FEDERAL JUDICIAL POWER Flashcards
Justiciability
For a case to be heard in federal court, it must be justifiable, meaning a case or controversy must exist.
To determine whether a case or controversy exists, the case must satisfy requirements for:
1) Standing
2) Ripeness
3) Mootness
4) Political Question Doctrine
Standing
A party must have a concrete interest in the outcome of the a claim to have it heard in federal court
Requirements:
1) Injury–P must have suffered some injury or show a likelihood of imminent injury
2) 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 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 ($ only)
Congress–Cannot automatically confer standing, but can create new rights that, if violated, may give rise to standing
* Members of Congress lack standing to challenge vetoes or any action that is institutional (e.g. shared by all members of Congress) rather than concrete and personal
Third Party Standing
A P may assert the rights of another where P has suffered and injury either:
a) P’s Injury adversely affects his relationship with third parties (close relationship): OR
b) Injured party is unlikely or unable to assert his own rights
Organizational Standing
Organizations always have standing if the injury is to the organization itself.
- Organizations may also sue on behalf of members if:
a) Members would have standing to sue individually;
b) Injury is related to the organizations purpose (Key Term: germane); and
c) Neither claim nor relief requires participation of individual members
Ripeness
To be justiciable in federal court, a case must not contain a ripe claim and a live controversy (i.e. it cannot be moot)
Ripeness–P not entitled to review of a law before it is enforced
* I.e. Court will not hear a case unless P has been harmed or suffers an immediate threat of harm
Tip: Request for Declaratory Judgment triggers a Ripeness issue
Mootness
Mootness–A live controversy must exists at all stages of review
* If circumstances causing P’s asserted 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 when 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 injunction b/c of denial of 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 (legally) resume them at any time
3) Class Action Law Suits–Only one member of the class must have an ongoing injury
Politcal Question Doctrine
Federal courts will not adjudicate certain constitutional issues that constitute political questions
Political questions involve issues that:
a) The Constitution commits to another branch of the govt (i.e. not the judiciary) OR
b) Are incapable of judicial resolution or enforcement
Four common political questions deemed non-justiciable:
1) Actions under the “republican form of government” clause int he Constitution
2) Challenges to the President’s conduct of foreign policy
3) Challenges to impeachment and removal proceedings
4) Challenges to partisan gerrymandering (election districts)
Non-political questions deemed justiciable:
1) Legislative apportionment
2) Production of presidential papers/communications
Supreme Court Review
Methods of Supreme Court review:
1) Discretionary Review–Most cases get to the USSC by writ of certiorari; the Court then decides whether to grant review
2) Mandatory Review–The Court must take appeals from 3-judge district court panels regardless of injunctive relief
» This bypasses the courts of appeal
3) Original & Exclusive Jurisdiction–Suits between states
» These suits must be filed in the SC
Final Judgment Rule–SC only hears cases on review if there has been a final judgment of a lower federal court or a state’s highest court
State Court Decisions–SC CANNOT review a state court decision that rested on independent, adequate state law ground
* i.e. If the state decision is based on federal and state law, the SC will not grant review unless the decision cannot stand on the state grounds alone
Sovereign Immunity
The 11th A bars suit against state govts in federal court. Federal courts cannot hear claims from a private party or foreign govt against a state govt
EXCEPTIONS: Suits against state govts are allowed if:
1) The state explicitly waives sovereign immunity or consents
2) The suit involves the enforcement of law under Section 5 of the 14th A and Congress has removed immunity (aka Congress consent)
3) The federal govt brings suit
4) Bankruptcy proceedings
Suits against state officers–Can be brought in federal court if the suit involves either:
a) Injunctive relief claim for violation of the Const. or federal law; OR
b) Claim for money damages to be paid by the state officer personally
Federal Judicial Power Quick Recap
A. Justiciability: The requirement for cases and controversies.
- Standing: Injury in fact, causation, Redressability.
- Ripeness: Hardship that would be suffered without pre-enforcement review vs. fitness of issue and record for judicial review.
- Mootness exceptions: Voluntary cessation, capable of repetition, class action.
- Political question: No to republican form of government, president’s foreign policy, impeachment challenges.
B. Supreme Court review
- Writ of certiorari: Almost all cases come to Supreme Court by writ of certiorari.
- 3-judge federal dc appeals
- Suits between states: Original and exclusive jurisdiction.
- No reviewing state court decisions if there is a separate state law ground for decision
C. Lower federal court review
- Justiciability standards: As above.
- No to: Suits against state (11th amendment)
a) Suits against state officers: OK
