Constitutional Law: The Judicial Power Flashcards

Question

Ripeness (factor 2): Hardship to the parties of Withholding Consideration - General Rule

Answer 1

A court will find that an action is ripe for review if a party would have to risk substantial hardship to provoke enforcement of law. Ex. A state passes a law preventing aliens from owning property. An alien who is in the market to purchase land but has not yet done so files an action to prevent enforcement of the law. A court finds the action ripe because to force the alien to purchase land before suing would require him to risk a substantial hardship (the forfeiture of the land).

Answer 2

A claimant must generally attempt to recover using available remedies (such as administrative remedies) before filing a claim in federal court. But if an attempt to exhaust administrative remedies would hinder the ultimate right to recover, the claim will be considered ripe even when no attempt to obtain other available remedies has been made. [Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, 139 S. Ct. 2162 (2019)—a Taking Clause claim was ripe, even though the claimant had failed to avail himself of a state-law procedure to obtain compensation for takings because exhausting that remedy would have precluded a federal claim, effectively leaving the claimant with no claim in federal court]

Answer 3

A federal court will not hear a case that has become moot; a real, live controversy must exist at all stages of review, not merely when the complaint is filed. [See, e.g., DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312 (1974)—dismissing as moot a white law student’s challenge to state’s affirmative action program, since the student, although originally passed over for minority applicants with allegedly poorer records, had been admitted to law school while litigation was pending, was about to graduate by the time the case reached the Supreme Court, and would receive the same law degree whether or not the affirmative action program was invalidated]

Answer 4

Where there is a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party will be subjected to the same action again and would again be unable to resolve the issue because of the short duration of the action (i.e., where the controversy is capable of repetition yet evading review), the controversy will not be deemed moot. Ex. (1) Issue concerns events of short duration (e.g., pregnancy, elections, divorce actions); and (2) Defendant voluntarily stops the offending practice, but is free to resume it.

Answer 5

``` A class representative may continue to pursue a class action even though the representative’s controversy has become moot, as long as the claims of others in the class are still viable. ```

Answer 6

Ripeness and mootness are related concepts in that the court will not hear a case unless there is a live controversy. Ripeness bars consideration of claims before they have been developed; mootness bars their consideration after they have been resolved.

Answer 7

A person has standing only if she can demonstrate a concrete stake in the outcome of the controversy. Factors: (1) Injury in Fact (2) Causation (3) Redressability

Answer 8

(1) a particularized injury—an injury that affects the plaintiff in a personal and individual way; and (2) a concrete injury—one that exists in fact. It is not enough to show merely that a federal statute or constitutional provision has been violated (and that we all suffer when that happens).

Answer 9

The injury does not always have to be economic. In some cases, the Court has found that an individual is harmed because the alleged illegal act or unconstitutional action has an impact on the person’s well-being.

Answer 10

There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of—i.e., the injury must be traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant and not be attributable to some independent third party not before the court.

Answer 11

In determining whether a litigant has a sufficient injury to establish standing, courts ask whether a ruling favorable to the litigant would eliminate the harm to him. If a court order declaring an action to be illegal or unconstitutional (and ending that action) would not eliminate the harm to the litigant, then that individual does not have the type of specific injury that would grant him standing to challenge the action.

Answer 12

At all stages, including appeal.

Answer 13

Congress has no power to completely eliminate the case or controversy requirement, because the requirement is based in the Constitution. However, a federal statute may create new interests, injury to which may be sufficient for standing.

Answer 14

In some instances a plaintiff may bring suit to force government actors to conform their conduct to the requirements of a specific federal statute. Even in such cases, the person must have an “injury in fact.” Often, the Court asks whether the injury caused to the individual or group seeking to enforce the federal statute is within the “zone of interests” that Congress meant to protect with the statute. If Congress intended the statute to protect such persons, and intended to allow private persons to bring federal court actions to enforce the statute, the courts are likely to be lenient in granting standing to those persons.

Answer 15

Plaintiffs have standing to assert rights of third-parties where (1) the third party is unable to assert their own rights (it is difficult to assert their own rights) Ex. (the NAACP was permitted to assert the freedom of association rights of its members in attacking a state law requiring disclosure of membership lists because its members could not file suit without disclosing their identities) and (2) the injury suffered by the plaintiff adversely affects his relationship with third parties , resulting in an indirect violation of their rights (a vendor of beer was granted standing to assert the constitutional rights of males under 21 in attacking a state law prohibiting sale of beer to them but not to females under 21)

Answer 16

A divorced father sought to challenge on First Amendment grounds, on behalf of his daughter, the saying of the Pledge of Allegiance at her public school because the Pledge includes the words “under God.” A state court order gave the girl’s mother final authority over decisions regarding the girl’s health, education, and welfare. The mother objected to the lawsuit, and neither the mother nor the daughter objected to the Pledge. The Court held that the father lacked standing to bring the claim.

Answer 17

