Judicial Powers

Question 1

What is the source of the judicial powers of the federal government?

Answer 1

Article III, Section 1 of the US Constitution establishes the that judicial power of the United States shall be in ‘one Supreme Court and such inferior courts as the Congress from time to time ordain and establish.”

Article III courts are independent of Congress, the president and politics. There are specialized courts established under article I, they are separate and not necessarily so privileged.

Question 2

What is the scope of US Judicial Power?

Answer 2

Art III Sec 2 of the Constitution states that the jurisdiction of the federal courts are limited to specific cases and controversies. There are 7 enumerated jurisdictional areas:

1. Arising under the Constitution, Laws and treaties of the US
2. Affecting foreign countries’ ambassadors, public ministers and consuls
3. Involving admiralty and maritime jurisdiction
4. when the US is a party
5. Between two or more states, or between a state and citizens of another state
6. Between citizens of different states or between citizens of the same state claiming land grants of different states
7. Between a state, or its citizens, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

Question 3

When it comes to the scope of federal judicial powers, there are 7 enumerated jurisdictional areas. Are there any un-enumerated powers?

Answer 3

yes, the judiciary has the power to review an act of another branch of the government or a state court and declare it unconstitutional (as est. in Marburg and Hunter’s Lessee).

The federal judiciary also has the power under the supremacy clause to review state actions (like court decisions, statutes and exec orders) in order to make sure that they conform with the Constitution, laws and treaties of the US under Fletcher v Peck.

Question 4

What are the limitations on the federal judicial powers?

Answer 4

The Eleventh Amendment is a jurisdictional bar that prohibits citizens of one state from suing another state in federal court. It immunizes the state from suits for money damages or equitable relief when the sate is a defendant in an action brought by a citizen of another state or a foreign country. Although state officials may be enjoined from violating federal law, the Eleventh amendment bars suits against state officials for violating STATE law.

The Supreme Court has also expanded the scope of the Eleventh Amend to preclude citizens from suing their own state in federal court AND federal law actions brought against a state govt without the state’s consent in its own courts as violation of sovereign immunity.

Question 5

What actions are NOT barred by either the Eleventh Amend or the Sovereign Immunity Doctrine?

Answer 5

A suit brought by a citizen against a state in the courts or another state. (Nevada v hall)

Question 6

what are the exceptions to the general Eleventh Amend rule?

Answer 6

1. Consent: A state may waive its eleventh Amend protection, such as by removing a case to federal court
2. Injunctive Relief: the Eleventh only bars suits for damages, not those for injunctive or declaratory relief (unless the state itself is enjoined). So, when a state official is named as a defendant, the state official may be sued in federal court to prevent the enforcement of an unconstitutional state statute (ex parte young). A state cannot invoke its sovereign immunity to prevent a lawsuit by a state agency seeking to enforce a federal right against a state official (Virginia… v Stewart).
3. Damages to be paid by an individual: an action for damages against a state officer is not prohibited when the officer himself, rather than the state treasury, is required to pay, as in when the officer acts outside of the law so the lawsuit is against an individual and not in his representative capacity.
4. Prospective Damages: As long as the effect of a lawsuit is not to impose retroactive damages on a state officer to be paid from the state treasury, a federal court may hear an action against a state officer, even if the action will force a state to pay money to comply with a court order.
5. Congress may abrogate state immunity from liability SO LONG AS it is clearly acting to enforce rights created by the Fourteenth Amend (equal protection) and does so expressly. (Fitzpatrick v Bitzer). However, Congress may not generally abrogate state immunity by exercising its powers under Article I. (Seminole v. Florida)

Question 7

what actions are not barred by the Eleventh Amend?

Answer 7

1. Actions against local governments: The Eleventh only applies to states and state agencies. Local governments are not immune from suit
2. Actions by the US govt or other state governments are not barred: Eleventh has no application when the plaintiff is the US or another state
3. bankruptcy proceedings: the Eleventh does not bar the actions of a Bankruptcy court that impacts state finances

Question 8

What is the original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court?

Answer 8

The Supreme Court has original and appellate jurisdiction.
Original: Art III Sec 2 gives the SC original Jed over “all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls and those in which a state shall be a party.” (Marbury) Congress may not expand or limit this jdx, though it may grant concurrent original jdx to lower federal courts.

Question 9

What is the Appellate Jdx of the Supreme Court?

Answer 9

Art III Sec 2 of the Constitution provides that ‘in all other cases [than original] before mentioned, the SC shall have appellate jdx…with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.”

Question 10

What are the two ways to establish appellate jdx in the Supreme Court?

Answer 10

1. Certiorari: 4 justices vote to accept a case by way of a petition of ra writ of certiorari. Almost all cases come this way.
2. Direct appeal: the SC MUST hear by direct appeal only a small number of cases–those that come from a decision of injunctive relief issued by a special three-judge district court panel (by statute). These appeals and panels used to be fairly common but are now only used under a few special statutes like the Voting Rights Act

Question 11

What are the limitations to the Supreme Court’s appellate jdx?

