Judicial Power

Question 1

LNG of Original Jurisdiction

Answer 1

Under Article 3 section 1, it states that

Cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers & consuls:
■ All actions or proceedings to which ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign states are parties

AND those in which a state is a party, ■ Controversies between 2+ states
■ Controversies b/w the U.S & a state and
All proceedings by a State against the citizens or aliens of another state

Question 2

how to amend Original Jurisdiction

Answer 2

The only way to add to the original jurisdiction of the SC is through constitutional amendment, not statute.

Question 3

Can SC review state court decisions

Answer 3

SC can review the constitutionality of state laws, the actions of state officials & a state court’s interpretation of the Constitution

Question 4

SC can review Congress too?

Answer 4

SC’s power of judicial review extends to Congress, not just for states

Question 5

Exceptions Clause LNG

Answer 5

Article 3 section 2 clause 2 states that –> Ability of congress to restrict fed court jurisdiction.

Question 6

Sep of Powers as limit on Congress Authority

Answer 6

US v. Klein—At CL, Congress cannot have a law already passed that imposes a specific ruling on the SC where the SC shall hear a case and follow that specific ruling bc it violates the separation of powers doctrine

Question 7

Prohibition against Advisory Opinions RULE

Answer 7

§ Article 3 says courts do not issue advisory opinions because there must:

1) be an actual dispute b/w adverse litigant

2) and the court’s opinion must decide or settle the dispute and be given full faith, and credit.

Question 8

Con Standing Requirement RULE

Element 1

Answer 8

1) an actual or imminent invasion OR a legally protected interest of the P that is concrete and particularized

Question 9

Standing

defined terms for element 1

Answer 9

o Actual—already been harmed
o Imminent—something that is about to happen to you; not abstract or conjectural (op based on incomplete info)
o Legally protected interest—you have a right to
o Concrete & particularized—connects you directly to the harm; personal & individual way

Question 10

Standing Element 2

Answer 10

2) that is caused by the conduct of the D (gov’t) (causation)
o Injury is fairly traceable to D’s conduct

Question 11

Standing element 3

Answer 11

3) and that can be redressed by a decision of the court (redressability)
o Causation & redressability are combined together usually
Use but-for test
○ But for ______ the harm would not be present & Π would not have suffered these harms

Question 12

Prudential

Prohibition of 3rd Party Req RULE

Answer 12

Plaintiff can assert only injuries that he or she has suffered; a plaintiff cannot present the claims of 3rd parties who are not part of the lawsuit

Question 13

3rd Party Exception

Answer 13

a) P who meets all Con Standing Reqs may present claims of 3rd parties with:
1) Relationship b/w the litigant & 3rd party are intertwined
2) And 3rd party alone shall have the ability to assert his right absent the litigant

Question 14

3rd party exception type

Close relationship b/w plaintiff & 3rd party:

Answer 14

➢ Doctor/ patient
➢ Not non-custodial parent

Question 15

3rd party exception type

Usually Obstacle prevents 3rd party from being able to sue

Answer 15

➢ BUT plaintiff can effectively represent 3rd parties’ interests Ex: discrimination, age

Question 16

3rd party exception type

Organizations/Associations:

Answer 16

➢ May sue for its members if:
● Individual members would have standing only if one or they would be affected in a tangible way by the challenged action.
● The interests are germane to the organization’s purpose
Neither the claim nor relief requires the participation of individual members

Question 17

3rd party exception type

Claim Within the Zone of Interests:

Answer 17

➢ Plaintiff must raise a claim within the zone of interests
● Plaintiff must be part of the group that was intended to be protected by the Fed or State statute

Question 18

3rd party exception type

Overbreadth Doctrine:

Answer 18

➢ An individual is permitted to challenge a statute on the grounds that it violates the 1st amend rights of 3rd parties not before the court
● Must be substantial overbreadth
● Courts should attempt to construe the statute to avoid constitutional problems & attempt to sever the unconstitutional part
● Cannot be used in challenging the regulations of commercial speech

Question 19

Prudential

Prohibition of Generalized Greviances RULE

Answer 19

§ Generally, a plaintiff cannot sue as a citizen:
➢ Congress cannot create standing by adding a citizen suit provision into a statute
➢ Even if a statute provides a right for citizens to seek judicial review of action related to the statute, the citizen still must meet standing requirement

§ AND a plaintiff cannot sue as a taxpayer who has a grievance in common with all other taxpayers:

