Federal Judicial Power

Question 1

What can we pull from Mass v. EPA (2007) about injury? What does it need to be? What do you need to have?

Answer 1

An injury needs to be particularized, traceable, and redressable.

Question 2

Per City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, must the Plaintiff show that the injury setting the basis for their claim is one that have personally suffered or imminently will suffer?

Answer 2

Yes, the Plaintiff must have suffered the injury or imminently suffer the injury. Or, the Plaintiff must show that this recurs on individuals who are similarly situated (to the Plaintiff).

Question 3

What was the issue with injury in Lujan? Why was it not redressable?

Answer 3

There needs to be an actual injury to the Plaintiffs, and not just an injury to a cognizable interest. In Lujan, they pointed to intentions and to visit other locations as speculation, without there being any concrete - actual or imminent injuries. Therefore, the plaintiffs did not bring a viable injury.

Question 4

Is future injury viable to establish standing? May Plaintiffs manufacture an injury by spending on a speculative future harm?

Answer 4

Future injury is viable to establish standing unless it is certainly impending. Additionally, Plaintiffs may not manufacture an injury by spending on a speculative future harm. An injury must be certainly impending, and there must be causation and redressability.

Question 5

what are the two parts of the ripeness analysis?

Answer 5

The two parts of the ripeness analysis are (1) the fitness of the issues for judicial decision, and (2) the hardship to the parties of withholding adjudication.

Question 6

What are the three major functions of the US Constitution?

Answer 6

a. The Constitution establishes a national government and allocates power among branches.
b. The Constitution determines the relationship of the federal government and the states.
c. The Constitution limits government power and protects individual rights/liberty.

Question 7

Pros and Cons of establishing 3 branches of government?

Answer 7

Pro: At least two branches must agree to move forward. Having one branch creates a higher likelihood of tyranny/dictatorship.

Con: Things move slowly among the branches. This form of government is more cumbersome than a single branch. However, the framers thought that less action by a national government was better, because much power was left to the states.

Question 8

What is Federalism? Why was it chosen by the framers?

Answer 8

Federalism is the idea of having the same territory governed by both a state government and a federal government. Federalism was chosen because there were certain things the Framers thought could be handled better as a national government, but wanted to reserve many powers to the states.

Question 9

Why did the framers choose a Constitution instead of other ways to instill a form of government?

Answer 9

Constitutions are very hard to change. In this case, 2⁄3 required in both houses of Congress for amendment.

Question 10

Why is Marbury v. Madison important?

Answer 10

It established the Supreme court’s ability to:

i. Engage in judicial review of executive actions
ii. Engage in judicial review of legislative actions
iii. And established that Article III defined federal court jurisdiction, and Congress cannot expand original jurisdiction for the Supreme Court.

Question 11

What are the five justiciability doctrines? What is justiciability?

Answer 11

a. No advisory opinions
b. Standing
c. Ripeness
d. Mootness
e. Political Question

Justiciability determines whether a case is justiciable (may be heard by) the Supreme Court and other Article III federal courts.

Question 12

What is an advisory opinion? What does the advisory opinion doctrine ensure?

Answer 12

An advisory opinion is one that has no practical effect on the case. This doctrine ensures the separation of powers and looks at the proper role of the Court. This relates back to whether the court should be helping to define legislation or other political issues before a legal problem arises. The answer is: probably not.

Question 13

What is standing? What are the three constitutional requirements for proper standing?

Answer 13

Standing is the determination whether a specific person is the proper party to bring a matter to the court for adjudication. In other words, is this person the party properly entitled to bring this dispute to the court for resolution?

a. Existing/imminent injury
b. Causation
c. Redressability

Question 14

What are the prudential principles for standing?

Answer 14

a. A party may raise only their own rights.

b. No common taxpayer grievances may be brought.

Question 15

What is the injury in fact test?

Answer 15

The injury for standing requires more than an injury to a cognizable interest; it requires that the party seeking review to be himself among the injured.

