federal judicial power

Question 1

What are justiciability issues

Answer 1

1. standing
2. Ripeness
3. not moot
4. not a political question
5. not an advisory opinon

Question 2

what is standing?

Answer 2

Standing is the issue of whether the plaintiff is the proper party to bring a matter to the court for adjudication

Question 3

What are the requirements for standing?

Answer 3

1. Injury
2. Causation
3. Redressability

Question 4

What does a plaintiff need to show for injury?

Answer 4

the plaintiff must allege and prove that they have been injured or imminently or certainly impending that they will be injured. Not hypothetical. Plaintiffs may only assert injuries that they have personally suffered.

Question 5

Causation and redressability?

Answer 5

The plaintiff must allege and prove that the defendant caused the injury and It is likely that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.

Question 6

Prudential issues

Answer 6

1. third party standing
2. general grievances

Question 7

third party standing

Answer 7

third party standing is allowed if:
a) injury
b) close relationship with 3rd party. P must show standing first

ii. Exception: third party standing is allowed if the injured third party is unlikely to be able to assert his or her own rights
iii. Exception: an organization may sue for its members, if
— the members would have standing to sue;
— the interests are germane to the organization’s purpose;
— neither the claim nor relief requires participation of
individual members

Question 8

generalized grievances

Answer 8

the plaintiff must not be suing solely as a citizen or as a taxpayer interested in having the government follow the law

Question 9

exceptions to no generalized grievances

Answer 9

taxpayers have standing to challenge government expenditures pursuant to federal statutes as vioalting the Establishment Clause. ONLY FOR GOVERNMENT GRANTS OF MONEY PURSUANT TO FEDERAL STATUTE OR STATE AND LOCAL GOV (no standing for tax credits)

Question 10

Ripeness

Answer 10

A case must be alive dispute involving actual harm or immediate threat of harm

Question 11

What do you look for for issues of ripeness

Answer 11

1. the hardship that will be suffered without pre-enforcment review. The greater the hardship the more likely the federal court will hear the case.
2. the fitness of the issues and the record for judicial review. is there any reason why the court should wait to hear the case?

Question 12

Mootness

Answer 12

Live controversy must exist at each stage of review or will be dismissed as moot. if events after the filling of a lawsuit end the plaintiff’s injury, the case must be dismissed as moot.

Question 13

Exceptions for mootness

Answer 13

1. Wrong capable of repetition but evading review.
2. voluntary cessation - D halts practice, but is legally and technically free to resume the offending practice at any time
3. Class action suits - if named P in class action becomes moot, if another P in class has ongoing injury it it will not be moot.

Question 14

Political question doctrine

Answer 14

the political question doctrine refers to constitutional violations that the federal courts will not adjudicate.
1. The “republiacn form of government clause.” Elected representatives questions.
2. Challenges to the President’s conduct of foreign policy
3. Challenges to the impeachment and removal process
4. Challenges to partisan gerrymandering

Question 15

How do cases get to the supreme court? 4 ways

Answer 15

1. All cases from state courts come to the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari
2. All cases from US courts of appeals come to the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari
3. Appeals exist for decisions of three-judge federal district courts.
4. the Supreme court has original and exclusive jurisdiction for suits between state governments.

Question 16

At what point can the supreme court hear a case?

Answer 16

Generally, the Supreme Court may hear cases only after there has been a final judgment of the highest state court, of a United States Court of Appeals, or of a three-judge federal district court

Question 17

May lower federal courts hear cases against state governments?

Answer 17

No. Federal courts may not hear suits against state governments

Question 18

Principal of Sovereign Immunity, what is it (2 things)

Answer 18

1. The Eleventh Amendment bars suits against states in federal court
2. Sovereign immunity bars suits against states in state courts or federal agencies

Question 19

Marbury v Madison

Answer 19

The court recognized its power of judicial review, the court’s authority to review laws and legislative acts to determine whether they pass constitutional standards. It is the province and duty of the judicial department to say what hte law is.

Question 20

Cohens v Virginia

Answer 20

Court found Supreme court has authority to review state court criminal proceedings/ judgments where there are federal law or constitutional questions involved

Question 21

Ex Parte McCardle

Issue: Did Congress have the authority to strip the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over habeas corpus cases during Reconstruction?

Answer 21

Background: McCardle, a newspaper editor, was arrested by military authorities in Mississippi during Reconstruction. He petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging the military’s jurisdiction.

Ruling: Before the Court could make a decision, Congress passed a law withdrawing the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over certain habeas corpus cases. As a result, McCardle’s case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Significance: Established that Congress has the power to limit the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction, as explicitly granted in Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution.

Question 22

US v Klein

Issue: Did Congress overstep its constitutional authority by prescribing rules for executive pardon cases and directing the courts to disregard pardons in certain circumstances?

Answer 22

Background: John Klein’s property was confiscated during the Civil War due to alleged support for the Confederacy. After the war, Congress enacted a law stating that pardon by the President did not restore confiscated property.

Ruling: The Court held that Congress cannot dictate rules to the judiciary or restrict the effect of pardons granted by the President. The law was deemed unconstitutional as it intruded upon the President’s pardon power.