Question 20

Taxpayer Exception to Generalized Grievance

Answer 20

■ a taxpayer has standing to challenge gov expenditures as violating the Establishment Clause if:
● It was established under the taxing & spending power AND
● The claim is based on a specific violation of the Constitution
■ So if gov’t expenditures violate ONLY the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment–>taxpayer standing is permitted

Question 21

Ripness RULE

ELEMENT 1

Answer 21

Require the court to evaluate both that issues are:
1) suitable (fitness) for judicial resolution
· Fitness—what does the court need to resolve?
■ If all legal issues and facts are fully formed before the court, the court can properly review
■ If the issue is purely legal–> there is no need for a developed factual record bc the court has all the facts–>review based off fitness

Question 22

Ripness RULE

ELEMENT 2

Answer 22

2) AND withholding review will cause the P undue hardship
· Hardship—an immediate or substantial impact
■ an extreme burden on costs, financial replanning, etc., incur a huge expense in the following regulation OR choose to break the rule and risk prosecution, and also in this case, lawsuit might harm their reputation and thus sales.
· Timing factor–also consider whether making a potential injured party wait down the road when they face prosecution later

Question 23

Mootness RULE

Answer 23

o P must present a live controversy at all stages of fed litigation
○ If anything occurs while lawsuit is pending to end the P’s injury–>the case is to be dismissed as moot

Question 24

Mootness Exception

Capable of repetition but evading review

Answer 24

A case is not dismissed even though its moot if there is an injury likely to recur in the future and it is possible that it could happen to the P again and it is of such a short duration that it likely always will evade review.

Question 25

Mootness Exception

Voluntary cessation

Answer 25

a case is not to be dismissed as moot if the D voluntarily ceases the allegedly improper behavior but is free to return to it at any time (freely volunteers to not do it again).

Question 26

Mootness Exception

Class action suits

Answer 26

properly certified class action suit may continue even if the named P’s claims are rendered moot.

Question 27

Mootness Exception

Compliance with Court Order:

Answer 27

➢ Only renders a case moot if there is no possibility that the allegedly offending behavior will resume once the order expires or is lifted

Question 28

Mootness Exception

Secondary/Collateral Consequences

Answer 28

➢ When there are collateral matters that remain alive after the main legal question is moot, –> the case is not barred for mootness

➢ Criminal cases:
	● A challenge to a sentence is moot after the sentence has been served unless there are collateral legal consequences that will be imposed
		■ Ex: losing the right to vote, increased severity for future offenses, inability to hold professional licenses 
➢ Civil Cases: A case is not moot as long as the Π continues to suffer harm

Question 29

Political Question Doctrine RULE

Answer 29

Fed courts won’t decide issues that are so politically charged that the issue should be resolved by the exec & leg branch –> thus issue is “punted” back to the other branches

Question 30

Pol Q Analysis

Answer 30

○ Determine if the issue raises separation of powers concerns
○ Look for any clear textual Constitutional commitment of the claim to the other branches
○ Apply the prudential considerations/factors
○ Just bc you see a fact pattern that is heavily political doesn’t mean a political Q issue.

Question 31

CL Baker Test for Pol Q Doctrine

Answer 31

any case held to involve a PolQ will reveal:

1) textually demonstrable commitment of the issue to coordinate political dept or

2) a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it or

3) the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for non-judicial discretion or

Question 32

Major Examples that meet Pol Q Baker Test elements

Answer 32

1) Republican Form of Gov:
2) Challenges to the President’s Conduct of Foreign Affairs/ Policy:
3) Congress’s Ability to Regulate its Internal Processes:
4) Process for Ratifying Amendments
5) Instances Where the Fed Court Cannot Shape Effective Equitable Relief
6) State decisions based on Adequate & Independent Non-Federal Grounds are not reviewed

Question 33

Pol Q Doctrine

State decisions based on Adequate & Independent Non-Federal Grounds are not reviewed

Answer 33

➢ Fed courts will only hear cases appealed from state courts if the state court decision was based on federal grounds

➢ Adequate = to support the judgement/state fully addresses the issue
➢ AND Independent = state law decision cannot be (is not) based/dependent on interpretations of federal law (outside of fed law)
	○ Note: *Look for an express statement that state court’s decision was based on state law*
	} Key: a decision that could stand on a state constitutional law violation alone

Question 34

Pol Q Doctrine

Abstention

Answer 34

➢ Fed courts will abstain from resolving a constitutional claim when:
➢ It is based on an unsettled question of state law or
➢ Where the case is pending in a criminal prosecution