Federal Powers Flashcards
What does the federal judicial power include?
– Dispute resolution and interpretation: extends to “cases and controversies” as enumerated in Article III
– The power of judicial review (constitutionality of acts of other branches and the states)
What powers does Congress have over Article III courts?
Subject to case/controversy requirement and within the bounds of the enumerated controversies in Art III
Congress may establish lower federal courts and prescribe their original and appellate jurisdictions.
What powers does Congress have to create courts outside Article III?
Congress can create territorial courts and courts pursuant to its own Article I powers (e.g., tax courts) but may not intrude on the jurisdiction of Article III
What is the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction?
All cases affecting ambassadors, public ministers, consuls, and those in which a state is a party
What is the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction?
Over all cases to which federal judicial power extends, subject to Congressional exceptions and regulations
How may a case reach the Supreme Court?
Usually by writ of certiorari, which the Court has complete discretion to hear or not (cases from state courts over which SCOTUS has jurisdiction, cases from federal appeals courts)
Sometimes by appeal as of right – solely three-judge federal district court panels granting or denying injunctive relief
What are the key justiciability limitations on federal court jurisdiction?
The case must be a "case[] or controvers[y]" (Art III, S 2) There can be no advisory opinions Petitioners/claimants must have standing The case must be ripe and not moot It cannot be a political question
What are the limitations on Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction over state court rulings?
By statute: where the constitutionality of a federal statute, treaty, or state statute is in issue or where a state statute violates federal law; state court ruling must be final by highest state court capable of rendering a decision
Judicially imposed justiciability standard – no SCOTUS jurisdiction where the state court judgment is based on adequate and independent state law grounds
When is a state court decision based on adequate and independent state law grounds?
Even where federal issues are involved, if state law grounds are fully dispositive of the case (adequate), and not based on construction of federal law or application of federal court rulings (independent). Where unclear, the state court must clearly indicate that the decision rests on state law.
When will a federal court abstain from hearing a case?
– If the disposition of unsettled state law will avoid the need to resolve a federal constitutional dispute (Pullman).
– No injunctions against pending state criminal proceedings (and sometimes quasi-criminal state civil/administrative proceedings) except where bad faith is shown. (Younger)
[CHECK BIGGER OUTLINE]
What is the prohibition on advisory opinions?
No general advice from the courts on constitutionality of a law/action: there must be an actual dispute between parties with adverse legal interests and legally binding effect on the parties. (Consider when faced with requests for declaratory relief.)
Additionally, federal courts will not determine the constitutionality of a statute which has never been enforced and is not likely to ever be
What is the ripeness requirement?
The case cannot be premature –> in determining whether a case too premature for review, courts consider:
(1) the fitness of the issues for judicial decision – are there uncertain and contingent records/does the factual record need further development and
(2) the hardship to the parties of withholding judgment
What is the mootness doctrine?
There must be a real controversy at all stages of review (the dispute must not expire/harm must not resolve itself).
Exceptions:
(1) controversies capable of repetition yet evading review (e.g., abortion)
(2) class actions – may continue if the class representative’s controversy moots after certification as long as other class members have a live dispute
(3) defendant voluntary ceases the challenged activity but may restart at will
What is the standing doctrine?
The complainant/petitioner must have a concrete stake in the outcome at all stages of litigation. The elements are:
(1) injury in fact – particularized, concrete, actual and imminent (Lujan)
(2) fairly traceable to the alleged conduct
(3) likely to be redressed by the requested relief
Can Congress confer standing?
Congress can create rights capable of injury but cannot remove the case or controversy requirement (no citizen-suit provisions)
When does a plaintiff have standing to enforce a federal statute?
If they are in the “zone of interests” protected by the statute (by legislative intent)
Can you assert the rights of others?
Generally there is no third-party standing, but a claimant who has standing may also claim the rights of third parties if:
(1) it is difficult for the third party to assert their own rights (e.g., NAACP suing on behalf of its members whose identities need protection)
(2) A special relationship exists between the two and the plaintiff can adequately represent both interests (e.g., a doctor may assert the rights of their patient in an abortion restriction challenge)
(3) Free speech over breadth claims: a censored plaintiff whose speech can Constitutionally be censored can raise the claims of those whose protected speech could be affected by the challenged law
(4) Organizations can sue on behalf of their members if the injury is related to organizational membership and members are seeking individualized damages
What interests are always too remote to assert standing?
Interest based on status as a taxpayer or citizen (these are generalized grievances – the effect is too general and indirect)
When can Congressional spending measures be attacked?
on first amendment establishment clause grounds
What is the political question doctrine?
Courts will refuse to decide cases that are political questions based on Baker factors:
(1) textually committed to another branch of government
(2) lack of judicially manageable standards
(3) prudential concerns like embarrassment of other branches, inappropriateness
PQ: Guarantee Clause challenges, partisan gerrymandering, challenges to Congressional procedures for ratifying Constitutional amendments
