Judicial Power

Question 1

article III federal judicial power extends to cases involving what 2 things?

Answer 1

1) interpretation of the constitution, federal laws, treaties, etc, and
2) disputes between states, states and foreign citizens, and citizens in diverse citizenship

Question 2

federal courts can hear a matter ONLY IF what exists? (justiciability)

Answer 2

a case or controversy

Question 3

what are the three main questions in determining whether there is a valid case or controversy?

Answer 3

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?)

Question 4

what is an advisory opinion? (2 options)

Answer 4

decisions that lack either…
1) an actual dispute between adverse parties, or
2) any legally binding effect on the parties

Question 5

generally, are pre-enforcement reviews of laws or policies RIPE for article III review?

Answer 5

NO (not generally)

Question 6

how can a plaintiff establish valid ripeness BEFORE a law or policy is enforced?

Answer 6

by showing both:
1) the issues are FIT for judicial decision, and
2) the plaintiff would suffer substantial HARDSHIP in the absence of review

Question 7

what makes the issues “fit” for pre-enforcement judicial review?

Answer 7

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

Question 8

what constitutes “substantial hardship” for pre-enforcement judicial review?

Answer 8

the more hardship a plaintiff can show, the more likely the court is to find the case ripe
**NOTE = must be THREAT of enforcement

Question 9

what is mootness? (grounds for dismissal)

Answer 9

where there is no longer either (1) a live controversy or (2) the plaintiff is no longer suffering an ongoing injury

Question 10

in what situations is a case NOT considered moot even if the injury to a plaintiff has passed? (3)

Answer 10

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)

Question 11

what is the standing requirement?

Answer 11

a person must have standing at all stages of the litigation including on appeal

Question 12

what are the three major components of “standing”?

Answer 12

1) injury in fact
2) causation
3) redressability

Question 13

what is required to show an “injury in fact”? (2 rqmts)

Answer 13

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)

Question 14

true or false: a person can have standing as a “citizen” or “taxpayer” to claim that government action violates federal law or the constitution.

Answer 14

FALSE (the injury is too generalized)

Question 15

true or false: a taxpayer has standing to challenge their own tax bill.

Answer 15

TRUE (particularized to the individual taxpayer)

Question 16

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?

Answer 16

a redressable injury in fact

Question 17

true or false: people have standing to challenge government spending measures on Establishment Clause grounds.

Answer 17

FALSE (they will have standing to do this only to challenge CONGRESSIONAL spending specifically, not just any type of government spending)

Question 18

when must the injury occur for standing purposes?

Answer 18

the injury must have already occurred or will imminently occur

Question 19

who must suffer the injury for standing purposes?

Answer 19

the plaintiff (NO general third party standing)

Question 20

when may a person with standing in their OWN right assert the rights of a third party? (2 options)

Answer 20

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

Question 21

when will an organization have standing to sue on behalf of its members? (3 rqmts)

Answer 21

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)

Question 22

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.

Answer 22

TRUE

Question 23

does the rule on standing for free speech overbreadth claims apply to restrictions on commercial speech?

Answer 23

NO

Question 24

what is “causation” for standing purposes?

Answer 24

a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of (traceable to the defendant)

Question 25

what is “redressability” for standing purposes?

Answer 25

exists where a decision in the litigant’s favor is capable of eliminating their harm (ie–thru money damages or injunction)

Question 26

what is the doctrine of sovereign immunity (11th amendment)?

Answer 26

bars a private party’s suit against a state in federal and state courts as well as claims against a state in federal and state agency actions
**TLDR = can’t sue states

Question 27

what are some of the main exceptions to sovereign immunity?

Answer 27

1) express waiver
2) implied consent/structural waiver
3) actions against local govts
4) suits by other states or fed govt
5) bankruptcy
6) certain actions against state officers
7) congressional removal of immunity

Question 28

what is express waiver of sovereign immunity?

Answer 28

when a state consents to be sued (expressly waiving sovereign immunity)
**EX = most states have waived SI in their tort claims acts

Question 29

what is implied consent/structural waiver of SI?

Answer 29

states (by joining the union) implicitly consented that their SI would yield to federal powers

Question 30

when does implied consent/structural waiver occur? (2 rqmts)

Answer 30

applies when…
1) a federal power is complete in itself, and
2) the states implicitly consented to the federal govt exercising that power as a part of the plan of the constitution

Question 31

when can structural waiver of SI extend to suits brought by private parties?

Answer 31

if Congress delegates its power

Question 32

true or false: local governments, organizations are NOT protected by sovereign immunity.

Answer 32

TRUE (can be sued)

Question 33

true or false: states can be sued by both the federal government and other states.

Answer 33

TRUE

Question 34

true or false: states retain sovereign immunity in bankruptcy proceedings.

Answer 34

FALSE (private party can sue in relation to bankruptcy proceedings)

Question 35

a person can sue a state official for what kind relief? (2)

Answer 35

either…
1) damages personally, or
2) to enjoin the official from future conduct that violates the constitution or federal law

Question 36

true or false: a person can sue a state official for retroactive damages.

Answer 36

FALSE

Question 37

true or false: a person may NOT sue a state official if doing so will require prospective payment from the state

Answer 37

FALSE

Question 38

true or false: Congress can remove a states’ immunity as to actions created under the 14th amendment to prevent discrimination.

Answer 38

TRUE (so long as it is UNMISTAKABLY CLEAR that Congress intended to remove that immunity)

Question 39

what types of jurisdiction does the Supreme Court have?

Answer 39

original and appellate jurisdiction

Question 40

when are state law grounds “adequate” and “independent” to bar SCOTUS review?

Answer 40

adequate = fully dispositive of the case, and
independent = decision is not based on federal case interpretations of federal provisions (TLDR = state court must clearly indicate its decisions rests on state law, SCOTUS will have to hear it)

Question 41

true or false: if state court decision rests on both state and federal grounds and SCOTUS reversal of fed ground would NOT change the outcome, then SCOTUS cannot hear the case.

Answer 41

TRUE (adequate and independent state law grounds)