Federal Judicial Power Flashcards
What is Judicial Review?
The power of SCOTUS to strike down actions by Legislature and Executive branch when they are unconstitutional
Marbury v. Madison
Reviewableness of Executive or Legislative Action
Court declared it has the power of judicial review FEDERAL Executive and Legislative actions
Considers:
- Whether the act is discretionary (something the branch can or do not have to do) or non-discretionary (something the branch has to do)
TEST: Whether the act is discretionary or not discretionary?
o Discretionary act of Congress or Executive
- CANNOT be reviewed by the Court
o NOT Discretionary act of Congress or Executive
- Act is reviewable by the Court
- Rule of law – something the branch has to do
Cooper v. Aaron
FACTS
Brown v. Board of Education order the end of school segregation (SC decision)
Arkansas state legislature attempted to obstruct this ruling and claimed that they did not have a duty to obey federal court orders based on the SC interpretation of the constitution (14th A.)
HOLDING
The Court has the power to review State court decisions. The power stems from the Constitution only creating a single court and that the Court has the authority to establish lower courts.
The Court strongly reaffirmed Brown and said that it could not be nullified either “openly and directly by state legislators or state executive or judicial officers” or “indirectly by them through evasive schemes for segregation whether attempted ‘ingeniously or ingenuously.’”
Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee
Review of State Court Actions
State court holding is reviewable by the Supreme Court because the Constitution created a single Supreme Court and gave it the authority to establish the lower courts.
- If not, court will have no power at all
State Courts will likely be more prejudicial and rule favoring their own State
Uniformity of the federal law
Methods of Interpretation
Originalism: 3 Types (all say certain sources of meaning is off limits)
1) Specific Intent: We will infer meaning based on what those who wrote it intended it to mean.
2) Modified/ Abstract Intent: Critiques specific intent because it doesn’t let you go anywhere — Framers definitely wouldn’t have thought a woman could be president. So we take a more general view of what these guys meant, but not too specific.
• See Stevens dissent in Heller
3) Original Meaning/ Understanding
• This is what you see in D.C. v. Heller — meaning of the 2nd Amendment doesn’t come from what those who wrote it intended it to mean, but what people back then generally (or, really, scholars of the time period) would have understood it to mean.
o That’s why Scalia looks at a dictionary published in 1773.
Non-Originalist
- Not limited to any source of meaning
Sources of Interpretation
Primary
o Text
- All justices agree that the actual words are relevant to the inquiry
o Original Constitution History
- What kinds of drafts were there? What were the discussions?
o Overall Structure of the Constitution
- How is power divided via the structure of the document?
o Values reflected in the Constitution
- Liberty? Freedom? Privacy? Everyone is created equal?
Secondary
o Precedent
o Public/Social Studies
DC v. Heller
USE: When the government action is banning the use of a gun/weapon (trigger locked) or requiring a license for the weapon/gun other than for the purpose of home self defense or hunting
DC statute prohibited possessing a handgun in the home w/o a license, and it also required any lawful handgun kept in the home to be rendered inoperable through use of a trigger-lock.
Issue: Whether the DC law restricting gun ownership in a specific way violates the 2nd Amendment.
Holding: Yes. Fed gov tried to exert power it didn’t have – they crossed a line.
Reasoning:
• Text: 2nd Amendment has an operative and prefatory clause
Method of Interpretation:
• Original-Meaning: inquires into how contemporaries understood a right, and how they expressed it in the laws they created, in order to understand what the Constitution meant at the time it was ratified.
Standard of Review
• Court did not decide what standard of review must be applied in 2nd Amendment cases, only that its NOT Rational Basis Review.
Steven’s dissent in Heller concludes that the 2nd Amendment only applies to regulating state militias and not to personal firearms.
Breyer’s Dissent: agreed w/ Steven’s dissent about 2A, argued for RBR should be SOR going forward
Non-Justiciable Issues
ADVISORY OPINIONS
- The Court do not provide advisory opinions and will only issue its opinion based on a case
STANDING
- Basic Constitutional Requirement to bring a suit
- Requirement
o Injury
o Causation
o Redressability - the relief sought must alleviate plaintiff’s injury and must be tied to the remedy sought
o No Third Party Standing - Party has standing only to assert own rights
- EXCEPTION: Practical hindrance against third party asserting own rights + special relationship
RIPENESS
- Whether the injury is still too speculative or remote-
Exceptions:
o Capable of Repetition Yet Evading Review
o Voluntary Cessation
o Class Actions
MOOTNESS: Plaintiff has to present an on-going case, continuing injuries through the entirety of all stages of litigation
State Action Doctrine
Started as interpretation of 14A and then evolved into interpretation of entire constitution.
Stands for the proposition that government only regulates government unless an exception applies
o EXCEPTIONS (where private conduct must comply with the Constitution)
- Public Function Exception: If a private entity performs a task traditionally, exclusively performed by the government, the Constitution applies.
- Entanglement Exception: If the government affirmatively authorizes, facilities, or encourages unconstitutional conduct, the Constitution applies
Political Question Doctrine
Topics are off-limits if it involves issues that’s squarely (almost exclusively) w/in the authority of Fed Leg or Fed Exec
Factors Indicating the Case is a Political Question (Baker v. Carr)
- A demonstrable textual commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department (executive or the legislative branch)
a. does not apply to State government
b. Applies to the separation of power between branches of government - A lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving the issue
- Initial policy determination of the kind premised on nonjudicial discretion
- Expressing lack of respect for legislative and executive branches
- Unusual need to adhere to a political decision (executive or legislative) already made
- Potential for embarrassment from multiple decisions by various departments on one question
Factors are highly discretionary Not easy to predict whether the Court will take the case
Nixon v. US
The appointment of special committee by the Senate during an impeachment proceeding is a non-justiciable issue and unreviewable by the Court.
The Court reasoned that the Senate has the sole power of crafting the impeachment proceedings because judicial involvement of impeaching a federal judge violates the separation of powers.
“Constitution provides the Senate the SOLE power of impeachment”
Powell v. McCormack
Congress refused to seat Powell because he had been “dubious with expenses.” Powell filed suit, saying he met the Constitutional requirements for being seated in the House.
Article I, Sec. 2 solely dictates the basic requirements to be seated in the house, so this is not a political question, and the Court can decide it.
While the Constitution gives the House of Representatives the authority to decide its members, it doesn’t give them the authority to exclude someone who meets the requirement that would effectively nullify the decision to require a two thirds vote for expulsion.
