Foundations and Limits of Federal Judicial Power + Justiciability Flashcards
Early Limits on Judicial Power: Art 3
Article III of the Constitution defines the extent of the
Judicial Power
* * * One Supreme Court and inferior courts as Congress may establish
* Bar on advisory opinions (President can only seek opinions from
executive officers – Article II)
* “Cases and Controversies”
* Cases
* Constitution
* Laws of the US
* Admirality / maritime
* Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls
* State is a Party
* Controversies
* Justiciability issues
Early Limits on Judicial Power: Jurisdiction
* Original Jurisdiction (supreme court hears)
* Cases affecting Ambassadors, public ministers
* State is a party
* Appellate Jurisdiction
* All other Cases mentioned (previous slide)
* With Exceptions / regulations as Congress shall
make
Early Limits on Judicial Power: Marbury v. Madison
** Marbury v. Madison Holding*
* Established Judicial review of Legislative acts
* Constitution itself provides limits on government and Judiciary’s
role to check possible abuses of power by other branches
* Judiciary’s role to say what the law is
* The Court cannot exercise original jurisdiction that is NOT
explicitly granted in the Constitution (can only alter by
constitutional amendment, not through legislation)
* Article VI: the Constitution and “all laws made pursuant to” –
laws must be in compliance w/Constitution
• Issue: Can judiciary compel executive to take action? Sometimes (as long as specific duty owed to individual) but discretionary/political acts are not judicially examinable
• Congress cannot increase jurisdiction of federal acts beyond article 3 limits
• Judicial power to declare laws unconstitutional
• They say they don’t have SMJ (basically) because it should go to lower court first
• Analysis: Constitution creates meaningful limits on congress
• Judicial Review: essence of judicial duty is to declare what the law is / jurisdiction extends to cases arising under constitution, judge takes oath to uphold constitution and they must abide by it, Supremacy Clause: laws following constitution
Marbury’s holding is a foundation of constitutional law. The Court held that Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, enacted by the First Congress, was unconstitutional for extending the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court beyond the bounds of Article III of the Constitution, and that it was particularly the province of the judiciary to make the determination as to the constitutionality of a legislative act
• Supreme Court told Chief Justice Marshall to show cause as to why the case should not proceed
• Marshall said Supreme Court could not be given original jurisdiction because it conflicted with the judiciary act (say what the law is)
First issue: does marbury have a right to the commission? Yes document signed by Adams and sealed by secretary of State Marshall and passed by Congress
Second Issue: If he has a right to his pay, and the right has been violated, does the country owe him a remedy? Yes
Third Issue: entitled to the remedy for which the injured applies (depending on nature of writ applied for and power of the court)
Nature of Writ: requiring them to do something specific
Power of the Court: Yes, secretary of state falls under description of person allowed to be examined by the Supreme Court
Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee
Rule of Law
Under Article III of the United States Constitution, the United States Supreme Court has authority to exercise appellate review of state-court decisions.
Facts
Treaty: Virginia confiscate property of known british loyalists, confiscated from Martin who inherited from Fairfax a loyalist, treaty between US and Britain granted Fairfax land, after confiscated gave to David Hunter. Martin prevailed in state court (abide by treaty and give land back). Court of Appeals reversed upheld land confiscation depsite conflict with federal treaty. US Supreme Court reverse appeals holding Martin as the inheriter was the rightful owner of the property because of the treaty. Instead of following ruling, Virginia court of appeals said SC didn’t have constitutional authority to review state decisions so refused to give land back to martin. AGAIN ended up at SC.
Issue (of round 2)
Does the United States Supreme Court have the authority to exercise appellate review of state-court decisions?
Holding and Reasoning (Story, J.)
Nowhere does it say in article 3 subsection 1+2 that SC cannot have appellate jurisdiction over state matters
It says all cases, treaties included
This problem was over federal treaty and federal treaty trumps state law, reversing, gave land to Martin
Eustis v. Bolles
If the state court would come to the same judgment irrespective of the resolution of the federal issues in the case, the Supreme Court will not review the state court’s holding.
