Federal Judicial Power Flashcards
What is the significance of justiciability?
A case must be justiciable to be heard in fed. court, which means there must be a case or controversy presented.
What requirements must be satisfied for a case to be justiciable?
To determine whether a case or controversy exists, the case must satisfy requirements for:
1) Standing
2) Ripeness
3) Mootness
4) Political question doctrine
What must be shown to establish standing?
A party must have a concrete interest in the outcome of a claim to have the claim heard in fed. court
Requirements:
Injury — P must have suffered some injury or show a likelihood of imminent injury
Causation and redressability — P must allege that D caused the injury and that the court can grant a proper remedy
No generalized grievances — P cannot sue solely as a U.S. citizen or taxpayer to compel the govt. to act in a particular way
Exception — taxpayers have standing to challenge specific govt. expenditures pursuant to the Establishment Clause
What role can Congress play in conferring standing?
Congress — cannot automatically confer standing, but can create new rights that, if violated, may give rise to standing.
What is third-party standing and when is it permissible?
Third-party standing — a P with standing may assert the rights of a third party where P has suffered injury and either:
1) P’s injury adversely affects his relationship with third parties
E.g., bar owner could assert underage males’ rights in challenging ban on beer sales to underage males.
2) Injured party is unlikely or unable to assert his own rights
E.g., association could challenge law requiring disclosure of member identities b/c members could not challenge law directly without revealing their identities
When may an organization sue on behalf of its members?
Organizational standing — organizations always have standing if the injury is to the organization itself
Suits on behalf of members — organizations may sue on members’ behalf if:
1) Members would have standing to sue individually;
2) Injury is related to the organization’s purpose; and
3) Neither claim nor relief requires participation of individual members
If a P files a suit seeking review of a law that has not yet gone into effect, on what grounds would a court most likely find P’s case non-justiciable?
Ripeness — P has been harmed or suffers an immediate threat of harm.
P is not entitled to review of a law or govt. act before it has been effectuated.
When would a claim be considered moot? Are there exception and, if so, what are they?
Mootness — a live controversy must exist at all stages of review.
If circumstances causing P’s harm cease to exist after P files suit, the case must be dismissed as moot.
What would cause a claim to be dismissed as unripe?
P has been not been harmed or does not suffer an immediate threat of harm.
P is not entitled to review of a law or govt. act before it has been effectuated
When may a claim that is otherwise moot still be heard?
Mootness — a live controversy must exist at all stages of review
If circumstances causing P’s harm cease to exist after P files suit, the case must be dismissed as moot
Exceptions:
1) Wrongs capable of repetition but evading review.
Arises where injury ceases before complete litigation of the claim, but P can reasonably expect to be subject to the same harm in the future
E.g., a disabled bar examinee seeks an injunction b/c of denied accommodations and can’t take the exam b/c it occurs before his case is heard; not moot b/c he will need to take the bar exam again
2) Voluntary cessation by D — D has ceased the acts giving rise to P’s suit, but can resume them at any time.
3) Class action lawsuits — only one member of the class must have an ongoing injury.
What is the political question doctrine and what issues involve political questions?
Fed. courts will not adjudicate certain constitutional issues that constitute political questions
Political questions involve issues that:
Const. commits to another branch of govt. (i.e., not the judiciary), or
Are inherently incapable of judicial resolution or enforcement
Would a challenge to impeachment and removal proceedings be considered a political question?
Yes! Common political questions deemed non-justiciable:
1) Actions under the “republican form of government” clause.
2) Challenges to the conduct of foreign policy.
3) Challenges to impeachment and removal proceedings
Can the Supreme Court review a state court decision based on state law?
Supreme Court cannot review a state court decision that rested on an independent, adequate state law ground.
I.e., if the state decision is based on fed. and state law, the Supreme Court will not grant review unless the decision cannot stand on the state grounds alone
Over what types of cases does the Supreme Court have original and exclusive jurisdiction?
Original jurisdiction — Under Art. III, Supreme Court has original jx over suits between states and cases involving foreign ambassadors and other foreign ministers; such cases must be filed in fed. court
To what extent can Congress expand the Supreme Court’s original jx?
Congress cannot expand Court’s original jx to other types of cases.
