Judicial Power Flashcards
Case or controversy
Federal courts can hear a matter only if there is a case or controversy
Whether there is a case or controversy (whether it is justiciable) depends on
- what the case is requesting (advisory opinion)
- when it is brought (ripe or moot)
- who is bringing it (standing)
Advisory opinions
Federal courts cannot issue advisory opinions, which are decisions that lack
- an actual dispute between adverse parties, or
- any legally binding effect on the parties
Pre-enforcement review
Pre-enforcement review
Pre-enforcement review of a law by declaratory judgement action without rendering an advisory opinion, assuming case or controversy requirements are met
Plaintiff can establish ripeness before a law or policy is enforced by showing two things
- issues are fit for a judicial decision, and
- the plaintiff would suffer substantial hardship in the absence of review
Ripeness
Courts wait until laws and policies have been formalized and can be felt in concrete ways before deciding the case
Pre-enforcement reviews - pl can establish ripeness
Fitness for judicial decision - ripeness in pre-enforcement
More case involves legal, as opposed to factual issues, more likely the case will be fit for review
Generally, issue is not fit for judicial decision if it relies on uncertain or contingent future events that might not occur
Hardship to parties - ripeness in pre-enforcement review
Needs to show that they would have to risk substantial hardship to provoke enforcement of law
More hardship pl can show, more likely the court will find the case to be ripe
Mootness
A live controversy must exist at all stages of review
Thus, pl needs to be suffering from an ongoing injury or the case will be dismissed as moot
3 exceptions
Injury capable of repetition - moot
Even if the injury has passed, a claim will not be considered to be moot if the controversies capable of repetition but that evade review because of their inherently short duration
Defendants voluntary stop and moot
Even if the injury has passed, claim will not be moot if the defendant voluntarily stops the offending practice but is free to resume it
Class actions and mootness
Even if the injury has passed, a claim is not considered to be moot in class actions in which the class representatives controversy has become moot but the claim of at least one other class member is still viable
Standing
A person must have standing at all stages of litigation, including on appeal
Three components:
- Injury in fact: particularized and concrete
- Causation: causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of
- Redressability: a decision in the litigant’s favor must be capable of eliminating their harm
Injury in fact - standing
To have standing a person needs to show an injury in fact, which requires both
- a particularized injury: injury affects the plaintiff in a personal and individual way, and
- a concrete injury: one that actually exists
Must have already occurred or imminently will occur
Citizenship standing
People have no standing merely as citizens or taxpayers to claim that government action violates feral law or the constitution
Injury is too generalized
Tax and standing
No standing merely as taxpayer to claim that government action violates federal law or constitution
But a taxpayer has standing to challenge their tax bill
Tenth amendment standing exception
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
Congressional spending and standing
People have standing to challenge congressional spending measures on first amendment establishment clause grounds
- ex: congressionally approved federal expenditures to aid parochial schools
Congress’s spending power must be involved
Who must suffer injury
Generally, no third-party standing
Plaintiff must be the one who suffered the injury, but exceptions
Standing to assert others’ rights
A claimant with standing in their own right may assert the rights of a third party if
- it is difficult for the third party to assert their own rights, or
- a close relationship exists between the claimant and the third party
Standing of organizations
An organization has standing to sue on behalf of its members if
- there is an injury in fact to the members,
- the members’ injury is related to the organization’s purpose (so can effectively represent their interests), and
- individual member participation in the lawsuit is not required
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 (restriction was over broad), even if that person’s own speech would not be protected under the First Amendment
Restriction is over broad and its on behalf of others whose speech would be protected under it
Does not apply to restrictions on commercial speech because financial incentives to bring own claim
Sovereign immunity
Doctrine of sovereign immunity reflected in the Eleventh Amendment bars a private party’s suit against a state in federal and state courts
Similarly, immunity bars claims against a state in federal and state agencies
Several exceptions
Sovereign immunity - express waiver
States can be sued if they consent to it by waiver
Most states have expressly waived sovereign immunity, at leas to a limited extent, in their tort claims acts
Sovereign immunity - implicit consent / structural waiver
When states joined the federal union, they implicitly agreed that their sovereign immunity would yield to certain federal powers
Structural waiver applies when:
- a federal power is complete in itself, and
- the states implicitly consented to the federal government as well as to suits by private parties if Congress delegates its power
Extends to suits brought by the federal government as well as to suits by private parties if congress delegates its power
Sovereign immunity - local governments
Local government are not protected by sovereign immunity
Neither are entities like police departments
Sovereign immunity - suits by other states or the federal government
States can be sued by other states and the federal government can sue states
Sovereign immunity - bankruptcy
States lack sovereign immunity in bankruptcy proceedings, so a person can sue a state in relation to a bankruptcy proceeding
Sovereign immunity - actions against state officers
A person can sue a state official
- for damages personally, or
- to enjoin the official from future conduct that violates the Constitution or federal law
However, a suit against a state official is prohibited by sovereign immunity to the extent that it seeks retroactive damages
Sovereign immunity - congress removes
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
Original jurisdiction
The SC 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
Appellate jurisdiction
The SC has appellate jurisdiction in all cases to which federal judicial power extends under Article 3, subject to congressional exceptions and regulation
Can review constitutionality of acts of other branches and power to review state acts under the supremacy clause
Generally only after a final judgment by the lower court
- writ of certiorari
- appeal
Writ of Certiorari
Most cases
SC has complete discretion to hear cases that come to it by certiorari
Cases from the highest state court capable of proving a decision where
- the constitutionality of a federal statute, federal treaty, or state statute is in issue, or
- a state statute allegedly violates federal law, and
All cases from federal courts of appeals
SC appeal cases
Rare
SC must hear cases that come to it by appeal
Confined to decisions by three-judge federal district court panels that grant or deny injunctions
Adequate and independent state grounds
SC 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
Independent if the decision is not based on federal case interpretations of identical provisions
If the state court has not clearly indicated that its decision rests on state law, the SC may hear the case