Bolles and Wilde Filed insolvency in county of Suffolk in state of Mass
They Filed same insolvency right after in the same court
Eustis brought an action against them to get his money back in supreme judicial court
Eustis by accepting benefit, sc assumed he waived his right to the composition statutes ***
If decided in state court the same issue, SC won’t review and the lower decision will be sustained
No possibility to change judgement (because not material so anything they say would be an advisory opinion (basically dicta) because he waived, so they don’t have jurisdiction
Supreme court cannot review judgement of state court even if there is a federal question in it if it rests on adequate and independent state grounds ***
Adequate: Must determine if state ground is outcome determinative, if it is, federal issue cannot change judgment
Independent: State law ground also must be independent. State must do own interpretation of state law, which is not compelled by federal law (if the judgment mixes federal and state law and is bouncing back in between the authorities, presumed not independent and SC cam review) (if have headings that separate like 4th amendment and michigan constitution, it clearly shows there is an independent analysis of own state so it is independent)
Review of State Decisions: Big Picture
The SC may review state court opinions only to
the extent the decision was based on federal
law
* Even if there is a federal question in the state
court case, the SC may NOT review it if the
state decision was based on independent AND
adequate grounds
* Same result would have been reached even had the
state court made a different decision on the federal
question, the SC does NOT have power to review
Example:
Mass Supreme Court
-Search-def wins, not a search state wins
-Two issues: 4th amendment and statute
-4th says it’s not a search, statute says is search (defendant wins and SC CANNOT review)
-4th says no search statute says no search (says same thing so not outcome determinative) (SC can review)
-if taken to SC, can only determine 4th amendment not statute
Addition to Example:
State Mass provision of constitution instead of state constitution
Review of State Decisions: Adequate
Must determine if state ground is outcome determinative, if it is, federal issue cannot change judgment
Review of State Decisions: Independent
State law ground also must be independent. State must do own interpretation of state law, which is not compelled by federal law (if the judgment mixes federal and state law and is bouncing back in between the authorities, presumed not independent and SC cam review) (if have headings that separate like 4th amendment and michigan constitution, it clearly shows there is an independent analysis of own state so it is independent)
Michigan v. Long (4th amendment: unreasonable search and seizure) adequate and independent: limits on judicial power
**The USSC has appellate jurisdiction when a state court’s decision does not clearly rest on state law as an independent ground for the decision (it rested mostly on federal law) **
Rule of Law
(1) The U.S. Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review a state court’s decision to provide a defendant with broader procedural protections than those guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution unless the state court explicitly states that its decision is based on separate, adequate, and independent state grounds.
(2) The search of an automobile’s passenger compartment, limited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hidden, is permissible if a law-enforcement officer reasonably believes, based on specific and articulable facts combined with the rational inferences from those facts, that the suspect is dangerous and may gain immediate control of weapons.
Facts
David Long was convicted for possession of marijuana found by police in the passenger compartment and trunk of the automobile that he was driving. The police searched the passenger compartment because they had reason to believe that the vehicle contained weapons potentially dangerous to the officers. Long challenged the search under the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures and a similar protection found in article I, section 11 of the Michigan Constitution. The Michigan Supreme Court held that the deputies’ search violated both the Fourth Amendment and art. 1, § 11 of the Michigan Constitution, but the state supreme court only referred one other time to the state constitution in a footnote, otherwise relying exclusively on federal law. The Supreme Court denied Long’s argument that article I, section 11 of the state constitution was an “adequate and independent ground” for the decision precluding its review.
Holding and Reasoning (O’Connor, J.)
(1) Yes. A state court may provide a defendant with broader procedural protection than is guaranteed in the Constitution as a matter of state law. A ruling that is based on independent and adequate state grounds is not reviewable by the U.S. Supreme Court. However, the state court must explicitly indicate that its ruling is based on separate, adequate, and independent state grounds. This must be apparent on the face of the opinion. If a court’s state-law basis is not explicitly stated, the state court’s decision will be reviewed under the assumption that the state court’s ruling was based on federal-law grounds. In this case, the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision was based solely on Terry and other federal cases. Therefore, there was no independent and adequate state ground for the decision, and the case may be reviewed.
Congressional Power to Limit Jurisdiction
- Congress has power to establish inferior courts and to also
make* exceptions and regulations *to the Supreme Court’s
appellate jurisdiction under the Constitution - Very limited power and usually only upheld if Congress creates another
avenue for redress to the Courts
* Exceptions can NOT: - Try to control judicial outcomes (Klein)
- Infringe on the Executive Power
- Violate other provisions of the Constitution
Question on test will either look like Mccardle or Klein, no in between
Ex parte Mcardle
A writ of habeas corpus is a court order that brings a defendant who is in jail or government custody in front of a judge and requires the government to prove that there is a valid reason the defendant is in jail or is being held.
Rule of Law
**Congress can remove S Ct’s jurisdiction over appeals from habeus that had just been granted **
Although the United States Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction is derived from Article III of the Constitution, it is conferred subject to whatever exceptions and regulations Congress chooses to make.
Facts:
Mcardle was held in military custody for writing articles that violated reconstruction act
He filed writ of habeus corpus saying that he was being held unconstitutionally
Denied on basis that reconstruction acts were under constitution
Appealed denial of writ to supreme court under a statute that allowed SC to hear denial of writ of habeus corpus
That statute was repealed and so SC could not hear it
Reason: appellate jurisdiction is conferred by the constitution not congress but congress can make exceptions
Powers of the act are given by the constitution and regulated by the act
Dismissed for want of jurisdiction
Klein
**Two problems and holding: infringing on judiciary by directing outcome in case & pardon power (and other justice looks at it as one whole issue)
Congress cannot use jurisdictional rules to control judicial outcomes. (When congress lacks a substantive power- as with a presidential pardon) conclusive and preclusive of which congress has no power **
Rule of Law
Based on the principle of separation of powers in the United States Constitution, the legislative branch may not impair or direct the exclusive powers of the judicial or executive branches.
