeals come to Sup Ct. by writ of certiorari
Appeals exist for decisions of three-judge federal district courts (SUP CT MUST HEAR THESE)
Supreme Court has ORIGINAL AND EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction for suits between state governments
