Federal Judicial Powers - Justiciability Doctrine

Question 1

Can judges/courts issue advisory opinions to other branches of the government?

Answer 1

no - separation of powers

Question 2

What power does Article II, section 2 give?

Answer 2

It gives the power for the president to request opinions from his executive officers - not the courts.

Question 3

What does Article III, section 2 say?

Answer 3

cases and controversies as prescribed by the constitution must meet the justicability (what a court can hear) requirements

Question 4

can courts review on issues that are political questions?

Answer 4

no

Question 5

What does the constitution require for cases or controversies before a court can review?

Answer 5

Standing and ripeness

Question 6

What are the 3 requirements for standing?

Answer 6

1. Injury in fact
2. causation
3. redressability

Question 7

What does injury in fact in having standing mean?

Answer 7

Actual or imminent injury

Question 8

Is there standing if a party claims a general harm not affecting them personally?

Answer 8

no

Question 9

How did City of Los Angeles v. Lyons apply to having standing?

Answer 9

No standing because no injury in fact. In suing police department for using chokeholds— plaintiff could not show he would be subject to a chokehold in the future.

Question 10

What does causation mean in having standing mean?

Answer 10

harm must be traceable to the action being challenged

Question 11

How did Simon v. Kennedy Welfare Rights apply to having standing?

Answer 11

patients claimed cause of harm was being denied medical care

Question 12

What does redressability in having standing mean?

Answer 12

must show that relief sought would remedy the harm

Sometimes standing can be shown before the harm actually occurs, because after the fact, there would be no remedy (common in environmental cases

Question 13

How did Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife apply to having standing?

Answer 13

Redressability - where a governmental action is not directed at a particular person, the plaintiff may have to plead more facts in order to establish standing.

Question 14

What does ripeness mean for a case or controversy?

Answer 14

A constitutional question must be “ripe” and is only so when the governmental action in question has direct adverse effect upon the individual making the challenge

Question 15

When are there typically issues with ripeness not being met?

Answer 15

When the party seeks to challenge a statute before the government has actually applied it to that party

Question 16

What does exparte young apply to in the justicability doctrine?

Answer 16

ripeness

Question 17

What is the rule of law that comes from exparte young?

Answer 17

Private actions may be brought in federal court against state officials, even though states have sovereign immunity.

criminal statutes are often ripe for judicial review in advance of prosecution – the court permitted an injunction against enforcement of a state statute containing penalties.

Question 18

What is the rule of law that comes from United Public Workers v. Mitchell?

Answer 18

Pursuant to Article III, federal courts may not render advisory opinions on broad constitutional issues in the absence of an actual interference with the parties interests

Here, threats this was threats to future political activites

Question 19

What does mootness mean in the justicability doctrine?

Answer 19

If an action will have no bearing on the problem/plaintiff, the point is moot, and there is no point for the court to rule. If the issue is “stale” and no longer a controversy.

Question 20

What is the exception to mootness?

Answer 20

If the case is capable of repetition, the court may decide it is not moot.

Question 21

What was the rule of law that came from Defunis v. Odegaard?

Answer 21

Pursuant to the limitations of Article III of the Constitution, an issue is moot, and not capable of federal court review, if its resolution would no longer affect the rights of the litigants at the time they are before the court

Question 22

What is a famous case that could have been considered moot but fell into the exception?

Answer 22

Roe v. Wade

pregnancy was already over, so it was moot, but this issue was capable of repetition

Question 23

What was the rule of law that came from Baker v. Carr

Answer 23

A challenge to the poor organization of state legislatures brought under the Equal Protection Clause is not a political question and thus is justiciable.

Question 24

What is the test (6) instances/question SCOTUS will not decide on (from Baker v. Carr)?

Answer 24

1. When the Constitution says the issue is constitutionally committed to one of the other branches (Nixon v. United States).
2. When there is a lack of law to decide the issue.
3. When deciding the issue would first require the court to make a policy determination that is not within the court’s discretion
4. When deciding the issue would be a lack of respect to one of the other branches.
5. an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision that has already been made
6. When there is a potential for embarrassment by having different departments respond different to the same issue.

Question 25

What is the rule of law from Goldwater v. Carter?

Answer 25

A unilateral action by the president to rescind a treaty without Senate involvement is a non-justiciable political question incapable of adjudication.

Question 26

Is and issue of political question justiciable or not?

Answer 26

a political question is not justiciable

Question 27

Is the termination of treaties a political question? If so, is it reviewable by SCOTUS?

Answer 27

It is a political question and it is not reviewable by SCOTUS because they do not review issues that evolve around political questions

Question 28

What was justice powell’s concurring opinion in Goldwater v. Carter?

Answer 28

case is not ripe because resolution protesting Carter’s actions had not yet been passed by Congress

Question 29

What was justice rehnquists opinon in Goldwater v. Carter?

Answer 29

no constitutional basis to rule on the case because the Constitution is silent as to how to revoke a treaty – a lack of law = no standard for the court to apply and since it’s not law then its left to politics

Question 30

What was justice brennens dissent in Goldwater v. Carter?

Answer 30

thinks President has the power to abrogate treaties from Article II, section 2, clauses 2-3 which gives power to recognize nations

Question 31

What were the methods of reasoning in Nixon v. U.S.?

Answer 31

textual, framers intent, prgamatic

Question 32

What was the rule of law that came from Nixon v. U.S.?

Answer 32

Senate impeachment proceedings is a non-justiciable political question incapable of judicial adjudication

Congress/Senate (via Article I) has sole power of impeachments, therefore has power regarding them. This is a political question and the court cannot rule.

Question 33

What was the rule of law that came from Zivotofsky v. Clinton?

Answer 33

The Constitution grants courts, not the political branches, the authority to determine the constitutionality of statutes

Not a political question—was about the constitutionality of the statute regarding the separation of powers.