``` An organization (unincorporated association, corporation, union, etc.) has standing to challenge action that causes injury to the organization itself. ``` An organization also has standing to challenge actions that cause an injury in fact to its members if the organization can demonstrate the following three facts: (i) There must be an injury in fact to the members of the organization that would give individual members a right to sue on their own behalf; (ii) The injury to the members must be related to the organization’s purpose; and (iii) Neither the nature of the claim nor the relief requested requires participation of the individual members in the lawsuit.

Answer 18

People have no standing merely “as citizens” to claim that government action violates federal law or the Constitution. Congress cannot change this rule by adopting a statute that would allow persons to have standing merely as citizens (where they otherwise have no direct, personal claim) to bring suit to force the government to observe the Constitution or federal laws. [Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992)]

Answer 19

A person can have standing to allege that federal action violates the Tenth Amendment by interfering with the powers reserved to the states, assuming the person can show injury in fact and redressability

Answer 20

Generally No Standing to Litigate Government Expenditures A taxpayer, of course, has standing to litigate her tax bill (e.g., whether she really owes X dollars). However, people generally do not have standing as taxpayers to challenge the way tax dollars are spent by the state or federal government, because their interest is too remote. Nor do taxpayers have standing to challenge a law granting tax credits to persons who contribute to organizations that provide scholarships to students attending private schools. Note that such tax credits do not fall under the Establishment Clause exception below—even to the extent that the credits are available for contributions used for religious school scholarships—because the program does not involve the transfer of government funds; thus, there is no injury for standing purposes.

Answer 21

There is an exception to the general rule: A federal taxpayer has standing to challenge federal appropriation and spending measures if she can establish that the challenged measure: (i) Was enacted under Congress’s taxing and spending power (see II.A.2., 3., infra); and (ii) Exceeds some specific limitation on the power. To date, the only limit that the Supreme Court has found on the taxing power is the Establishment Clause. (See XXII.D., infra.) Note: The measure challenged must arise under the taxing and spending power. Thus, there was no standing to challenge a federal government transfer of surplus property under the Property Clause that allegedly violated the Establishment Clause. [Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, 454 U.S. 464 (1982)] Neither was there standing to challenge expenditures of executive branch general funds that allegedly violated the Establishment Clause. [Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, 551 U.S. 587 (2007)]

Answer 22

Legislators may have standing to challenge the constitutionality of government action if they have a sufficient “personal stake” in the dispute and suffer sufficient “concrete injury.” [Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997)]

Answer 23

An assignee of a legal claim has standing even if the assignee has agreed to remit any proceeds recovered from the litigation back to the assignor, if this is done pursuant to an ordinary business agreement made in good faith. [Sprint Communications Co., L.P. v. APCC Services, Inc., 554 U.S. 269 (2008)—a paid collection agent has standing to bring the claims of an assignor even though the collection agent will submit any recovery back to the assignor]

Answer 24

The Supreme Court will hear a case from a state court only if the state court judgment turned on federal grounds. The Court will refuse jurisdiction if it finds adequate and independent nonfederal grounds to support the state decision.

Answer 25

The nonfederal grounds must be “adequate” in that they are fully dispositive of the case, so that even if the federal grounds are wrongly decided, it would not affect the outcome of the case. Where that is the case, the Supreme Court’s review of the federal law grounds for the state court’s decision would have no effect on the judgment rendered by the state court, so that the Supreme Court, in effect, would be rendering an advisory opinion.

