Doctrinal Tests & Rules Flashcards
Judicial Review
Courts have the power to review nondiscretionary conduct where there is a specifically identifiable legal command
Methods of Constitutional Interpretation
(9)
- Originalism
- Non-Originalism
- Textualism
- Process Theory
- Precedentalism
- Structuralism
- Pragmatism / Consequentialism
- Puke Test
- Objection to Intrepretation
Originalism
Proper meaning is the meaning originally intended by the Framers (Historical Approach)
Non-Orginalism
Courts should go beyond that set of references and enforce norms that cannot be discovered within the four corners of the document
Textualism
Normal meaning of the text to the people of the founding generation is the meaning, analyze the words the founders selected for the drafting process, not the intent of what they were trying to achieve
Process Theory
Interpret in consideration of the political / legal processes it defines / establishes or protects
Precedentialism
Interpretation by referring to preceding case law
Structuralism
Interpretation by reference to the structural scheme of the Constitution and repeated uses of phrases & the meaning in the different contexts
Pragmatism / Consequentialism
Constitution was intended to give the flexibility we need over time (Evolution by interpretation)
Principle of Avoidance
To ensure constitutional questions will only be reached if necessary
- Court will not anticipate constitutional questions
- Court will not formulate constitutional law broader than the necessity of deciding it
- Court will not question the constitutionality of a statute without an injury that has occurred
- Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of the benefits
- Court will construe acts of congress as constitutional if possible before invalidation
Justiciability Doctrines
- Prohibition of Advisory Opinions
- Ripeness
- Mootness
- Political Question
- Standing
Prohibition of Advisory Opinions
Case or controversies that do not include a posture, where the court would simply be giving their opinion
In order for the federal courts to hear the case:
(1) Actual dispute between adverse litigants must exist,
(2) Where a Federal court decision will bring about some impact in the real world
Ripeness
2 Prong Test - In order for the federal court to hear the case the court will consider the following criteria: (You can persuasively argue for a sliding scale)
- Hardship to the parties by withholding consideration (Degree & Likelihood)
- Fitness of the issues for judicial consideration
- Purely legal issue, suggests ripeness and is more likely to be considered
- All parties agreeing to what the issue is, more likely to be considered
- Sufficient record to make a decision from
Mootness
A plaintiff must present a live controversy at all stages of federal court litigation. If anything occurs while the lawsuit is pending to end the plaintiff’s injury, the case is dismissed as moot.
Exceptions:
- Wrongs capable of repitition but evading review
- Voluntary Cessation
- Collateral Injury
- Class Actions
Political Questions
(6 Factors)
There is a group of cases the court will not adjudicate, that are left to the political process
Baker v. Carr Factors:
- A textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department
- A lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving the question
- The impossibility of deciding the question without making an initial policy determination of a kind clearly inappropriate for judges to make
- The impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due to coordinate branches of the government
- An unusual need for questioning adherence to a political decision already made
- The potential embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question
Standing
Does a particular person have enough at stake in the controversy to present and create, sharp and adversarial presentation, of particular issues to the court?
Constitutional Requirements – Standing requires a personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant’s conduct that is likely redressable from a federal court decision
- Injury – Cannot be abstract, hypothetical, or too speculative
- Concrete
- Personally experienced or likely enough to be personally experienced
- Does not have to be exclusive, Others experiencing the same injury does not preclude relief
- Causation / Traceability – Injury suffered must stem from the defendant’s wrongful (illegal) conduct (Fairly Traceable)
- Redressability – The court must be able to provide relief for the actual injury, but does not have to be complete relief (Likely Redressable)
Plaintiff must show injury, causation and redressability at the level of relief they seek (City of Los Angeles v. Lyons)
Sources of Congressional Power
(3 Main - 2 Others)
- Necessary and Proper Clause
- Commerce Clause
- Taxing and Spending Clause
Others:
- War Powers Clause
- § 5 of the 14th Amendment