DeVeaux's Authorities Flashcards
Marbury v. Madison, Justices properly appointed but did not receive their appointment–request for Writ of Mandamus.
- Courts have the authority to review authority of legislative & executive branches and the State Courts and lower Federal Courts to determine constitutionality.
- “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”
- Power to hear all cases arising out of the constitution.
- Court has limited jurisdiction cannot be enlarged by Congress.
- Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is void.
- The Court must apply judicial prudence to avoid conflict that may subject it to rebuff or retaliation. Decisions must be politically careful because the Court lacks the power to enforce their decisions.
- Three faces: Public rights—the province and duties of the court to say what the law is.
- Private right—the province and duty of the Court to decide the rights of individuals, and resolve disputes between litigants.
Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee (1816) – Land granted from Lord Fairfax to his Nephew, but VA law confiscated lands from people loyal to the crown.
In liquidating the Constitution, does the Supreme Court have authority over State Courts in matters of Federal Civil Law? Yes.
Article 3, section 1
– “The judicial power of the US shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”
• Implies that inferior courts have original jurisdiction and therefore the SCOTUS has appellate jurisdiction.
• State courts are bound by the rulings of the Supreme Court.
– Framers anticipated our country would adjudicate matters in state courts, the Constitution only requires one federal court, this being an appellate jurisdiction that binds state court opinions.
Cohen v. Virginia (1821) – Lottery Tickets in Wash DC, being sold in Virginia, a criminal offense
- The Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over State Courts in criminal cases.
- For Criminal proceedings – There is no difference between civil and criminal law when it comes to Supremacy of Federal law.
- This is the “criminal” answer to the same “civil” question posed in Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee
POLITICAL QUESTIONS:
The court will NOT decide political questions.
Political Questions are:
1. Those issues committed by the Constitution to another branch of government; or
2. Those inherently incapable of resolution and enforcement by the judicial process.
Nixon v. United States A judge (Nixon) refused to resign during his prison sentence and continued to collect his judicial salary while serving out his prison sentence. Senate delegate the evidentiary phase of the impeachment to a committee of Senators prior to voting for impeachment by the entire Senate.
(no jud’l review of matters textually committed to coordinate branch)
• Art. I, § 3, cl. 6: “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments, …and no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.”
A: the word “sole” gives the power to the senate. Because the word “try” is ambiguous, the Constitution awards discretion to the Senate as to how they “try” the individual being impeached.
C: 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.
Gillian v. Morgan, (regulating the militia)
Students at Kent State sought relief against government officials to prevent them from opening fire on innocent college protesters again. Court of appeals instructed the federal district court to evaluate the “pattern of training, weaponry and orders in the Ohio National Guard”
Determining military action is a non-justiciable political question since it is textually given to the political branches of government.
Art. I, § 8, cl. 16
• Grants Congress “the responsibility for organization, arming and disciplining the Militia, with certain responsibilities being reserved to the respective States”—and on federal legislation enacted pursuant thereto.
–Review of Military actions are subject to civilian control of the Legislative and Executive Branches which are periodically subject to electoral accountability.
Pacific States Tel. & T. Co. V. Oregon, (Whether the initiative process violates the Constitution because it is democratic in form, and not republican)
Art. IV, § 4
• “the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.”
This case involves a political question, because Congress gets to decide
–The text of the Constitution commits to Congress the capacity to judge whether a state’s government is republican in form.
Luther v. Borden
Whether the Defendant’s arrest of the plaintiff was a trespass –turned on which of the two groups was the lawful government of the state.
Art. IV, § 4
• “Congress must necessarily decide what government is established in the State before it can determine whether it is republican or not.”
–Congress decision is binding on every other department of the government, and could not be questioned in a judicial tribunal.
Baker v. Carr (malapportionment),
A suit challenging Tennessee’s legislative apportionment scheme, under which some districts had vastly larger populations than others.
This is a question of justiciability under the Equal Protection Clause:
–“Judicial standards under the Equal Protection Clause are well developed. This case does, in one sense, involve the allocation of political power within a State, and the appellants might conceivably had added a claim under the Guarantee Clause. Although such a claim could not have succeeded it does not follow that appellants may not be heard on the equal protection claim which in fact they tender.”