Answer 26

If the state court's interpretation of its state provision was based on federal case law interpreting an identical federal provision, the state law grounds for the decision are not independent

Answer 27

If it is unclear whether the state court decision turned on federal or state law, the Supreme Court may dismiss the case or remand it to the state court for clarification. However, the Court will usually assume that there is no adequate state ground unless the state court expressly stated that its decision rests on state law. Ex. When a state supreme court relied on Terry v. Ohio and other federal cases to suppress evidence from a search and did not cite a single state case to support its holding, although it referred to its state constitution in the opinion, the Supreme Court concluded that the state court had rested its decision on federal law, and therefore refused to dismiss the appeal based on adequate and independent state grounds. [See Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983)]

Answer 28

When a federal constitutional claim is premised on an unsettled question of state law, the federal court should stay its hand (“abstain” temporarily), so as to give state courts a chance to settle the underlying state law question and thus potentially avoid the needless resolution of a federal constitutional issue. [Railroad Commission of Texas v. Pullman, 312 U.S. 496 (1941)]

Answer 29

1. Unsettled state law | 2. pending state proceedings

Answer 30

They will not decide political questions.

Answer 31

those issues committed by the Constitution to another branch of government; or those inherently incapable of resolution and enforcement by the judicial process

Answer 32

1) Questions regarding the conduct of foreign relations or issues as to when hostilities have stopped; 2) Questions relating to which group of delegates should be seated at the Democratic National Convention [O’Brien v. Brown, 409 U.S. 1 (1972)]; 3) The procedures used by the Senate to “try” impeachments (e.g., the Court refused to rule on the constitutionality of the Senate’s delegation of the duty to take evidence and testimony to a committee of senators prior to the Senate deciding whether to vote for conviction on an impeachment of a federal judge) [Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993)]; 4) What constitutes a “republican form of government” guaranteed to the state by Article IV, Section 4 [Pacific States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Oregon, 223 U.S. 118 (1912)]; 5) Whether the number of votes a candidate for Congress received is sufficient to elect him [Roudebush v. Hartke, 405 U.S. 15 (1972)]; and 6) Questions regarding partisan legislative reapportionment (

Answer 33

Presidential papers and communications are generally considered to be privileged and protected against disclosure in the exercise of the executive power. But where these documents are necessary to the continuation of criminal proceedings, the question of production is justiciable and not political. [United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974)]

Answer 34

The Eleventh Amendment is a jurisdictional bar that modifies the judicial power by prohibiting a federal court from hearing a private party’s or foreign government’s claims against a state government. [See Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890)]

Answer 35

1. actions against state governments for damages; 2. actions against state governments for injunctive or declaratory relief where the state is named as a party; 3. actions against state government officers where the effect of the suit will be that retroactive damages will be paid from the state treasury or where the action is the function equivalent of a quiet title action that would divest the state of ownership of land; and 4. actions against state government officers for violating state law.

Answer 36

a) Suits against a state government in state court, even on federal claims, without the defendant state’s consent [Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999)— provision in federal Fair Labor Standards Act creating a private cause of action in state courts against state employers who violate the Act violates sovereign immunity]; b) Suits against a state government brought in the courts of another state, without the defendant state’s consent [Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, 139 S. Ct. 1485 (2019)]; and c) Adjudicative actions against states and state agencies before federal administrative agencies. [Federal Maritime Commission v. South Carolina State Ports Authority, 535 U.S. 743 (2002)].

Answer 37

1. actions against local governments 2. actions by the US government or other state governments 3. bankruptcy proceedings

Answer 38

1. Certain actions against state officers | 2. Congressional removal of immunity under the 14th Amendment

Answer 39

a) Actions Against State Officers for Injunctions A federal court may enjoin a state officer to refrain from future actions that violate federal law or to take prospective actions to comply with constitutional mandates. [Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908)] b) Actions Against State Officers for Monetary Damages from Officer A federal court may hear an action for damages against a state officer for violations of federal law if the monetary damages are to be paid out of the officer’s own pocket. Rationale: By acting outside the scope of federal law, the officer is stripped of his representative capacity—the action is not one against a state, but rather is against an individual. c) Actions Against State Officers for Prospective Payments from State A federal court may hear an action for damages against a state officer where the effect of the action will be to force the state to pay money in the future to comply with the court order. [Ex parte Young, supra] However, federal court jurisdiction is barred if the action will result in retroactive damages to be paid from the state treasury. [Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974)]

Answer 40

Congress can remove the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity under its power to prevent discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment. For example, the Equal Pay Act—based on the Fourteenth Amendment—can serve as a basis for federal suits against a state by its employees. [Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445 (1976)]

Answer 41

1) The state has consented to allow the lawsuit in federal court; 2) The plaintiff is the United States or another state; or 3) Congress has clearly granted federal courts the authority to hear a specific type of damage action under the Fourteenth Amendment (e.g., under a civil rights statute).