Facts
1863 federal statute provided that if your land was seized during civil war you could obtain a remedy if you had not offered aid or comfort to enemy during the war
After, SC subsequently held southerners accepting presidential pardon could secure return of their property
Congress added statutory provision to appropriations bill saying no pardon is admissible as evidence in federal court
Klein who had been pardoned and inherited Wilson’s estate went to court of claims to recover property that had been seized, US government dismissed his case for lack of jursidiction
Supreme Court said unconstitutional
Under the Constitution’s grant of power to Congress to make “such exceptions to appellate jurisdiction” as it deems appropriate, Congress could permissibly limit the ability of the Supreme Court to hear certain cases on appeal. However, in this case, Congress’s 1870 law did more than just make exceptions to the Court’s appellate jurisdiction. It went beyond that to actually require the Court to determine it was without jurisdiction if it found that a plaintiff was entitled to property rights based on a presidential pardon. This effectively required the Supreme Court to reach a certain result; it prescribed the rule of decision in a particular case. This is an impermissible extension of Congress’s power and is thus unconstitutional.
Judgment for Klein is affirmed because congress over stepped bounds and violated principles of separation of powers
State Sovereign Immunity (11)
- Initially diversity jurisdiction extended to a suit by a citizen
of another state against a sovereign state (Chisholm) - The 11th Amendment overturned Chisholm reasoning the
federal judicial power did NOT extend to “controversies” of
a state and citizens of other states - “The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed
to extend to any suit. . . against one of the United States by
citizens of another State, or by citizens or subjects of any
foreign state.” - Textually, this looks like a limitation to citizens even on a
federal-question jurisdiction - Rather, the 11A only textually bars suing in cases only
relying on diversity jurisdiction
State Sovereign Immunity (hans)
Hans –
* 11A textually does NOT limit a federal court’s
jurisdiction over actions brought by state citizens against
their own states
* Textually, only bans damage actions against a state
brought by non-citizens of that state
* However, states retained an immunity from being sued in
federal court by any private citizen
* Citizens can NOT sue “arms of the state” and the
state (state universities, Texas DPS, state of TX)
* Cities, Counties do NOT share this immunity
Rule of Law
A state may not be sued in federal court by one of its own citizens even if the cause of action arises under federal law. (11th amendment)
Facts
Hans (plaintiff) was a citizen of the state of Louisiana (defendant). He brought suit against the state in the Circuit Court of the United States for interest accrued on bonds issued by the state. He alleged the state’s failure to pay the bonds violated Contract Clause which said: “No State shall . . . pass any . . . Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.” The attorney general of Louisiana filed an exception to the action on the basis that a State could not be sued without its permission. Circuit court sustained exception and dismissed the suit. He says he is suing under federal question and he is not a citizen from another state reading from constitution text
Issue
May a state be sued in federal court by one of its own citizens if the cause of action arises under federal law?
Holding and Reasoning (Bradley, J.)
No. The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits a state from being sued by its own citizens, or citizens of another state or foreign country.
The Eleventh Amendment was enacted to correct the holding of the early United States Supreme Court case of Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419, which held that a state could be sued by a citizen of another state. The court in Chisholm concluded that such suits were permitted under the language of the United States Constitution and the Judiciary Act of 1789.
The dissent by Justice Iredell in Chisholm rationally concluded that it was not the intent of Congress to now permit suits by individuals against a state when none had ever been approved. In this case, however, Hans properly argues that the amendment does not expressly bar suits against a state by its own citizens.
Reviewing Alexander Hamilton, in the eighty-first paper of The Federalist, said that it is inherent that the sovereignty cannot be sued by an individual without its consent. Even contracts with the state do not confer a right of action against the state.
Marshall and Madison argued that federal jurisdiction over disputes between states and citizens of other states was meant to allow states to bring suits against individuals in federal court, not to force states into court. This ensured fair treatment for citizens and allowed federal courts to handle cases if a state chose to participate.
These things weren’t contemplated when the constitution was written. Judgement affirmed.
State Sovereign Immunity Exceptions
- 1) Consent
- Conditional funding OR State Removes case to fed. court
- 2) Ex Parte Young Exception
- A state official is sued for prospective damages / relief
- Name the state official themselves personally in suit
- Injunction only – no damages from Treasury
- Ultra vires: acting beyond one’s legal authority (ex: state official committing
an illegal act when the official attempts to enforce an allegedly
unconstitutional or federally preempted statute) - 3) Suit brought by the US or another state
- 4) Abrogation (waive state immunity) using Congressional
enforcement power – Congress decrees unambiguously in legislation
State has no immunity AND employs appropriate Congressional Power - Ex: Congress abrogated a state’s immunity for purposes of attorneys’ fees
awards against the state for civil rights violations under the 14th A - 5) Structural waivers under “plan of the Convention”
Fed gov can sue state
State vs another state