–However the court may find that a State’s redistricting scheme is unconstitutional under the guaranty clause and the equal protection clause, and send it back to the State to be redrawn.
Goldwater v. Carter,
Presidential power to terminate a treaty with Taiwan w/o Congressional approval
SCOTUS:
R: The political question doctrine restrains courts from reviewing an exercise of foreign policy judgment by a coordinate political branch.
A: “While the Constitution is express as to the manner in which the Senate shall participate in the ratification of a Treaty, it is silent as to that body’s participation in the abrogation of a Treaty.
C: The controversy is a nonjusticiable political dispute
• Congress and the president had the tools to “fight it out.”
• 3rd limitation—strictly prudential, the constitution wouldn’t prohibit us from deciding the case, but we are going to exercise prudence and not decide. If we would have lead to an impasse that led to ta constitutional crisis we would decide the case.
Ex Parte McCardle
(McCardle alleged “unlawful restraint by military force,” & sought habeus corpus, but was denied by the Circuit Court. Appealed to SCOTUS)
–Although the SCOTUS derives its appellate jurisdiction from the Constitution, does the Constitution also give Congress the express power to make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction?
–The appellate jurisdiction of this Court is not derived from acts of Congress, it is conferred by the Constitution. But it is conferred “with such exceptions and under such regulations as Congress shall make.”
–The court can exercise appellate jurisdiction over all cases arising under federal law.
United States v. Klein
(Jurisdictional limitations vs. substantive directions)
Congress enacted a statute directing the federal courts to dismiss for want of jurisdiction any suit in which the plaintiff relied on a presidential pardon to prove loyalty during the Civil War.
–Congress cannot use its power over jurisdiction in such a way as to require a court to reach a decision that violates some part of the Constitution.
– “The legislature cannot change the effect of such a pardon any more than the executive can change the law. Yet this is attempted by he provision under consideration.”
Boumedien v. Bush
(Enemy combatants detained in Gitmo, Cuba, contended they had the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus, despite the procedures provided by the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and that the Military Commissions Act of 2006.)
R: Suspension Clause of Art. I, § 9, cl. 2, “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”
–SCOTUS: “If Congress wants to suspend the writ of habeas corpus they must say that, we are not going to infer it.”
Allen v. Wright
(citizens do not have standing to sue fed’l agency because of influence its determinations have on others). Parents of black school-children filed an action to compel the IRS to deny tax-exempt status to racially discriminatory private schools, in conformity with the law.
One does not have standing to sue in federal court unless:
- -The injury alleged must be, for example, “distinct and palpable,” and not “abstract” or “conjectural” or “hypothetical.”
- -The injury must be “fairly” traceable to the challenged action, and relief from the injury must be “likely” to follow from a favorable decision.
U.S. v. SCRAP (Non-economic injuries)
In its PLEADINGS– Scrap claims that the rate structure would discourage the use of ‘recyclable’ materials, and promote the use of new raw materials that compete with scrap, thereby adversely affecting the environment by encouraging unwarranted mining, lumbering, and other extractive activities.
SCRAP argues that their pleadings sufficiently alleged that they were ‘adversely affected’ or ‘aggrieved’
STANDING:
- -“The challenged action must be arguably within the zone of interest to be protected or regulated”
- -Standing was NOT confined to those who could show ‘economic harm.’
- -Aesthetic and environmental well-being, like economic well-being, are important ingredients of the quality of life in our society”
- -“To deny standing to persons who are in fact injured simply because many others are also injured, would mean that the most injurious and widespread Government actions could be questioned by nobody. We cannot accept that conclusion.”
CAUSATION:
–A plaintiff must allege that he has been or will in fact be perceptibly harmed by the challenged agency action, not that he can imagine circumstances in which he could be affected by the agency’s action.
Nexus between the act and the park.
NOTE: Even if SCRAP remains good law on the issue of what constitutes a constitutionally cognizable injury, it seems doubtful that the pleading would any longer suffice to satisfy the causation and redressability requirements discussed in Lujan.