“Standing requires a factual showing of perceptible harm.” (Luhan)

Question 16

What must causation address/what is the causation requirement under standing?

Answer 16

The injury must have been caused by the wrong that the claimant is seeking to address.

Question 17

What must redressability address/what is the redressability requirement under standing?

Answer 17

The relief that the claimant is seeking must redress the injury that is the basis for the claimant’s standing.

Question 18

What is the central concern of the ripeness requirement? How is it demonstrated?

Answer 18

Ripeness is a justiciability doctrine determining WHEN review is appropriate. (Whereas standing is concerned with WHO is a proper party to litigate a particular matter) Ripeness is demonstrated by showing that an injury has occurred or imminently will occur

Specifically, the ripeness doctrine seeks to separate matters that are premature for review because the injury is speculative and never may occur from those cases that are appropriate for federal court action.

Question 19

What is the basic concern of the mootness doctrine?

Answer 19

To satisfy the mootness doctrine, a plaintiff must present a live controversy at all stages of federal court litigation. If anything occurs while a lawsuit is pending to end the plaintiff’s injury, the case is to be dismissed as moot. In other words, if the claimant’s injury goes away during the pendency of the lawsuit, the case must be dismissed - otherwise, the court would be issuing an advisory opinion.

Question 20

What are the three exceptions to the mootness doctrine?

Answer 20

a. Wrongs capable of repetition but evading review
b. Voluntary cessation
c. Class actions

Question 21

What is a political question/what does the political question doctrine refer to?

Answer 21

The political question doctrine refers to , an alleged constitutional violation that is not appropriate for judicial review because it belongs to the executive or legislative branches to interpret/enforce as a political matter.

Question 22

What are the six determinable characteristics of a political question? (from Baker)

Answer 22

a. There is a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department.
b. There is a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it.
c. It is impossible to decide without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion.
d. It is impossible for a court to undertake independent resolution without expressing a lack of respect to the other coordinate branches of government.
e. There is an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made.
f. There is the potential of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question.

Question 23

Major Constitutional Interpretive Theories (6)

Answer 23

Originalism - Judges should protect only those values that are clearly stated in the text or are clearly implicit from the Framer’s intent

Modified Originalism - Follow the Framers’ general intent, but not their specific intent; We may not know original intent in something that isn’t addressed, but we know what their intent was for some things, so follow it generally

Original Meaning - Focus on meaning of the Const text as reflected in the contemporary practice of the Founders’ era

Tradition - Determine/follow protecting rights if the social recognition and protection of that right is clear in the combo of the text, social policy, and framer’s intent

Process-Based - Not guided as much by trying to influence substantive rightsGuided by procedure à courts should only get involved in cases where you can allow for improvement/perfection of decision making, not substantive outcomes

Aspirationalism - Trying to improve the law by defining the values that are most in need of protection; Willing to use tradition, text, history, social policy, precedent, etc however you want & need to

Question 24

What can the courts do? How do the other branches check them?

Answer 24

Courts can adjudicate, review executive and legislative acts to determine their constitutionality. Can also hear appeals from State court decisions related to federal law/the Const.

Other branches can restrict courts Jx, but not in a way that is itself Uncost. (IE - not in a way the specfically tells courts what to do; See US v. Klein or Ex parte McCardle)

Question 25

What factors go into interpreting the Const?

Answer 25

The text itself, history, Founders’ intent, context, social policy, tradition

Question 26

Is political gerrymandering a justiciable question? Why or why not? See Rucho

Answer 26

No, political gerrymandering is a NOT a justiciable political question. There are no judicially discoverable standards to determine when gerrymandering violates the Constitution, and therefore, challenges to partisan gerrymandering are nonjusticiable political questions.

Question 27

What are the 3 limits on federal judicial power?

Answer 27

• Interpretive
• Congressional (Statutory)
• Justiciability

Question 28

What factors does a court consider in ripeness policy implications?

Answer 28

• Fitness for judicial review/is there a legal issue

- Hardship to the parties if the court withholds judgement