Federal Judicial Power Flashcards
In federal court, standing requires __________.
A concrete stake in the outcome is required for standing in federal court. A person has standing if she can demonstrate a concrete stake in the outcome of the controversy shown by an injury in fact-caused by the government-that can be remedied by a ruling in the plaintiff’s favor (i.e., causation and redressability).
An injury in fact is required for standing. A plaintiff must have a stake in the controversy. Some specific injury must be alleged, and it must be more than merely theoretical.
Causation is required for standing. There must be a causal connection between the conduct complained of and the injury.
Redressability is required for standing. A court asks whether a ruling favorable to the plaintiff will eliminate the harm to her.
One of the requirements for standing in federal court is that a decision in the plaintiff’s favor will eliminate the harm to the plaintiff.
This concept is known as ____________.
Redressibility is the part of standing that provides that a decision in the plaintiff’s favor must be able to remedy the harm.
What is justiciability?
Justiciability refers to the concept that a case may be tried in court. In federal courts it is a broad term that encompasses a number of more specific topics, such as ripeness, mootness, and standing.
As part of a deal to raise the federal debt limit, Congress passed a statute by a greater than two-thirds vote in both houses giving the President authority to cancel particular spending provisions that are contained within legislation that he signs into law. The statute provided that Congress could override the President’s decisions only by a three-fourths vote. As soon as the statute went into effect, a Senator who had voted against the statute filed suit in federal district court, challenging its constitutionality.
Is the Senator likely to succeed in her lawsuit?
The Senator will not succeed because she lacks standing to challenge the statute. SCOTUS has held that members of Congress lack standing to challenge a law authorizing the President to exercise a line item veto (such as the statute here), reasoning that the injury is not concrete and personal, but rather is institutional in that it is shared by all members of Congress.
Congress adopted a law granting a state university $2.5 million to study the properties of snowflakes. An outraged taxpayer filed suit to challenge the appropriation.
What is the best argument against this challenge?
The best argument is that the taxpayer lacks standing. Generally, taxpayers lack standing to challenge federal appropriations. There is an exception for expenditures violating the Establishment Clause, but that is not the case here.
A woman whose child attended a charter school learned that the children of the woman’s neighbor who attended a parochial school received a hot lunch paid for, in part, through federal expenditures enacted under Congress’s spending power. The charter school received no funding from the federal government. The woman challenged this federal expenditure as a violation of the Establishment Clause.
For her to bring the suit, at the very least what must the woman allege?
The woman must allege that she pays federal income taxes and that the use of federal funds in this manner is improper under Congress’s taxing and spending power. In general, a taxpayer has no standing to challenge the expenditure of federal funds. The major exception to this rule is where the taxpayer alleges that the expenditure was enacted under Congress’s taxing and spending power, and exceeds some specific limitation on that power, in particular the Establishment Clause. Here, by providing federal tax money to parochial schools, there may be excessive entanglement with religion and thus a violation of the Establishment Clause. Thus, the woman would have standing to contest this federal expenditure. The woman would not have to have children to make this challenge. However, she would have to be a taxpayer.
In compliance with a federal statute that permits government agencies to sell or give away surplus government property, the SoS directed that one of the State Department’s surplus airplanes be given to a church. The Secretary knew that the church planned to use the plane to fly medical supplies to its missions abroad. These missions provide medical assistance, and attempt to evangelize residents of the countries in question, and might transport Bibles and religious tracts translated into local languages. Had the Secretary not ordered the plane to be given to the church, it would have been sold at a very reasonable cost to a nonprofit organization that helps teach young people the fundamentals of piloting and maintaining aircraft.
Which of the following parties would be most likely to have standing to sue to prevent the Secretary of State from making the gift to the church?
A A taxpayer.
B A citizen of the United States.
C A member of the nonprofit flying organization.
D The attorney general of the state in which the airplane is located.
A member of the nonprofit flying association is most likely to have standing to challenge the gift. To have standing to challenge government action on constitutional grounds, a person must show that he has a concrete stake in the outcome of the litigation. This is to ensure adequate presentation of the issues. To have such a stake, the potential litigant must show that he has an injury in fact caused by the government that is more than the theoretical injury that all persons suffer when the government engages in unconstitutional acts, and that a decision in his favor will eliminate his harm. A member of the flying association can show both components here: If the gift is unconstitutional, the association has suffered more than a theoretical injury-it has lost the opportunity to purchase the airplane from the federal government at a good price, and a decision in the club’s favor will eliminate the injury because it will then be able to purchase the plane. Thus, the member of the nonprofit flying organization has standing.
What is adequate and independent state grounds?
If adequate AND independent state grounds support the decision, SCOTUS will not review the state court decision. If the state grounds are fully dispositive of the case and do not depend on federal case law interpretation, federal review would be pointless because regardless of how any federal issue is resolved, the state law grounds would support the state judgment. But if the state grounds are not adequate to support the judgment or are not independent of federal law, the federal courts will hear the case. If the state court decision turns on federal grounds and is from the highest court in the state, SCOTUS can review the state court decision.
What factors are considered to determine if an organization has standing?
An organization has standing to challenge government actions that cause an injury in fact to its members if the organization can demonstrate the following:
(i) An injury in fact to org’s members that would give individual members a right to sue on their own behalf;
(ii) The injury to members must be related to org’s purpose; and
(iii) neither the nature of the claim nor relief requested requires participation of individual members in the lawsuit.
T/F: Ripeness bars consideration of claims before they have been developed; mootness bars their consideration after they have been resolved.
True.
What are the requirements for standing?
(i) injury in fact - which is particularized (personal to P) and concrete (exists)
(ii) causation
(iii) redressability - decision would help P
T/F: P can get standing to enforce a federal statute if she is within the “zone of interests” Congress meant to protect.
True.
T/F: For a taxpayer to have standing, Congress’s spending power must be involved.
True. A taxpayer generally can’t have standing to challenge government expenditures unless there is spending at issue.
Can a taxpayer have standing to sue to challenge federal grants of surplus property to religious groups?
Taxpayer will not have standing unless there’s spending at issue and it is not here.
T/F: Federal courts can’t hear a private party or foreign government’s claims against a state government.
True.
