Judicial Power Flashcards
“Actual cases or controversies”
Article III of the Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to actual cases or controversies.
An actual case or controversy exists when a dispute between adverse parties is capable of judicial resolution—i.e., ripe for adjudication.
A suit is ripe when the plaintiff has suffered actual harm or an immediate threat thereof. But a suit based on potential future harm is unripe and should be dismissed.
Article III Standing
Suing on one’s own behalf
General rule
Plaintiff must prove:
- injury-in-fact – concrete & particularized harm (actual or imminent)
- causation – harm traceable to defendant’s conduct AND
- redressability – favorable judicial decision can remedy harm
Citizen
- No standing as mere citizen
Legislator
- Must prove personal stake in dispute & concrete injury to challenge constitutionality of government action
Taxpayer
Standing to challenge taxes owed—but not government spending unless:
- challenging legislation enacted under taxing & spending power AND
- legislation exceeds limits imposed by establishment clause
Standing
Rule Statement
A federal court will not hear a case unless the plaintiff has standing—i.e., a personal stake in the outcome of the case.
To have standing, the plaintiff must allege the following three elements:
1) injury-in-fact – the plaintiff suffered concrete and particularized harm or an immediate threat thereof
2) causation – that harm was caused by the defendant’s challenged action
3) redressability – a judicial decision in the plaintiff’s favor will likely remedy the harm
A generalized grievance shared by many or all citizens will not suffice.
Narrow exception for when taxpayer’s have standing
Taxpayers do not have standing to challenge the way the government spends tax dollars unless there is a nexus between the plaintiff’s status as a taxpayer and the challenged expenditures.
This narrow exception arises when the taxpayer:
1) challenges legislation enacted under Congress’s taxing and spending power AND
2) alleges a violation of a specific constitutional limitation on this power—to date, the only limitation on this power that the Supreme Court has found is the First Amendment establishment of religion clause.
Why doesn’t a U.S. citizen have standing to file suit in federal court to remove the President from office?
The plaintiff cannot demonstrate that she has suffered a particularized injury-in-fact or that it is redressable by the court since impeachment is reserved to Congress.
Therefore, the court will likely dismiss the suit because the plaintiff lacks standing.
The political-question doctrine prevents federal courts from hearing a case if it presents issues that:
The political-question doctrine prevents federal courts from hearing a case if it presents issues that
(1) are reserved for the executive or legislative branch or
(2) lack judicially manageable standards for resolution.
Younger Abstention Doctrine
Under the doctrine of abstention, a federal court may abstain from deciding a claim when strong state interests are at stake.
Under the Younger abstention doctrine, a court will not enjoin a pending state criminal case in the absence of bad faith, harassment, or a patently invalid state statute.
One situation arises under the Younger abstention doctrine, which applies when declaratory or injunctive relief is sought in federal court.
This doctrine requires abstention when such relief would interfere with a pending state proceeding on any criminal matter or a particular civil matter* that:
1) involves an important state interest AND
2) provides an adequate opportunity to litigate the federal issue(s).
***Only certain civil proceedings qualify for Younger abstention, including enforcement proceedings akin to a prosecution (e.g., termination of parental rights) and proceedings that further a state court’s ability to perform judicial functions (e.g., contempt)***
What does the Younger Abstention Doctrine require?
The Younger abstention doctrine requires that a federal court abstain from issuing a declaratory judgment or injunction if doing so would interfere with a pending state criminal, or particular civil, proceeding that
(1) involves an important state interest and
(2) provides an adequate opportunity to litigate federal issues.
When can SCOTUS grant a writ of certiorari to review final state court judgments?
The U.S. Supreme Court can choose to review final state-court decisions by certiorari unless the decision rests on adequate (state law fully resolves the matter) and independent (no federal precedent used) state grounds.
SCOTUS may use its discretionary appellate jurisdiction and grant a writ of certiorari to review final state-court judgments.
But since SCOTUS may only review such judgments if they are based on federal law, it cannot review a judgment based on adequate and independent state grounds.
This occurs when:
i) state law fully resolves the matter, so the outcome of the case is not affected by federal law (adequate) AND
ii) the state court did not rely on federal law to reach its decision (independent).
Article IV Full Faith and Credit Clause
Under the Article IV full faith and credit clause, states have a duty to respect the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of other states.
This requires state courts to recognize and enforce decisions rendered by a court in another state when:
1) that court had personal jurisdiction and subject-matter jurisdiction
2) the case was decided on its merits—i.e., the substantive elements or grounds of a claim or defense—AND
3) a final judgment was entered.
To have standing, a plaintiff bears the burden of establishing three elements—
(i) injury in fact,
(ii) causation, and
(iii) redressability.
Does an assignee have standing to bring an assigned claim?
YES.
An assignee has standing under Article III to bring an assigned claim, even if the claim is mature at the time of assignment and the assignment is made for collection only.
Even though the assignor suffered the injury that gave rise to the claim, an assignee may sue on the basis of the assignor’s injuries.
