Judicial Review Flashcards
five principles of JR
- The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
- It is the Supreme Court’s duty to interpret the Constitution.
* *the constitution forbids congressional interference with final judgments by the court - Federal statutes, regulations, executive orders, etc. that are inconsistent with the Constitution are invalid.
- State statutes, regulations, executive orders, constitution amendments, etc. that are inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution are invalid.
- The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the U.S. Constitution (but not state constitutions) and federal law is final and binding.
when the USSC has original juri
- Original Jurisdiction
Definition: a case that is heard by the Supreme Court before it has been decided by any other court
According to the Constitution, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in “in all cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party”
Congress cannot expand or reduce the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction. It may, however, grant concurrent jurisdiction to lower federal courts to hear such cases
In suits between two or more states, the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction is exclusive (i.e., not concurrent with lower courts)
when the USSC has appellate juri
- Appellate Jurisdiction
Definition: jurisdiction to review a lower court’s decision; in other words, some tribunal (state or federal) has already ruled on this controversy.
The Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction is almost entirely discretionary; petitioners seek review by filing a petition for writ of certiorari, which may be granted upon the approval of four justices (i.e., the “Rule of Four”).
Congress has significant authority to reduce the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction, but this authority is not unlimited.
three avenues of JR (when are these most important?)
who has the burden!
Rational Basis Review – the governmental action must be rationally related to a legitimate government interest (burden on challenger)
Intermediate Scrutiny Review – the governmental action must further an important government interest in a way that is substantially related to that interest (burden on govt)
Strict Scrutiny Review – the governmental action must be narrowly tailored to further a compelling government interest by the least restrictive means (burden on govt)
• Understanding the levels of scrutiny is essential to answering questions related to the:
– Due Process Clause (Substantive)
– Equal Protection Clause
– First Amendment
what is justiciability and the 7 doctrines
• Definition: Even if a case involves an issue within the jurisdiction of federal courts, a federal court will not (or in some cases, shall not) hear the dispute unless it is in the appropriate posture. Such determinations are made at each level in federal courts.
**federal courts should avoid resolving issues needlessly!
• Doctrines: – 1. Advisory Opinions – 2. Standing – 3. Ripeness – 4. Mootness – 5. Political Questions – 6. Adequate and Independent State Grounds – 7. Sovereign Immunity
rule on justiciability of advisory opinions and three types
– rule: Article III limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to “cases” or “controversies.” This language has been interpreted to exclude the issuance of “advisory opinions.” There are three types of advisory opinions:
- Classic Advisory Opinions: situations in which someone, often a member of the executive or legislative branch, is seeking an opinion about the validity or constitutionality of a law or other government action before it is enacted or enforced
- Non-Final Opinions: opinions by federal courts that may be reversed or modified by the executive or legislative branch (or, for that matter, anyone other than a higher court).
- Collusive Suits: a lawsuit where the parties are not actually in disagreement, but are cooperating to steer the court towards some agreed-upon conclusion.
general rule for standing
– General Rule: Standing requires:
- injury in fact: the plaintiff has suffered a concrete, particularized injury that has actually occurred or is imminent; ideally, the plaintiff will be able to show physical injury, property damage, or economic loss (such as lost profits)
- causation: the injury must be “fairly traceable” to defendant (i.e., the government);
- redressability: if the court grants plaintiff’s relief, this will fix the problem
citizen standing; taxpayer standing; legislator standing
• citizen standing: citizenship alone is insufficient to confer standing to challenge government action or inaction
• taxpayer standing: as a general rule, a “federal taxpayer” does not have standing to challenge a federal spending measure, unless Congress confers such standing
»_space;> state taxpayers generally do not have standing in federal court to challenge state expenditures, but municipal taxpayers probably have standing in federal court to challenge municipal expenditures
»_space;> exception: standing exists when a citizen/taxpayer is suing CONGRESS for using its funds (taxing/spending power) in violation of the Establishment Clause
• legislators’ standing: legislators generally do not have standing to challenge legislation with which they disagree
third party standing and four examples
- third party standing: as a general rule, a plaintiff may assert only injuries that he or she has suffered and may NOT assert injuries suffered by others. There are several exceptions to this rule:
- associations (e.g., NAACP or labor unions) may assert claims on behalf of their members, as long as at least one member has Article III standing and the claim is related to association’s mission.