Significance: Reinforced the separation of powers doctrine by affirming the limitations on Congress’s authority to dictate specific rules to the judiciary, especially regarding executive powers.

Question 23

Article III, Section 2

1. “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution,..”
2. “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.”
3. “In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”

Answer 23

1. Grants the judicial power of the United States to federal courts.
2. Specifies the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in cases involving ambassadors, public ministers, and disputes in which a state is a party.
3. Allows Congress to make exceptions and regulations to the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction.

Question 24

Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc.

Issue: Can Congress retroactively revive dismissed private securities fraud lawsuits that were previously barred by the statute of limitations?

prohibition of advisory opinion

Answer 24

Background: Investors sued Spendthrift Farm for securities fraud. Their cases were dismissed due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.

Ruling: Congress passed a law attempting to revive these cases retroactively. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that this violated the Constitution’s separation of powers, as it intruded upon the judiciary’s authority to decide cases.

Significance: Emphasized the constitutional limits on Congress’s power to retroactively change the legal status of dismissed cases, preserving the finality of judgments.

Question 25

Allen v Wright

Issue: Did the parents of black students have standing to challenge the IRS’s tax-exempt status for racially discriminatory private schools, claiming it harmed their children’s education?

Standing

Answer 25

Background: Parents of black students sued, arguing that the IRS’s failure to deny tax-exempt status to racially discriminatory private schools harmed their children by perpetuating segregation.

Ruling: The Court held that the parents lacked standing because they couldn’t establish a direct connection between the IRS’s actions and the alleged harm to their children’s education.

Significance: Clarified the requirements for standing, emphasizing the need for a concrete and particularized injury directly linked to the defendant’s actions.

Question 26

City of Los Angles v Lyons

Issue: Did Lyons, who alleged police misconduct, have standing to seek an injunction against the city’s police department’s use of chokeholds?

Standing for damages, but is there standing for declartory judgment?

Answer 26

Background: Lyons sued, claiming he was subjected to an unconstitutional chokehold by police. He sought an injunction to prevent the police department from using chokeholds in the future.

Ruling: The Court held that Lyons lacked standing because he couldn’t demonstrate a likelihood of being subjected to the same injury in the future. To establish an actual controversy, the injury must be concrete and imminent for standing to exist. ex. if there was a policy saying cop should use chokehold, there would be standing

Significance: Emphasized the importance of a credible threat of future harm for standing to seek injunctive relief, setting a high standard for plaintiffs in similar cases.

Question 27

Clapper v. Amnesty International USA

Issue: Did the plaintiffs, challenging the constitutionality of the FISA Amendments Act, have standing to sue if they couldn’t show they were under surveillance, but feared future surveillance?

Answer 27

• Plaintiffs, including Amnesty International, challenged the constitutionality of the FISA Amendments Act, which authorized warrantless surveillance of non-U.S. persons outside the United States.
  ○ Not individual citizens
  ○ Establishes injury for confidentiality reasons and will likely do it in the future too
  ○ The court argued that the fear of future surveillance is too speculative and hypothetical
  ○ There wasn’t sufficient information for the injury to happen again
  ○It must be CERTAINLY impending

        Significance: Emphasized the importance of a credible threat of imminent harm for standing, particularly in cases involving surveillance and national security.

Question 28

Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Organization

redressability

Answer 28

Background: Plaintiffs were denied medical care by tax exempt hospitals. Ps challenged IRS revision limiting the amount of free medical care that hospitals were required to provide

Ruling: Supreme Court denied standing, it was “purely speculative” and there would be no way for respondents would revive treatement the y desire so no redressability

Question 29

Duke Power Co. v Carolina Environmental Study

is there causation and redressability?

Answer 29

The court condluded that the causationand redressability tests were met bc but for the Price Anderson Act the reactor would not be built and hte paintiffs would not suffer these harms. The Price Andersons Act was found constitutional.

Question 30

Poe v Ullman

Is the petitioners’ claim ripe for judicial review?

Answer 30

Background: Poe challenged Connecticut’s law criminalizing the use of contraceptives, claiming it violated the right to marital privacy.

Ruling: The Court dismissed the case, finding it was not justiciable at that time due to the lack of an actual prosecution or threat of prosecution. It didn’t reach the constitutional question.

Dissent. Justice William Douglas (J. Douglas) argues that the mere threat of prosecution is injury in fact, that it is “not the choice worthy of a civilized society” to require individuals to risk penalty for their behavior to have their constitutional rights determined.

Question 31

Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner

Did Congress, by its Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, intend to forbid pre-enforcement review of the sort of regulations promulgated by the Commissioner? Were the issues ripe for judicial decision? Would withholding court consideration result in hardship to the parties?

Answer 31

No. Nothing in the Act itself precludes pre-enforcement review. A review of the legislative history of the Act reveals that the specific review provisions were designed to provide an additional remedy, and not to cut down more traditional channels of review. The Act itself states, “The remedies provided for in this subsection shall be in addition to and not in substitution for any other remedies provided by law.”

Yes, the issues presented were ripe for judicial consideration, and withholding judicial consideration would result in hardship to the parties.

