Judicial Power Flashcards
Marbury v. Madison
Facts: Marbury was appointed Justice of Peace by Adams at the end of his presidency. When Jefferson assumed office he refused to fully finalize Adams’ appointments of Marbury. Relying on section 13 of the Judiciary Act, Marbury brought an action against Jefferson administration seeking a writ of mandamus to compel him to finalie Marbury’s appointment.
Rule: The Supreme Court, not Congress, has the authority and duty to declare a congressional statute unconstitutional if the court thinks it violates the constitution.
Holding: The Act is unconstitutional because it seeks to expand the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction and therefore jurisdiction over Marbury’s claim cannot be exercised.
*Gives the Supreme Court the authority to review acts by Congress and the Executive branch”
Martin v. Hunter Lessee
Rule: Under Article III, the IUS Supreme Court has authroity to execerise appellate review of state court decisions.
Facts: Land dispute between Martin and Hunter. Virgina ct held for Hunter. The Supreme Ct reversed but Virigina ct failed to respect ruling. Argued Section 25 of the Judiciary Act which provided appellate review to S. Ct., was unconstitutional and thus unbinding.
Holding: S. Ct has authority to review the decision of Virgina state courts. Under Article III, does not limit S. Ct. appellate jurisdiction to particular lower courts.Permitting appellate review of state-court decisions by the Supreme Court does not impair the sovereignty of states, nor does it impair the independence of state judges.
Article III
Federal Courts have judicial power over all cases and controversies:
- Arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties
- Affecting ambassadors, other public ministers
- of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction
- US is a party
- B/W two or more states
- b/w a state and citizens of another state
- b/w citizens of different states
- b/w citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states
- b/w a state or citizens thereof and foreign staes, citizens, or subjects
Seperation of Powers and FInality of Court Decisions
The Constitution seperates governmental powers among three branches.
Seperation of powers doctrine prohibits the legislation from interferring with the court’s final judgments
District of Columbia v. Heller
Interpreative authority of judicial review
Rule: Subject to certain safety limitations, the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution creates an indiviudal right to keep and bear arms apart from any military puporse.
Facts: Regarding 2nd Amendment and the handgun ban in D.C.
Holding: Scalia engages in a discussion on the original meaning of the 2nd amendment. Looks at history and historical context…relies on federalist papers and dictionary from the time and determines the 2nd amendment is an individual right that allows self defense.
Two interpretations:
- (dissent) protects only the right to possess and carry a firearm in connection with military service.
- protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
Dissent: Stevens: The text of the Amendment, as well as history, is protecting the right of a militia to bear arms, not all citizens.
Breyer: 2nd Amendment only protects militia related, not self-defense. This protection is not absolute and permits the government to regulate the interests that it serves. Regulation is a legislative responsive to a serious problem=interest balancing
Cooper v. Aaron
Rule: The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land; Supreme Court cases are binding upon all the States.
Facts: Governor wishes to have state legislature make it legal to segregate schools. Argues Surepeme Court decision is only binding on parties involved.
Holding: Every state is bound by not only the US Constitution but also all cases decided buthe US Supreme Ct. Soverreignty is granted by the Constitution., which is the law of the land
Article III, §2 extends judicial power…….
to all cases, in the law and equity, arising under the Constitution
When can the Supreme Court hear a case?
- The case must be active
- If it’s not on the enumerated list, then cannot hear it
- Court will have appellate jurisdiction when not Original
When does the S. Court have original jurisdiction?
Only cases and controversies affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and counsels, and where a state is a party.
When does the S. Court have appellate jurisdiction?
Everything else not listed in original jurisdiction
Can federal courts decide questions that are abstract, hypothetical, or contingent?
No–> there must be an actual dispute.
See: Muskrat–> no live case or controversy because the United States, the ∆, had no interest adverse to the claimants.
What are the obstacles to judicial review?
- PQD (Baker v. Carr, Goldwater, Nixon v. US, Powell)
- Standing
- Ripeness
- and Mootness
Baker v. Carr
6 factors in considering PQD:
o A textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department;
o Or a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it;
o Or the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind cearly for nonjudicial discretion;
o Or the impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government;
o Or an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made;
o The potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question
Held: PQD did not bar courts from reaching the merits of a challenge against TN’s system of apportioning its state legislature. Although the q was political in nature, there were also questions about the whether TN appointment scheme was unconstitutional.
Goldwater
Non-justiciable. President rescinded treaty w/ Taiwan but Court determined the issue was political and therefore non-justicable.
Zivotofsky
USA citizen born in Jerusalem.
Dissent did not think the case should be heard because recognizing a foreign nation is a political question.
