Judicial Review Flashcards
Article III (Jdx of Federal Courts)
Congress has the power to expand or limit the powers of lower federal courts to hear cases, but can only expand to what is proscribed under Article III
Article III (Jdx of Supreme Court)
Article III defines the original jdx of the Supreme Court; Congress cannot pass a law to expand the original jdx, but can limit the appellate jdx if it does not agree with or like what the Court does
*Congress MAY change the procedural rules of a jdx governing the Court in the middle of a case as long as the Court still has alternative jdx to hear the case
*Congress MAY NOT remove a case from the Court when the Court makes a particular finding in favor of a litigant that would ordinarily constitutionally entitle him to a remedy
*Congress CANNOT change a substantive legal rule so that it applies to cases that have already been decided (res judicata) BUT Congress may change the law and have the newly enacted law apply to cases that are still pending
State Action Doctrine
In order for the Constitution to apply, there must be some action by a state, state official or state government; the Constitution does not apply to the actions of private parties
*Exception: The 13th Amendment (banning slavery) applies to private parties and individuals
Justiciability
CONSTITUTIONAL (Article III Standing)
- Injury
- Causation
- Redressability
PRUDENTIAL (Congress can overrule)
- Prohibition against generalized grievances and 3rd party standing
- Standing (see above)
- Ripeness
- Mootness
- Political Question Doctrine
Prohibition Against Generalized Grievances
When P asserts an injury that is generalized; that is, shared in a substantially equal measure by all or a large class of citizens
*Triggers: Any person/any person; means courts be flexible (net cast widely)
Taxpayer Standing
Not grounds for standing except when taxpayer is challenging an appropriation by Congress AND there is a violation of a specific Constitutional provision (i.e., Establishment Clause)
Third Party Standing
Triggered only when P has satisfied constitutional requirements (injury, causation and redressability) and P is not bringing forward a right that belongs to them (belongs to another person)
*Examples: Doctors suing on behalf of mothers who obtained or want to obtain abortions; bar owners suing on behalf of 18-year-old customers who want to drink alcohol
Associational Standing
An association is allowed to stand in for its members when:
- At least 1 member would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right
- Interests of association are germane to the purpose of the association
- Claim for relief cannot be one that requires the participation or presence of individual members (i.e., a claim for personal injury)
Ripeness
P must show that the case is ready for review (not premature) because harm has occurred or will imminently occur
Mootness
When a case is moot, there is no longer an actual controversy between the parties (case becomes abstract and a remedy can no longer be given)
*Exceptions:
- When a case is capable of repetition yet evading review
- Class actions where the named class member can no longer receive a remedy but some other members can
- Voluntary cessation (when D stops but is free to return to improper conduct at any time)
Political Question Doctrine
Cases involving executive or congressional discretion should be avoided by the courts (inappropriate for judicial review); separation of powers
*Look to:
- Textual commitment to a branch of government or political department
- Lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving the issue
- Any reasons for exceptional political deference
Standing
INJURY
The injury must be particularized (specific to P and actual or imminent) AND concrete (real, de facto and not abstract)
CAUSATION
The injury must be fairly or sufficiently traceable to D’s conduct (but-for cause)
REDRESSABILITY
P must show that the injury was due to D’s conduct and that the requested relief will remove the harm or redress the injury
*TransUnion: Any injury created by Congress must have a “close relationship” to a harm traditionally recognized as a basis for a lawsuit