Courts should look to the text of the statute itself, along with the legislative history, to determine the intended application and scope. In this case, pre- enforcement review was not precluded by the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. Pursuant to the Constitution of the United States, there must be an actual case or controversy in order for the Supreme Court of the United States to grant certiorari. Under the Administrative Procedure Act, “final agency actions” are considered ripe for judicial review. Here, the Petitioners would have suffered an operational and financial hardship if judicial consideration was withheld.

Question 32

Regional rail reorganization act case

Answer 32

Its not justiciable because the plans haven’t even formulated BUT supreme court held that the case was ripe - it was inevitable of the operation of a statute against certain individuals

Question 33

Moore v Ogilvie

Wrongs capable of repetition but evading review

Answer 33

Background: Moore, an independent candidate for Illinois governor, challenged the state law that required him to obtain signatures equal to 5% of the last vote for the same office, while candidates of established parties needed only 0.5%.
Ruling: although election was done, the issue would come up again and again ( wasn’t able to be on ballot)

Question 34

Roe v Wade

Wrongs capable of repetition but evading review

Answer 34

it would be an issue that occurred again and again but would evade review (since baby would be born much faster than time it would take to get to court)

Question 35

Friends of the Earth, Inc v. Laidlaw Environmental Services

Issue: Did Laidlaw’s compliance with environmental regulations render the citizens’ suit under the Clean Water Act moot, and did the citizens have standing to bring the lawsuit?

Voluntary cessation

Answer 35

Background: Friends of the Earth sued Laidlaw for violating the Clean Water Act. Laidlaw argued that its compliance with regulations rendered the case moot and that the citizens lacked standing.

Ruling: The Court held that the citizens had standing because they demonstrated an injury in fact, and the case was not moot. There was a reasonable expectation that Laidlaw would violate the Clean Water Act again in the future, and the citizens had a right to seek an injunction.

Significance: Clarified the standards for standing and mootness in citizen suits under environmental laws, emphasizing the importance of a credible threat of future harm to establish standing.

Question 36

United States Parole Commission v. Geraghty

Issue: Did a prisoner have the right to represent a class in a lawsuit challenging parole procedures, even after his individual claim became moot?

Mootness: class action exception

Answer 36

Background: Geraghty, a prisoner, brought a class action challenging the constitutionality of parole procedures. His individual claim became moot when he was released, but he sought to represent the class.

Ruling: The Court held that Geraghty had the right to represent the class, and the case was not moot. The “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception applied because the parole procedures could affect other class members, and individual claims might become moot before reaching a final resolution.

Significance: Established that a named plaintiff in a class action could continue to represent the class even if the individual claim becomes moot, as long as the case falls within the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception.

Question 37

Baker v Carr

Issue: Did the Supreme Court have jurisdiction over questions of legislative apportionment, and could it intervene in cases involving alleged malapportionment of state legislative districts?

Political Question

Answer 37

Background: Baker, a Tennessee resident, challenged the state’s legislative district apportionment, claiming it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Ruling: The Court held that the apportionment issue was justiciable, rejecting the political question doctrine. It established the principle that federal courts could intervene in cases of malapportionment and declared that state legislative districts must be apportioned based on population, following the “one person, one vote” principle.

Significance: Significantly influenced the “one person, one vote” standard for legislative districts, ensuring more equal representation based on population and opening the door for federal courts to address issues of legislative apportionment.

Question 38

Powell v McCormack

Issue: Could the U.S. House of Representatives**exclude **Powell, a duly elected member, based on alleged misconduct not listed in the Constitution’s qualifications for membership?

political question doctrine

Answer 38

Background: Powell, a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, faced exclusion by the House for alleged misconduct not expressly listed as a qualification in the Constitution.

Ruling: The Court held that the House’s exclusion of Powell exceeded its authority - House has power to EXPEL members under Article 1, Section 5 not exlcude. The Constitution explicitly outlines the qualifications for congressional membership, and the House cannot add additional qualifications beyond those specified.

Question 39

Goldwater v Carter

Issue: Did President Carter exceed his constitutional authority by unilaterally terminating a defense treaty with Taiwan without the approval of Congress?

Foreign relations out of court power

Answer 39

Background: President Carter terminated a defense treaty with Taiwan as part of the normalization of relations with the People’s Republic of China. Goldwater, a senator, challenged the President’s authority to unilaterally terminate the treaty without Congress’s approval.

Ruling: The Court dismissed the case, invoking the political question doctrine. It held that the issue involved a political question beyond the reach of the judiciary, as it concerned the President’s conduct of foreign affairs, a realm traditionally left to the executive and legislative branches.

Question 40

Nixon v United States

Impeachment and removal powers

Answer 40

Background: Walter L. Nixon Jr., a federal judge, was impeached and removed from office by Congress. He challenged the constitutionality of the Senate’s impeachment trial procedures.

Ruling: The Court held that the issue of a federal judge’s impeachment and removal is a non-justiciable political question since the IMpeachment clause expressly granted that the “Sentate shall have sole Power to try any impeachents.”. The Constitution grants the impeachment power solely to Congress, and the judiciary should not interfere with the impeachment process.