Judicial Powers

Question 1

vesting clause

Answer 1

outline scope of judicial power (cases and controversies)

Question 2

cases and controversies

Answer 2

cases - concern national law/authority
controversies - defined by parties to a suit (between states, a state and citizens of another, where the US is a party)

Question 3

madisonian compromise

Answer 3

leaves to congress the decision whether to have lower federal courts at all

Question 4

boundaries of power

Answer 4

• no advisory opinions outside of dispute
• parties must have legal case/standing
• dispute must be ripe
• dispute must remain live throughout proceeding
• legal interests must actually be in conflict
• no political questions

Question 5

jurisdiction

Answer 5

OJ over ambassadors, ministers, states
AJ over all other cases

Question 6

judicial review

Answer 6

courts are vested with the authority to review govt actions to determine constitutionality

Question 7

Marbury v. Madison

Answer 7

asked whether leg can expand the power of the C. rejects leg’s argument b.c C is supreme law of land and it is the SC’s job to say what the law is. in this, the jud is not acting in a counter-majoritarian way b/c they are representing the will of the people

Question 8

Stuart v. Laird

Answer 8

Congress has the power to establish courts inferior to SC. that power comes w/o limitation

Question 9

judicial appointment

Answer 9

balance of power - neither exec nor leg have complete authority over judicial appointment

nomination by Pres, confirmation by Senate, appointment by Pres

Question 10

departmentalism

Answer 10

each fed branch can interpret the C for themselves and independently determine whether its actions are constitutional

Question 11

justiciability (overview)

Answer 11

appropriate for adjudication.

need standing (constitutional requirement - ITR) ripeness and mootness (prudential requirements)

Question 12

standing

Answer 12

determined by a 3 part test:
- injury
- traceability
- redressability

Question 13

injury

Answer 13

need injury in fact - invasion of a legally protected interest

requirements:
- concrete and particularized
- not generalized or abstract
- actual or imminent
- not conjectural or hypothetical

Question 14

traceability

Answer 14

injury is fairly traceable to D’s alleged unlawful action

1st causation requirement

consider whether there are any intervening causes (proximate cause)

Question 15

redressability

Answer 15

will the P’s requested remedy likely redress the issue/injury

redress: remedy/set right

2nd causation requirement

Question 16

ripeness

Answer 16

timing requirement

requires a present injury or imminent threat

has the P brought the case too early? do they have other remedies?

Question 17

mootness

Answer 17

case cannot be moot

ruling must affect interests/real-life situation of litigants

remedy-sensitive

Question 18

a case that becomes moot during litigation generally will be dismissed, unless:

Answer 18

voluntary cessation of alleged unlawful conduct by the D will not make the case moot if there is a reasonable expectation that the conduct will be repeated

Question 19

constitutional requirement is required. prudential requirements are not

Answer 19

a court may choose to invoke them or not

Question 20

can assert rights of a third party ONLY WHEN:

Answer 20

• special relationship with third party OR
• substantial obstacle in the third party’s way of asserting claim for themself OR
• rights of third party will be adversely affected if not allowed

Question 21

associational standing

Answer 21

• needs injury to association OR
• injury to link between association and its members OR
• brings actions on behalf or its members (3 requirements)

Question 22

3 requirements for when an organization brings behalf of its members

Answer 22

• one or more members would have standing to sue in their own right
• suit is germane to their purpose
• neither claim nor relief requires member participation (case cannot be based on different individual claims)

must assert both harm and legal theory

Question 23

political question doctrine

Answer 23

judiciary cannot decide issues that involve the authority/responsibility of another branch of govt –> non-justiciable

Question 24

something is NOT a political question if:

Answer 24

• there is no textual provision in the C committing the issue to one particular branch, AND
• can resolve issue using ordinary principles of C’al interpretation (cannot lack a clear standard by which to investigate/resolve issue)

Question 25

executive privilege

Answer 25

Pres has only presumptive privilege - can be rebutted in certain circumstances such as info needed for a crim inv

Question 26

examples of PQs

Answer 26

• constitutionality of a unilateral action by the Pres to rescind a treaty w/o Senate involvement
• review of impeachment proceedings

Question 27

sovereign immunity

Answer 27

cannot sue state or fed govt w/o their consent

Question 28

exceptions to SI

Answer 28

• where state consents
• 11th amdt (SEE HANDOUT)
• 14th amdt - Congress makes clear their decision to abrogate when exercising miltary powers
• Congress may abrogate SI when exercising a bankruptcy power

by ratifying C, states agreed to waive their sovereignty in a particular area. precedent establishes that federal armed-forces laws supplant traditional state sovereignty