Judicial Power Flashcards
article III federal judicial power extends to cases involving what 2 things?
1) interpretation of the constitution, federal laws, treaties, etc, and
2) disputes between states, states and foreign citizens, and citizens in diverse citizenship
federal courts can hear a matter ONLY IF what exists? (justiciability)
a case or controversy
what are the three main questions in determining whether there is a valid case or controversy?
1) what is the case requesting? (no advisory opinions)
2) when is it brought? (is it ripe or moot?)
3) who is bringing it? (does the plaintiff have standing?)
what is an advisory opinion? (2 options)
decisions that lack either…
1) an actual dispute between adverse parties, or
2) any legally binding effect on the parties
generally, are pre-enforcement reviews of laws or policies RIPE for article III review?
NO (not generally)
how can a plaintiff establish valid ripeness BEFORE a law or policy is enforced?
by showing both:
1) the issues are FIT for judicial decision, and
2) the plaintiff would suffer substantial HARDSHIP in the absence of review
what makes the issues “fit” for pre-enforcement judicial review?
the more the case involves LEGAL as opposed to factual issues, the more likely the case will be fit for judicial review
**NOTE = if issue relies on uncertain or contingent future events, it will generally NOT be fit
what constitutes “substantial hardship” for pre-enforcement judicial review?
the more hardship a plaintiff can show, the more likely the court is to find the case ripe
**NOTE = must be THREAT of enforcement
what is mootness? (grounds for dismissal)
where there is no longer either (1) a live controversy or (2) the plaintiff is no longer suffering an ongoing injury
in what situations is a case NOT considered moot even if the injury to a plaintiff has passed? (3)
1) controversies capable of repetition but evade review because of their inherently short duration
2) cases where a defendant voluntarily stops the offending practice BUT is free to resume it (**NOTE = facts that make it harder to resume favor mootness)
3) class actions in which the class rep’s controversy has become moot BUT the claim of at least ONE other class member is still viable (one live claim rule)
what is the standing requirement?
a person must have standing at all stages of the litigation including on appeal
what are the three major components of “standing”?
1) injury in fact
2) causation
3) redressability
what is required to show an “injury in fact”? (2 rqmts)
1) a particularized injury that affects the plaintiff in a personal and individual way, and
2) a concrete injury (one that actually exists, not hypothetical)
true or false: a person can have standing as a “citizen” or “taxpayer” to claim that government action violates federal law or the constitution.
FALSE (the injury is too generalized)
true or false: a taxpayer has standing to challenge their own tax bill.
TRUE (particularized to the individual taxpayer)
a person may have standing to challenge federal action under the 10th amendment for interfering with state powers so long as the person has WHAT?
a redressable injury in fact
true or false: people have standing to challenge government spending measures on Establishment Clause grounds.
FALSE (they will have standing to do this only to challenge CONGRESSIONAL spending specifically, not just any type of government spending)
when must the injury occur for standing purposes?
the injury must have already occurred or will imminently occur
who must suffer the injury for standing purposes?
the plaintiff (NO general third party standing)
when may a person with standing in their OWN right assert the rights of a third party? (2 options)
if either…
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
when will an organization have standing to sue on behalf of its members? (3 rqmts)
can sue on their behalf 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 (ie–not seeking individualized damages)
true or false: a person has standing to bring a free speech claim alleging the govt restricted substantially more speech that necessary EVEN IF that person’s speech would NOT be protected under the first amendment.
TRUE
does the rule on standing for free speech overbreadth claims apply to restrictions on commercial speech?
NO
what is “causation” for standing purposes?
a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of (traceable to the defendant)