Answer 11

Congress has some power to limit the Supreme Court’s appellate jdx under Ex Parte McCardle. However, there are limits because to deny access or jdx would undermine the Constitution’s scheme of checks and balances.

Also, the SC may not review a final state-court judgment that rests upon adequate and independent state grounds (or could, but it would be advisory). The state-law grounds only applies if the ruling is adequate (fully resolved) and independent (not incorporate a federal standard by reference). If there is any question, the SC may review, resolve the federal issue and then remand back to the state court so they can resolve the state issue.

Question 12

What makes a case justiciable in federal court?

Answer 12

Standing, Timing and other issues of justifiability may dictate whether a case may be heard in federal court

Question 13

what is standing in the context of the jurisdiction of the federal courts?

Answer 13

Art. III Sec 2 restricts the jdx of the federal courts to ‘cases’ and ‘controversies.’ A federal court cannot decide a case unless the plaintiff has standing, or a concrete interest in the outcome, to bring it.

Note: congress cannot abolish the standing requirement and allow citizen suits, but it can establish new interests, the injury of which can establish standing.

Question 14

What is the general rule on standing in bringing a case to a federal court?

Answer 14

To have standing, a Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing three elements:

1. Injury in Fact:
2. Causation
3. Redressibility

The above three basics are the Art. III requirements. In addition to the Art III requirements, the federal judiciary has also established a prudential standing requirement: that a plaintiff is also the ‘proper’ party to invoke a judicial resolution. Whether or not a P is the proper party depends on large part on whether the P’s grievance comes within the ‘zone of interests’ protected or regulated by the law/constitutional protection in question.

Question 15

What is the definition of causation for purposes of standing?

Answer 15

The injury must be caused by the defendant’s violation of a constitutional or other federal right.

Further, the injury must be fairly traceable to the challenged action (kind of same as above)

Question 16

What is the definition of redressibility in context of standing?

Answer 16

The relief requested must prevent or redress the injury. Further, it must be likely, as opposed to speculative, that a favorable court decision will redress a discrete injury suffered by the P.

Question 17

What is the definition of injury in fact for purposes of standing/federal jurisdiction?

Answer 17

An injury must be

1. Concrete
2. Particularized

Notes:
Must be individualized. It can be shared by many, but not by all/generalized.

The injury need not be physical or economic. General harm to the environment does not confer standing, but harmful affects to recreation or even mere esthetic interests does.

Future injuries must be actual and imminent, and can only be redressed by injunction, not damages.

Question 18

In the context of standing to bring a case before a fed court, what status does the taxpayer have?

Answer 18

Usually a taxpayer does not have the standing to file a federal lawsuit just because he/she believes that the government has allocated funds in an improper way. However, he or she may litigate their tax bill.

ALSO: a taxpayer has standing when the taxpayer challenges governmental expenditures as violating the establishment clause.

Question 19

What are the exceptions to the general rule that a taxpayer doesn’t have standing?

Answer 19

1. Challenging establishment clause: the taxpayer suit must challenge a specific congressional appropriation made under the taxing and spending powers for violating the establishment clause. NOTE: does not apply to transfers of property under the Property Power or to expenditures made by the president from his/her discretionary fund.
2. A municipal tax-payer does have standing to sue a municipal gov’t in fed court (though the conduct of the state or federal gov’t is too removed)
   3.

Question 20

In the context of standing to file a federal lawsuit, what is the general rule and exceptions on third-party standing?

Answer 20

A litigant generally has no standing to bring a suite based on legal claims of a third party. There are a few notable exceptions:

1. Unable to assert own rights
2. Special relationship between P and third party
3. Injury affects relationship b/t P and third party

The court may refuse to hear any case on prudential-standing grounds; third party standing is one kind of prudential/discretionary consideration.

Question 21

In the context of third-party standing to bring a federal suit, when does an organization have standing

Answer 21

Organizational standing exists when it has suffered an injury In addition, an organization may bring an action on behalf of its members (even if the org has not suffered an injury itself) if:

1. Its members would have standing in their own right AND
2. The interests at stake are germane to the organization’s purpose.

(Hunt v State apple advertising community)

When damages are sought, generally neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested can require the participation of individual members in the lawsuit. But note that the damages limitation is not constitutionally mandated and can be waived by congress.

Question 22

In the context of third-party standing to bring a suit in federal court, when does a parent have standing?

Answer 22

A parent generally has standing to bring an action on behalf of the parent’s minor child. However, after a divorce, the right may be limited to only one parent.

