Vesting Clauses
Article I, Section 1: All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States
Article II, Section 1: The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States
Article III, Section 1: The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in on Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
Marbury v. Madison
Establishes the authority for the judiciary to review the constitutionality of executive and legislative acts. Although the Constitution is silent as to whether federal courts have this authority, the power has existed ever since Marbury.
If legislative or executive actions are found to be in violation of the Constitution, federal courts may refuse to honor or enforce them.
Martin v. Hunter Lessee
Martin claimed land within the State of Virginia. Martin claimed the title of the land-based on inheritance from a British citizen who owned the property. Hunter claimed Virginia had taken land before the treaties came into effect and thus Martin did not have a valid claim to the property.
The Supreme Court ruled the land belonged to Martin and on remand the Virginia court decline to comply with the ruling because it was unconstitutional and the Court lacked authority to review state court decisions.
The Supreme Court held that the Court’s power includes the authority to review and invalidate state laws that are inconsistent with the Constitution.
This established that the Supreme Court has power to review state action and strike down as unconstitutional, including state criminal convictions alleged to violate federal law
What are the justiciability doctrines?
- Political Question
- Cases and controversies (Bar on advisory opinions, ripeness, mootness)
- Standing
- Congressional Control
Bker v. Carr
Political question doctrine
Determining whether a political question exists, in any case, requires consideration of the following factors:
- whether there is a textually demonstrable commitment in the Constitution of the issue to the President or Congress;
- whether there are judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving the question.
- whether the resolution of the question calls for policy decisions inappropriate for judicial resolution
- whether the resolution of the question will express a lack of due respect for other branches of government
- whether is an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision that has already been made
- whether there is a potential for embarrassment from inconsistent resolutions of the issue by the Court and one or more of the political branches
Cooper v. Aaron
A federal court ordered the desegregation of the Little Rock schools. The state disobeyed this order, in part, based on the claim that it was not bound to comply with judicial desegregation decrees.
Federal courts are not limited to reviewing state court decisions. Federal courts also have the authority to review the constitutionality of state laws and the actions of state officials.
The Court declared Article VI of the Constitution makes the Constitution the Supreme Law of the Land… Marbury declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is the supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by this Court and the Country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system. Every state legislator and executive and judicial officer is solemnly committed by oath to support this Constitution.
What are the policies underlying justiciability doctrines?
- Justiciability doctrines are closely tied to the separation of powers and define the judicial role. They determine when it is appropriate for the federal courts to review a matter and when it is necessary to defer to other branches of government.
- Conserves judicial resources, allowing federal courts to focus their attention on the matters most deserving of review.
- Intended to improve judicial decision making by providing the federal courts with concrete controversies best suited for judicial resolution.
- Promote fairness, especially to individuals who are not litigants before the court.
11th Amendment
Limits federal judicial power, which prevents federal court relief against state governments. Prohibits suits in federal courts against state governments in law, equity, or admiralty, by a state’s own citizens, by citizens of another state, or by citizens of a foreign country.
Policy perspective: the 11th amendment raises profound questions about the appropriate role of the judiciary.
Sovereign Immunity.
Advisory opinions
Prohibited. Muskrat v. US
Requirements:
- there must be an actual dispute between adverse litigants
- in order for a case to justiciable and not an advisory opinion there must be a substantial likelihood that a federal court decision in favor of a claimant will bring about some change or have some effect.
Policy:
- separation of powers is maintained by keeping the courts out of the legislative process.
- judicial resources are conserved because advisory opinions might be requested in many instances in which the law ultimately would not pass the legislature
- helps ensure that cases will be presented to the Court in terms of specific disputes, not as hypothetical legal questions.
Standing
The determination of whether a specific person is a proper party to bring a matter to the court for adjudication.
- Promotes separation of powers by restricting the availability of judicial review. (Allen v. Wright)
- Serves judicial efficiency by preventing a flood of lawsuits by those who have any ideological stake in the outcome
- Improves judicial decision making by ensuring that there is a specific controversy before the court and that there is an advocate with a sufficient personal concern to effectively litigate the matter.
- serves the value of fairness by ensuring that people will only raise their own rights and concerns and that people cannot be intermeddlers trying to protect others who do not want the protection offered.