- jus tertii standing: a plaintiff has standing to assert the injuries of a third party if there is an impediment to the real plaintiff bringing suit on his or her own behalf and there’s a nexus between the real plaintiff and the third party; examples: doctors asserting rights of patients; litigants asserting rights of jurors
- there is a special relationship between the plaintiff and the third party (e.g., parent-child)
- the plaintiff is asserting a First Amendment “facial challenge” to an overbroad law (**even if the restriction, as applied, validly restricts the plaintiff’s speech!)
ripeness define
– Definition: the lawsuit has been “born”
2 Elements:
- issues must be fit for judicial decision: trying to avoid abstract factual disagreements – look for concrete legal issues, and
- consider hardship to the parties: must be sufficiently direct & immediate – consider hardship of withholding review or hardship they would have to risk to provoke enforcement of the law
– Ripeness often arises in cases where the plaintiff is challenging a criminal statute or administrative regulation before he or she has been arrested (or harmed) or there is an imminent threat of arrest (or harm).
mootness define
– Definition: the case is brought too late; the plaintiff had standing, but lost it. Mootness may occur at anytime and any level.
• If the defendant voluntary ceases whatever action is at issue, the case will be moot only if there is no reasonable expectation that the alleged violation will recur.
»> ex) if you sue your neighbor for keeping their stereo too loud and he turns it down before the case goes to court – not technically moot because you would have a reasonable expectation that he would just turn it up again
four mootness exceptions
• capable of repetition in this plaintiff, yet evading review: there are some issues that have such short durations that they can never receive full judicial review before they become moot. For such issues, the court will ignore mootness.
- examples: issues involving pregnancy (e.g., abortion), ballot restriction measures in elections, but not a discrimination case against a law school in which the plaintiff was admitted to (and was scheduled to graduate from) the law school while the case was pending - **has to be likely to happen to THIS plaintiff again
- collateral consequences: a case is not moot if there are collateral consequences (e.g., damages) that have yet to be determined
- class actions: after a class has been certified, the case does not become moot because the named plaintiff’s claim is mooted, as long as the claims of other members of the class are still viable
- where defendant voluntarily stops their conduct: b/c they could just voluntarily start up again
two types of political questions and examples
– Definition: there are some issues federal courts choose not to hear.
Those textually committed to another branch by the Constitution:
• Impeachment process
• Congress’s power to judge the age, residency, and citizenship qualifications of its members
• Congress’s power to expel a member
Those for which there are no judicially manageable standards:
• The constitutional amendment process
• Partisan (i.e., political) gerrymandering
• Disputes within political parties
• Guaranty clause cases (e.g., what is a “republican form of government?”)
• Administration of foreign affairs (e.g., president’s power to unilaterally terminate a treaty)
• The President’s authority to deploy military forces without a congressional declaration of war
rule for adequate and independent state grounds; and test
– rule: The Supreme Court will hear a case from a state court only if the state court judgment turned on federal grounds. Thus, the Supreme Court will not exercise appellate jurisdiction over a case arising out of the highest court of a state involving an issue of federal law, if the state court’s decision was clearly based on an adequate and independent state ground.
»> A state ground is “independent” if the state court expressly stated that its decision rests on state law.
»> The common scenario for an “adequate and independent state grounds” case is where the state constitution grants a person the same or more rights than the U.S. Constitution.
»> think about it – if the case can be decided on State law grounds, the USSC would essentially be offering an advisory (ineffective) federal opinion
To determine whether adequate and independent state grounds exist, ask:
• Can the U.S. Supreme Court change the result of the case by ruling on the federal question?
»> If yes, the U.S. Supreme Court can hear the appeal
»> If no, the U.S. Supreme Court cannot hear the appeal
