Judicial Power

Question 1

Federal judicial power (derived from Article III) extends to cases involving?

Answer 1

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.

Question 2

What about Article III courts?

Answer 2

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.

Question 3

What are the limitations of federal jurisdiction?

Answer 3

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?)

Question 4

Can the federal courts issue advisory opinions?

Answer 4

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.

Question 5

What is ripeness?

Answer 5

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

Question 6

What is fitness for judicial Decision?

Answer 6

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.

Question 7

What is hardship to parties?

Answer 7

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.

Question 8

What is mootness?

Answer 8

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.

Question 9

What are the excpetions to mootness?

Answer 9

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

Question 10

Must a person have standing?

Answer 10

A person must have standing at all stages of litigation, including on appeal.

Question 11

What are the components to standing?

Answer 11

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)

Question 12

Can Citizenship be used for standing?

Answer 12

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.

Question 13

What are the excpetions to standing?

Answer 13

Challenging tax liablity, tenth amendment, congressional spending.

Question 14

What is the challenging tax liability exception?

Answer 14

A taxpayer has standing to challenge their tax bill.

Question 15

What is the tenth amendment excpetion?

Answer 15

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).

Question 16

What is the congressional spending exception?

Answer 16

People have standing to challenge congressional spending measures on First Amendment Establishment Clause grounds (for example, congressionally approved federal expenditures to aid parochial schools).

Question 17

When must injury occur?

Answer 17

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.

Question 18

Who must suffer the injury?

Answer 18

Generally, there is no third-party standing. The plaintiff must be the one who suffered the injury, but there are exceptions to this rule.

Question 19

What is needed to asser rights of others?

Answer 19

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.

Question 20

What is the standing of organizations?

Answer 20

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).

Question 21

What is the standing for free speech overbreadth claims?

Answer 21

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.

Question 22

What is causation?

Answer 22

There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of.

Question 23

What is redressability?

Answer 23

A deciciosn in the litigant’s favor must be capable of eliminating their harm (for example, through money damages or an injuction)

Question 24

What are other standing issues?

Answer 24

(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).

Question 25

What is sovereign immunity and how does the eleventh amendment make an impact?

Answer 25

The Supreme Court has held that the doctrine of sovereign immunity reflected in the Eleventh Amendment bars a private party’s suit against a state in federal and state courts. Similarly, sovereign immunity bars claims against a state in federal and state agencies.

Question 26

What is the exception to sovereign immunity?

Answer 26

States can be sued if they consent to it (that is, by waiver). The prohibition also does not extend to actions against local governments, actions by the United States or other states, or proceedings in federal bankruptcy courts. Other exceptions are discussed below.

Question 27

What are other exceptions to sovereign immunity?

Answer 27

(I) Certain Actions Against State Officers The following actions can be brought against state officers: (1) actions to enjoin an officer from future conduct that violates the Constitution or federal law, even if this will require prospective payment from the state (the state cannot be made to pay retroactive damages); and (2) actions for damages against an officer personally. (II) Congress Removes the Immunity Congress can remove a state’s immunity as to actions created under the Fourteenth Amendment power to prevent discrimination, but it must be unmistakably clear that Congress intended to remove the immunity.

Question 28

What is abstention?

Answer 28

a. Unsettled Question of State Law A federal court will temporarily abstain from resolving a constitutional claim when the disposition rests on an unsettled question of state law. b. Pending State Proceedings Federal courts will not enjoin pending state criminal proceedings (and in some cases pending state administrative or civil proceedings involving an important state interest), except in cases of proven harassment or prosecutions taken in bad faith.

Question 29

What are political questions?

Answer 29

Political questions will not be decided. These are issues (1) constitutionally committed to another branch of government or (2) inherently incapable of judicial resolution.

Question 30

What are nonpolitical questions?

Answer 30

Arbitrary exclusion of a congressional delegate and production of presidential papers and communications are not political questions.

Question 31

What is the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court?

Answer 31

The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors, public ministers, consuls, and those in which a state is a party, but Congress has given concurrent jurisdiction to lower federal courts in all cases except those between states.

Question 32

What is the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court?

Answer 32

The Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction in all cases to which federal judicial power extends under Article III, subject to congressional exceptions and regulation. This includes the power of judicial review, pursuant to which the Supreme Court can review the constitutionality of acts of other branches of the federal government, and the power to review state acts under the Supremacy Clause. When exercising its appellate jurisdiction, generally the Supreme Court will hear the case only after there has been a final judgment by the lower court. Cases can come to the Court by one of two ways:

Question 33

What is a writ of certiorari?

Answer 33

The Supreme Court has complete discretion to hear cases that come to it by certiorari. The cases that come by certiorari are: • Cases from the highest state court capable of providing a decision where (1) the constitutionality of a federal statute, federal treaty, or state statute is in issue, or (2) a state statute allegedly violates federal law; and • All cases from federal courts of appeals

Question 34

What are rare appeal cases?

Answer 34

The Supreme Court must hear cases that come to it by appeal. These cases are confined to decisions by three-judge federal district court panels that grant or deny injunctions

Question 35

When does the Supreme Court not exercise jurisdiction?

Answer 35

The Supreme Court will not exercise jurisdiction if the state court judgment is based on adequate and independent state law grounds—even if federal issues are involved. State law grounds are adequate if they are fully dispositive of the case. They are independent if the decision is not based on federal case interpretations of identical federal provisions. If the state court has not clearly indicated that its decision rests on state law, the Supreme Court may hear the case.