Allen v. Wright
Racially segregated private schools.
The law of Article III standing, which is built on the separation of powers principles, serves to prevent the judicial process from being used to usurp the powers of the political branches.
Requirements of standing:
- Injury in fact: P must allege that she has suffered or imminently will suffer an injury. The injury must be CONCRETE and PARTICULARIZED and ACTUAL or IMMINENT harm. CANNOT BE CONJECTURAL OR HYPOTHETICAL, more than a simply generalized grievance (Allen v. Wright)
- constitutional rights
- Statutory rights
- Common law rights
- Causation: P must allege that the injury is fairly traceable to the defendant’s conduct AND NOT ATTRIBUTABLE to some independent third-party not before the court. The link between the challenged conduct and the alleged injury MUST NOT BE UNDULY ATTENUATED OR SPECULATIVE
- Redressability: P must allege that a favorable federal court decision is likely to redress the injury. It must be LIKELY as opposed to MERELY speculative that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.
Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation
Is the question of whether a state’s legislative apportionment scheme violating the Equal Protection Clause a PQ?
No. Justiciable
Baker v. Carr
Is a claim by a Member of Congress that he has been improperly excluded from his seat a PQ?
No.
Powell v. McCormack
Is a claim that the Senate improperly delegated the task of tying an impeached federal judge a PQ?
Yes.
Nixon v. US (judge case)
Nixon v. US holding?
Whether the Senate’s use of the committee in trying Nixon violated Article I, section 3, clause 6, is not a constitutional question.
Ripeness
determines when the review is appropriate. Seeks to separate matters that are premature for review because the injury is speculative and never may occur. (Abbott Laboratories)
Mootness
An actual controversy must exist at all stages of federal court proceedings. If events subsequent to the filing of the case resolve the dispute, the case should be dismissed at moot.
The doctrine of standing in a time frame. The requisite personal interest that must exist at the commencement of the litigation (standing) must continue throughout its existence (mootness).
See Hall v. Beals
Can the judiciary rule on the constitutionality of a federal law that allows American parents who have a child born in Jerusalem to have a passport indicate Israel as the country of birth?
Not a political question so yes. Justifiable even though it involved foreign policy because it also involved the nature of the statute and of the passport and recognition of powers.
Goldwater v. Carter
Goldwater argued rescission of the US treaty with Taiwan posed a nonjusticiable political question. President must get Senate’s consent before repeal a treaty.
The case posed a PQ because there were no standards in the Con. governing the recission of treaties and that matter was a dispute between coequal branches of gov.
Ex parte McCardle
McCardle wrote a series of articles in the newspaper that was highly critical of Reconstruction. He filed a writ of habeas corpus under a statute from 1867 that permitted SCOTUS to have appellate jurisdiction over H. Corpus writs.
Before SCOTUS could try the case, Congress enacted a repeller act which stripped SCOTUS of appellate jurisdiction
Holding: Congress is given broad authority to limit appellate jurisdiction. Congress’ stripping of jurisdiction still allows for alternate judicial routes to be taken by someone affected by the law.
Exceptions Clause
- Congress’ way to have a limit on judicial review
- Congress can establish and ordain inferior courts and limit their jurisdiction
- congress can pass laws restricting the Supreme Court’s APPELLATE jurisdiction, NOT ORIGINAL
- SCOTUS is the ONLY court created by the constitution; Congress can create and eliminate all others
TRIGGER: Congress is limiting SCOTUS jurisdiction or an inferior court’s jurisdiction, which it can do based on the express authority under Article III, section 2
constitutional clauses limiting judicial power
Article III- Vesting CLause:
Article I, section 8: Congress has the power to constitute Tribunals inferior to the s. Court
Article III, section 2, clause 2: Original jurisdiction in cases affecting Ambassadors,…where a state is a party. All other cases the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction, BOTH AS TO LAW AND FACT, with such EXCEPTIONS
Jurisdiction Stripping
Congress has the authority to deprive the lower federal courts of jurisdiction. Congress also has some authority pursuant to the Exceptions Clause of Article III to deprive the SCOTUS of appellate jurisdiction.
There may be limits on Congress’s power to strip all of the federal courts, including SCOTUS, of jurisdiction over particular federal questions, but the question remains unresolved.
