Federal Judicial Powers - Justiciability Doctrine Flashcards
Can judges/courts issue advisory opinions to other branches of the government?
no - separation of powers
What power does Article II, section 2 give?
It gives the power for the president to request opinions from his executive officers - not the courts.
What does Article III, section 2 say?
cases and controversies as prescribed by the constitution must meet the justicability (what a court can hear) requirements
can courts review on issues that are political questions?
no
What does the constitution require for cases or controversies before a court can review?
Standing and ripeness
What are the 3 requirements for standing?
- Injury in fact
- causation
- redressability
What does injury in fact in having standing mean?
Actual or imminent injury
Is there standing if a party claims a general harm not affecting them personally?
no
How did City of Los Angeles v. Lyons apply to having standing?
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.
What does causation mean in having standing mean?
harm must be traceable to the action being challenged
How did Simon v. Kennedy Welfare Rights apply to having standing?
patients claimed cause of harm was being denied medical care
What does redressability in having standing mean?
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
How did Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife apply to having standing?
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.
What does ripeness mean for a case or controversy?
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
When are there typically issues with ripeness not being met?
When the party seeks to challenge a statute before the government has actually applied it to that party
What does exparte young apply to in the justicability doctrine?
ripeness
What is the rule of law that comes from exparte young?
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.
What is the rule of law that comes from United Public Workers v. Mitchell?
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
What does mootness mean in the justicability doctrine?
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.
What is the exception to mootness?
If the case is capable of repetition, the court may decide it is not moot.
What was the rule of law that came from Defunis v. Odegaard?
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
What is a famous case that could have been considered moot but fell into the exception?
Roe v. Wade
pregnancy was already over, so it was moot, but this issue was capable of repetition
What was the rule of law that came from Baker v. Carr
A challenge to the poor organization of state legislatures brought under the Equal Protection Clause is not a political question and thus is justiciable.
What is the test (6) instances/question SCOTUS will not decide on (from Baker v. Carr)?
- When the Constitution says the issue is constitutionally committed to one of the other branches (Nixon v. United States).
- When there is a lack of law to decide the issue.
- When deciding the issue would first require the court to make a policy determination that is not within the court’s discretion
- When deciding the issue would be a lack of respect to one of the other branches.
- an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision that has already been made
- When there is a potential for embarrassment by having different departments respond different to the same issue.
What is the rule of law from Goldwater v. Carter?
A unilateral action by the president to rescind a treaty without Senate involvement is a non-justiciable political question incapable of adjudication.
Is and issue of political question justiciable or not?
a political question is not justiciable
Is the termination of treaties a political question? If so, is it reviewable by SCOTUS?
It is a political question and it is not reviewable by SCOTUS because they do not review issues that evolve around political questions
What was justice powell’s concurring opinion in Goldwater v. Carter?
case is not ripe because resolution protesting Carter’s actions had not yet been passed by Congress
What was justice rehnquists opinon in Goldwater v. Carter?
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
What was justice brennens dissent in Goldwater v. Carter?
thinks President has the power to abrogate treaties from Article II, section 2, clauses 2-3 which gives power to recognize nations
What were the methods of reasoning in Nixon v. U.S.?
textual, framers intent, prgamatic
What was the rule of law that came from Nixon v. U.S.?
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.
What was the rule of law that came from Zivotofsky v. Clinton?
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.