Further, when the right to bring such a action is based on family-law rights that are in dispute, the federal courts should not entertain an action if prosecution of the lawsuit would have an adverse effect on the child. (Non-custodial parent couldn’t bring a suite on behalf of daughter in face of co-parent’s opposition EVEN WHEN they had joint legal custody.

Question 23

In the context of standing to bring a federal suit, when does an assignee have standing to enforcer he rights of an assignor?

Answer 23

An assignee of a claim has standing to enforce the rights of the assignor, even with the assignee is contractually obligated to return any litigant proceeds to the assignor (like for collection), provided the assignment was for ordinary business purposes and was in good faith.

Question 24

In the context of standing to bring a federal claim, do mere ‘citizens’ have standing?

Answer 24

No. Citizens do not have standing to assert a claim to enforce a constitutional provision merely because they are citizens. A citizen may bring an action against the gov’t to compel adherence to a specific federal statute, but the P must still have directly suffered an injury in fact.

Question 25

Do individuals have standing to assert a tenth amendment violation?

Answer 25

A party has standing to challenge the constitutionally of a federal statute on the grounds that it exceeds Congress’ enumerated powers and intrudes upon the powers reserved to the states by the Tenth Amend

Question 26

What is timeliness?

Answer 26

An action before federal court that is brought too soon (unripe) or too late (moot) will not be heard.

Question 27

What is ripeness?

Answer 27

Ripeness refers tot he readiness of a case for litigation. A federal court will not consider a claim before it is fully developed; to do so would be premature, and any potential injury would be speculation.

A case is ripe for litigation, the plaintiff must have experienced a real injury (or imminent threat thereof). Therefore, if an ambiguous law has a long history of non-enforcement, the case challenging that law may lack ripeness.

Question 28

What is mootness?

Answer 28

A case has become moot if further legal proceedings would have no effect; that is, if there is no longer a controversy. A live controversy must exist AT EACH STAGE of the review. Not just when the case is filed.

Question 29

What are the three exceptions to mootness?

Answer 29

1) Capable of Exception yet evading review
2) Voluntary Cessation
3) Class actions

Question 30

What is the capable of repetition, yet evading review exception?

Answer 30

This is an exception to the timeliness requirement of mootness. A case will not be dismissed as moot if the controversy is a type that may often recur (capable of repetition) but will not last long enough to work its way through the judicial system (yet evading review).

Question 31

What is the voluntary cessation exception to mootness?

Answer 31

A case will not be dismissed as moot if the defendant voluntarily ceases its illegal or wrongful action once litigation has commenced. The court must be assured that here is ‘no reasonable expectation that the wrong will be repeated.”

Question 32

What is the class action exception to mootness?

Answer 32

An entire class action is not rendered moot when the named plaintiff’s claim in a certified class is resolved and becomes moot.

Question 33

What are the further issues of justiciability when it comes to a viable lawsuit in federal court?

Answer 33

The federal courts may invoke a variety of other reasons not to decides case:

1. Advisory opinions
2. Declaratory judgments
3. Political questions
4. Abstention

Question 34

what is the rule on advisory opinions in federal court?

Answer 34

Federal courts may not render advisory opinions on the basis of an abstract or a hypothetical dispute. An actual case or controversy must exist.

(Fact patterns involving a request for declaratory judgment are likely testing advisory opinion prohibition)

Question 35

what is the rule on declaratory judgments in federal court?

Answer 35

The courts are not prohibited from issuing declaratory judgment that determine the legal effect of a proposed conduct without awarding damages or injunctive relief. The challenged action must pose a real and immediate danger to a party’s interests for there to be an actual dispute (as opposed to a hypothetical one).

Question 36

what is the rule on political questions in federal court?

Answer 36

A federal court will not rule on a matter in controversy if the matter is a political question to be resolved by one of the other two branches of government. baker v carr.

An issue may be deemed a political question not subject to review when:

1. The Constitution has assigned decision-making on this subject to a different branch of government., OR
2. The matter is inherently not one the judiciary can decide.

Examples: details of Congress’ impeachment procedures because they are constitutionally assigned to other branches of government, and president’s conduct on foreign affairs because they are not within judicial competence, are political questions.

NOT PQs: the Israel on their birth certificate issue when an American child was born in Jerusalem. The constitution did not commit the issue to another branch, and it would require the court to do things it normally does: examine textual, structural and historical evidence.

Question 37

What is the abstention doctrine in federal court?

Answer 37

A federal court may abstain from deciding a claim when strong state interests are at stake. There are two routinely recognized abstention doctrines:

1. Pullman Doctrine: A court may refrain from ruling on a federal constitutional claim that depends on an unresolved issue of state law best left to the state courts.
2. Younger Abstention: A court will generally not enjoin a pending state criminal case or a state enforcement proceeding in which an especially strong state interest is involved. The exception to this doctrine is in cases of proven harassment or prosecutions taken in bad faith.