Judicial Power Flashcards
Federal judicial power (derived from Article III) extends to cases involving?
Interpretation of the Constitution, federal laws, treaties, and admiralty and maritime laws. As well as, disputes between states, states and foreign citizens, and citizens of diverse citizenship.
What about Article III courts?
Only Article III courts (that is, courts established by Congress under Article III) are the subject of this outline. Congress can define the original and appellate jurisdiction of these courts but is bound by the standards set forth in Article III concerning subject matter and party jurisdiction and the requirement of a “case or controversy.” Congress can also create courts under Article I (for example, tax courts). Judges in those courts do not have life tenure like Article III judges, and Congress may not assign to Article I courts jurisdiction over cases that have traditionally been tried in Article III courts.
What are the limitations of federal jurisdiction?
Federal courts can hear a matter only if there is a “case or controversy.” Whether there is a “case or controversy” (that is, whether a case is “justiciable”) depends on: What the case is requesting (is it an advisory opinion?) When it is brought (is it ripe or moot?) Who is bringing it (does the plaintiff have standing?)
Can the federal courts issue advisory opinions?
Federal courts cannot issue advisory opinions, which are decisions that lack (1) an actual dispute between adverse parties, or (2) any legally binding effect on the parties. Note though that the federal courts can still provide pre-enforcement review of a law (that is, by declaratory judgment action) without rendering an advisory opinion, assuming the “case or controversy” requirements discussed in this section are met.
What is ripeness?
To avoid issuing advisory opinions, courts wait until laws and policies have been formalized and can be felt in concrete ways. This means that pre-enforcement reviews of laws or policies are generally not ripe. However, a plaintiff can establish ripeness before a law or policy is enforced by showing two things: (1) The issues are fit for a judicial decision, and (2) The plaintiff would suffer substantial hardship in the absence of review
What is fitness for judicial Decision?
The more the case involves legal as opposed to factual issues, the more likely the case will be fit for review. This means that, generally, an issue is not fit for judicial decision if it relies on uncertain or contingent future events that might not occur.
What is hardship to parties?
The plaintiff also needs to show that they would have to risk substantial hardship to provoke enforcement of law. The more hardship the plaintiff can show, the more likely the court will find the case to be ripe.
What is mootness?
A live controversy must exist at all stages of review. Therefore, the plaintiff needs to be suffering from an ongoing injury, or else the case will be dismissed as moot.
What are the excpetions to mootness?
A claim is not considered to be moot in the following situations, even if the injury has passed: (1)Controversies capable of repetition but that evade review because of their inherently short duration (for example, a law prohibiting abortion would be reviewable because it often takes years—rather than months—for cases to work their way through the court system) (2) Cases where the defendant voluntarily stops the offending practice but is free to resume it and (3) Class actions in which the class representative’s controversy has become moot but the claim of at least one other class member is still viable
Must a person have standing?
A person must have standing at all stages of litigation, including on appeal.
What are the components to standing?
Components—->Injury in Fact To have standing, a person needs to show an injury in fact, which requires both: (1) a particularized injury—an injury that affects the plaintiff in a personal and individual way; and (2) a concrete injury—one that actually exists (that is, not hypothetical)
Can Citizenship be used for standing?
People have no standing merely as “citizens” or “taxpayers” to claim that government action violates federal law or the Constitution. The injury is too generalized.
What are the excpetions to standing?
Challenging tax liablity, tenth amendment, congressional spending.
What is the challenging tax liability exception?
A taxpayer has standing to challenge their tax bill.
What is the tenth amendment excpetion?
A person may have standing to allege that federal action violates the Tenth Amendment by interfering with powers reserved to the states as long as the person has a redressable injury in fact (for example, deputy sheriffs required to do handgun checks under federal law challenging the law as a violation of the Tenth Amendment).
What is the congressional spending exception?
People have standing to challenge congressional spending measures on First Amendment Establishment Clause grounds (for example, congressionally approved federal expenditures to aid parochial schools).
When must injury occur?
The injury must have already occurred or imminently will occur. In a suit for pre-enforcement relief (by injunction or declaratory judgment), look to see whether there is a likelihood of future harm.
Who must suffer the injury?
Generally, there is no third-party standing. The plaintiff must be the one who suffered the injury, but there are exceptions to this rule.
What is needed to asser rights of others?
A claimant with standing in their own right may assert the rights of a third party if: (1) it is difficult for the third party to assert their own rights, or (2) a close relationship exists between the claimant and the third party.
What is the standing of organizations?
An organization has standing to sue on behalf of its members if (1) there is an injury in fact to the members, (2) the members’ injury is related to the organization’s purpose, and (3) individual member participation in the lawsuit is not required (for example, they’re not seeking individualized damages).
What is the standing for free speech overbreadth claims?
A person has standing to bring a free speech claim alleging that the government restricted substantially more speech than necessary (in other words, that the restriction was overbroad), even if that person’s own speech would not be protected under the First Amendment. Essentially, the plaintiff can bring a claim on behalf of others whose speech would be protected under the First Amendment. However, this rule does not apply to restrictions on commercial speech.
What is causation?
There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of.
What is redressability?
A deciciosn in the litigant’s favor must be capable of eliminating their harm (for example, through money damages or an injuction)
What are other standing issues?
(1) Congressional Conferral of Standing Congress can’t eliminate the case or controversy requirement and, thus, cannot grant standing to someone who doesn’t have an injury. However, a federal statute may create new interests, injury to which may be sufficient for standing. (2) Standing to Enforce Government Statutes A plaintiff may have standing to enforce a federal statute if they are within the “zone of interests” Congress meant to protect (that is, a court is likely to find standing if it concludes that Congress intended the statute to protect such persons and also intended to allow private persons to bring federal court actions to enforce the statute).
