Constitutional Law: The Role of Federal Courts in Constitutional Cases Flashcards
Principles of Judicial Review
- The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
- It is the Supreme Court’s duty to interpret the Constitution.
- Federal statutes, regulations, executive orders, etc. that are inconsistent with the Constitution are invalid.
- State statutes, regulations, executive orders, constitution amendments, etc. that are inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution are invalid.
- The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the U.S. Constitution (but not state constitutions) and federal law is final and binding.
Supreme Court Jurisdiction: Original Jurisdiction
Definition: a case that is heard by the Supreme Court before it has been decided by any other court
According to the Constitution, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in “in all cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party”
Congress cannot expand or reduce the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction. It may, however, grant concurrent jurisdiction to lower federal courts to hear such cases
In suits between two or more states, the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction is exclusive (i.e., not concurrent with lower courts)
Supreme Court Jurisdiction: Appellate Jurisdiction
Definition: jurisdiction to review a lower court’s decision; in other words, some tribunal (state or federal) has already ruled on this controversy.
The Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction is almost entirely discretionary; petitioners seek review by filing a petition for writ of certiorari, which may be granted upon the approval of four justices (i.e., the “Rule of Four”).
Congress has significant authority to reduce the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction, but this authority is not unlimited.
Justiciability definition
Principle: Federal courts should avoid deciding constitutional issues needlessly.
Definition: Even if a case involves an issue within the jurisdiction of federal courts, a federal court will not (or in some cases, shall not) hear the dispute unless it is in the appropriate posture. Such determinations are made at each level in federal courts.
1) advisory opinions
2) standing
3) ripeness
4) mootness
5) political questions
6) adequate and independent state grounds
Advisory opinions
There are three types of advisory opinions:
- Classic Advisory Opinions: situations in which someone, often a member of the executive or legislative branch, is seeking an opinion about the validity or constitutionality of a law or other government action before it is enacted or enforced
- Non-Final Opinions: opinions by federal courts that may be reversed or modified by the executive or legislative branch (or, for that matter, anyone other than a higher court).
- Collusive Suits: a lawsuit where the parties are not actually in disagreement, but are cooperating to steer the court towards some agreed-upon conclusion.
Standing: General Rule
Standing requires:
injury in fact: the plaintiff has suffered a concrete, particularized injury that has actually occurred or is imminent; ideally, the plaintiff will be able to show physical injury, property damage, or economic loss (such as lost profits)
causation: the injury must be “fairly traceable” to defendant (i.e., the government);
redressability: if the court grants plaintiff’s relief, this will fix the problem
Citizen Standing
citizenship alone is insufficient to confer standing to challenge government action or inaction
Taxpayer Standing
as a general rule, a “federal taxpayer” does not have standing to challenge a federal spending measure, unless Congress confers such standing
state taxpayers generally do not have standing in federal court to challenge state expenditures,
but municipal taxpayers probably have standing in federal court to challenge municipal expenditures
3rd Party Standing: general rule
as a general rule, a plaintiff may assert only injuries that he or she has suffered and may not assert injuries suffered by others. There are several exceptions to this rule.
Legislators Standing
legislators generally do not have standing to challenge legislation with which they disagree
Ripeness
Definition: the case is brought too early; the plaintiff does not yet have standing.
For standing to exist, the plaintiff must have already been harmed or there is an immediate threat of harm.
Ripeness often arises in cases where the plaintiff is challenging a criminal statute or administrative regulation before he or she has been arrested (or harmed) or there is an imminent threat of arrest (or harm).
Mootness
Definition:
the case is brought too late; the plaintiff had standing, but lost it. Mootness may occur at anytime and any level.
If the defendant voluntary ceases whatever action is at issue, the case will be moot only if there is no reasonable expectation that the alleged violation will recur
Mootness: Exceptions
capable of repetition in this plaintiff, yet evading review:
there are some issues that have such short durations that they can never receive full judicial review before they become moot. For such issues, the court will ignore mootness.
EX- issues involving pregnancy (e.g., abortion), ballot restriction measures in elections, but not a discrimination case against a law school in which the plaintiff was admitted to (and was scheduled to graduate from) the law school while the case was pending
collateral consequences: a case is not moot if there are collateral consequences (e.g., damages) that have yet to be determined
class actions: after a class has been certified, the case does not become moot because the named plaintiff’s claim is mooted, as long as the claims of other members of the class are still viable
Political Questions
Definition: there are some issues federal courts choose not to hear.
Two types of political questions:
1) Those textually committed to another branch by the Constitution:
• Impeachment process
• Congress’s power to judge the age, residency, and citizenship qualifications of its members
• Congress’s power to expel a member
2) Those for which there are no judicially manageable standards:
• The constitutional amendment process
• Partisan (i.e., political) gerrymandering
• Disputes within political parties
• Guaranty clause cases (e.g., what is a “republican form of government?”)
• Administration of foreign affairs (e.g., president’s power to unilaterally terminate a treaty)
• The President’s authority to deploy military forces without a congressional declaration of war
Adequate & Independent State grounds
The Supreme Court will hear a case from a state court only if the state court judgment turned on federal grounds.
the Supreme Court will not exercise appellate jurisdiction over a case arising out of the highest court of a state involving an issue of federal law, if the state court’s decision was clearly based on an adequate and independent state ground.
A state ground is “independent” if the state court expressly stated that its decision rests on state law.
The common scenario for an “adequate and independent state grounds” case is where the state constitution grants a person the same or more rights than the U.S. Constitution
To determine whether adequate and independent state grounds exist, ask:
Can the U.S. Supreme Court change the result of the case by ruling on the federal question?
If yes, the U.S. Supreme Court can hear the appeal
If no, the U.S. Supreme Court cannot hear the appeal
