JUDICIAL POWER

Question 1

case or controversy requirement / justiciability

Answer 1

Fed courts can hear a case only if there’s a case or controversy

To be justiciable, must meet requirements for these doctrines: standing, mootness, ripeness, PQ doctrine

Question 2

advisory ops

Answer 2

fed courts cannot issue advisory opinions (decisions that lack an actual fight/dispute b/w adverse parties)

Question 3

ripeness and pre-enf. review

Answer 3

• courts wait until laws/policies are applied
• pre-enforcement review of laws are generally not RIPE for judicial review
• SEE IF ENFORCEMENT IS LIKELY
• BUT a pff can establish ripeness before a law is enforced by showing (1) issues are fit for judicial decision (legal issues) and (2) pff would suffer hardship in absence of review

Question 4

mootness

Answer 4

• live controversy must exist throughout; if not, case is moot
• exceptions (i.e., case is not moot even if the injury has passed)

1. controversies capable of repetition that evade review (pff can expect to be subject to same harm in future)
2. voluntary cessation by defendant (D has stopped acts giving rise to pff’s suit but can re-start; if there’s chance of recurrence, not moot)
3. class actions - class rep’s controversy is moot but claim of one class member is viable

Question 5

standing

Answer 5

party must have a concrete interest to get into fed court - need to have standing at all stages

1. injury in fact (particularized and concrete; imminent injury is okay)
   ***in suit for pre-enforcement review, look to see if likelihood of future harm
2. causation
3. redressability

Question 6

generalized grievances

Answer 6

pff cannot sue as citizen or taxpayer to compel gov’t to act in certain way

Question 7

3 exceptions to generalized grievances

Answer 7

1. taxpayer can challenge THEIR tax bill
2. taxpayers have standing to challenge specific gov’t expenditures pursuant to Estab Clause - Congress’s spending power must be involved

Question 8

who must suffer injury

Answer 8

• generally, no 3rd party standing (pff must be one who suffered injury)
• 3 exceptions

1. standing to assert rights of others: claimaint w/ standing in their own right can assert rights of 3rd party if (1) hard for 3rd party to assert their rights, or (2) close relationship exists b/w claimaint and 3rd party
2. org standing: org can sue on behalf of its members if (1) injury in fact to members, (2) members injury is related to org’s purpose, and (3) individual member participation in suit is not required (not seeking individualized damages)
3. free speech overbreadth claims: person has standing to bring free speech claim alleging gov’t restricted more speech than necessary, EVEN IF THAT PERSON’S OWN SPEECH WOULDN’T BE PROTECTED UNDER 1A

Question 9

`

congress conferring standing

Answer 9

congress can’t automatically confer standing but it CAN create new rights that, if violated, may give rise to standing

Question 10

state sov immunity and 11A

Answer 10

11A and related doctrine of state sov immunity bars suits against states in fed gov’t (also bars suits against states in state court)

Question 11

exceptions to state sov immunity (where suit against state is fine!)

Answer 11

1. express waiver/state consented
2. fed gov’t or state brings suit
3. congress ABROGATES states’ immunity per legislation passed under section 5 of 14A (congress’s intent must be clear)
4. bankruptcy proceedings
5. certain actions against states officers –> for damages personally or enjoining official from future conduct that violates Constitution or fed law

Question 12

scotus jdx

Answer 12

• original jdx: under Art 3, SCT has original jdx in all cases involving foreign ambassadors and where a state is a party (lower fed cts have concurrent jdx)

states v. states MUST be filed in SCT ONLY

• app. jdx: SCT has app jdx in all cases to which fed judicial power extends subject to congressional exceptions

Question 13

sct appellate jdx continued

Answer 13

sct will hear cases after there’s been a final judgment in the lower court

cases come to SCT in either of 2 ways

1) writ of cert – SCT has complete discretion to hear cases that come to it by cert; arrive at SCT from highest state court re issues of fed law; all cases from fed courts of appeals
2) appeal – very rare; SCT MUST hear cases that come to it by appeal

Question 14

adequate and independent state grounds

Answer 14

SCT won’t exercise jdx if state court judgment is based on adequate and independent state law grounds (even if fed law issues are involved)
- state law grounds are adequate if fully dispositive of case
- independent if decision is not based on fed case interpretations of identical federal provisions

there is a presumption in FAVOR of SCT exercising jdx (if state ct hasn’t clearly indicated that its decision rests on state law, SCT will hear!)