FEDERAL JUDICIAL AUTHORITY

Question 1

Marbury v Madison (expanded judicial authority)

Answer 1

1) Judicial Branch “says what the law is”, interprets law and resolves conflicts.
2) Judiciary can review executive actions involving legal duties (not political duties).
3) judiciary can decide on the constitutionality of legislative acts (judiciary act of 1789).

Question 2

Federal judicial power extends to cases….

Answer 2

1) arising under the constitution. (Cases posing a question of federal law).
2) cases of admiralty
3) cases between two or more states.
4) cases between citizens of different states.
5) and, cases between a state or its citizens and a foreign country or citizen.

Question 3

Article III (major points)

Answer 3

1) The judicial Power of the United
States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and
in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from
time to time ordain and establish.

2) The judicial Power shall extend
to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this
Constitution,

Question 4

independent & adequate State grounds doctrine

Answer 4

Federal judiciary will not review State court decisions based on state law that:

1) provides an adequate basis for the decision.
2) provides a legal basis for the decision that is independent of federal law.
- if the same result would be reached based on federal law, SCOTUS may not decide the case (no advisory opinions.)

Question 5

Congress’ Control of Federal Judicial Power

Answer 5

Congressional power to limit the jurisdiction of all federal courts is a combination of (1) the power to make “exceptions and regulations” to the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction; and (2) the power to establish inferior federal courts, which implies authority to limit the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts.

Question 6

Constitution gives Congress power to “make exceptions to Scotus’ Appellate Jurisdiction. (Ex Parte McCardle)

Answer 6

Congress repeals The Habeus Corpus Act of 1867 (which granted SC appellate jurisdiction to review denial of Habeus Cases)
- SC no longer had jurisdiction and dismissed.

Question 7

(US v KLEIN) - Congress passed a law effectively commanding court to draw a certain conclusion and directing it to dismiss a case = unconstitutional.

Answer 7

• Congress enacts a law labeling all rebels who were given amnesty “disloyal” thus denying them compensation for lands taken by fed gov.
• Congress’ law directed the decision (overstepping its bounds “to make certain exceptions or regulate the courts appellate jurisdiction.)
• Congress may not withdraw jurisdiction from federal courts in a manner that compels decision of a case in a prescribed way.

Question 8

Limitations by Congress:

Answer 8

It’s a fact pattern involves an attempt by Congress to limit the power of either the Supreme Court or the lower federal courts, the main things to remember are:

1) Congress cannot expand Supreme Court’s judicial power beyond its constitutional limits. (Constitution limits the cases the SC can hear).
2) lower federal court jurisdiction: Congress make Cut back, or possibly eliminate, the lower federal courts, but Congress may not expand the lower courts cases beyond the constitutional federal power.

Question 9

article vi: supremacy clause

Answer 9

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United
States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;
and all Treaties made, or which shall be made,
under the Authority of the United States, shall be
the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in
every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the
Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding.

Question 10

Eleventh Amendment

Answer 10

Bars any federal suit “against any one of the states by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.

Question 11

Chisholm v. Georgia

Answer 11

• Eleventh Amendment was ratified specifically to overrule the Court’s holding in Chisholm.
• Judiciary Act of 1789 that created original jurisdiction for suits against a state by citizens of other states.
• the Eleventh Amendment was adopted to prohibit federal courts from hearing suits against a state by citizens of another state or of a foreign country.

Question 12

States Sovereign Immunity

Answer 12

States have constitutionally guaranteed soveriegn immunity from certain proceedings brought by private parties.

• Immune from private damage suits in State Courts
  (Alden v. Maine)
• Immunity from proceedings before administrative agencies. (federal maritime Comm v. So. Car. St. Port authority)

Question 13

Hans v. Louisiana

Answer 13

• Barred suits by a citizen against his own State.
• Scotus has repeatedly held that the Eleventh Amendment bars suits against a state by its own citizens, unless they consent to the suit.

Question 14

Alden v. Maine

Answer 14

Nature of Case: Suit Brought by state employees against State (State Court) to enforce FEDERAL overtime provisions.

Rule of Law: Congress’s Article I power does not authorize it to abrogate the State’s immunity from suit on Federal claims in their own courts.

Holding: Constitution preserves the state’s traditional immunity from suit absent express waiver.

Question 15

Federal Maritime Commission v. South Carolina Ports Authority

Answer 15

Supreme Court held that states cannot be named as defendants in federal administrative agency proceedings.

Question 16

Suits Allowed Under 11th Amendment

Answer 16

• Federal Government suits against a state
• Suits brought by one state against another state. (suits must involve State Interests, not individual citizen interests)
• Bankrupcy suits are not protected.
• Suits against cities.

Question 17

Virginia Community College v. Katz ,

Answer 17

the Supreme Court went even further and held that the Eleventh Amendment and sovereign immunity do not apply in bankruptcy proceedings at all.

Question 18

Abstention

Answer 18

Federal Courts will abstain from hearing a case involving an unsettled or unclear state statute on whose consturction a federal constitutional issue depends, until a state court interprets it. Railroad Comm of Texas v. Pullman Co.

Question 19

Suits Barred Under 11th Amendment

Answer 19

1) Bars suits in Federal Court against States by citizens of another State, or foreign Citizens.
2) Bars Indian Tribes from suing State Government in Federal court (without their consent)
3) Bars suits against the state by its own citizens. (Hans v. Louisiana)
4) Admiralty suits are barred.

Question 20

Suits against Cities

Answer 20

Eleventh Amendment does not bar suits against municipalities or political subdivisions of a state.
(because it is this level of government that provides most social services in this country, such as police and fire protection, education, and sanitation.)

Question 21

Suits against State Agencies

Answer 21

• Department of Health / Treasury (Both part of the state (immune from suit).
• State boards, corporations and other entities = Uncertain (depends on the following:
  (1) Will a judgment against the entity be satisfied with funds in the state treasury?
  (2) Does the state government exert significant control over the entity’s decisions and actions?
  (3) Does the state executive branch or legislature appoint the entity’s policymakers?

Question 22

Osborn v. Bank of the United States,

Answer 22

Eleventh Amendment precludes suits against a state only when the state is actually named as the defendant in the litigation.

• Naming the state officer and not the state circumvents the 11th Amendment immunity.

Question 23

Ex parte Young (Distinction between State and Officers)

Answer 23

The Eleventh Amendment does not preclude suits against state officers for injunctive relief, even when the remedy will enjoin the implementation of an official state policy.

• the Court concluded that state officers have no authority to violate the Constitution and laws of the United States.
• it serves as an effective mechanism for providing relief against unconstitutional conduct by state officers and for testing, in the federal courts, the constitutionality of the state statutes.

Question 24

Ford Motor Co v. Department of the Treasury

Answer 24

Court has held that the Eleventh Amendment prevents an award of monetary relief from the state treasury even when the individual officer is the named defendant in the lawsuit.

Question 25

Pullman abstention to be invoked, three conditions must be apparent:

Answer 25

1) The case presents both state grounds and federal constitutional grounds for relief;
2) The proper resolution of the state ground for the decision is unclear; and
3) The disposition of the state ground could obviate the need for adjudication of the federal constitutional ground.