Judicial Review and Justiciability Unit 3 Flashcards
Standing (Justicabilty Doctrine)
Who gets heard in the courts.
3 part test of standing:
- Injury of Fact
1a. (Must suffer real concrete harm)
2a. ( Which is actual or imminent and personal to the plaintiff) - Causation
(Injury is traceable to the defendant’s conduct) (Who caused it) - Redressability
(Whether the injury can be fixed)
Mootness and redressability Doctrine Justicabilty
Mootnes / redressability is a question of timing.
Moot is there ongoing controversy that hasn’t been resolved. if it has been resolved then the case will be dismissed as moot.
Ripening
Determining whether a case is ripe requires looking at (1) the hardship on the parties if the court doesn’t take up the matter of withholding court consideration and (2) the fitness of the issue for judicial decision. Thus, in order to be ripe, the plaintiff must allege that she (1) already suffered some harm; (2) is faced with a specific present harm; or (3) is under a threat of specific future harm.
Political Question Doctrine seminal example case is Baker v Carr, which sets fourth six factors for deciding whether there is a political question
Baker v. Carr gave us six factors to consider when weighing out whether something is a Political Question: *** bases standard on the constituion
1.A textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate branch;
2.A lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards to decide the case;
3.The impossibility of deciding without making an initial non-judicial policy determination
;4.The impossibility of deciding without showing disrespect for a coordinate branch;
5.An unusual need to adhere to a political decision already made;28
6.The potential for embarrassment due to conflicting pronouncements from various branches.
Six Factor Test ** Fails and the court can hear the case.
Case: Allen v Wright 1984
** If standing exists in government actions by providing tax breaks to private schools in underprivileged communities. Secondly,. No redress unless standing exist. Bases standard on the constituion
Facts
In Allen v. Wright, parents of black public school children filed a nationwide class action against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), alleging that the IRS had failed to enforce adequately its own policies denying tax-exempt status to racially discriminatory private schools. This failure, the plaintiffs argued, harmed them by supporting the existence of segregated private schools, thereby undermining efforts to desegregate public schools and affecting their children’s right to receive an education in a desegregated setting. The plaintiffs contended that the IRS’s actions violated various laws, including the Internal Revenue Code and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and sought injunctive relief to compel the IRS to deny tax-exempt status to discriminatory private schools more effectively.
Issue
The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether the plaintiffs had standing to sue the IRS for its alleged failure to deny tax-exempt status to racially discriminatory private schools. Specifically, the Court examined whether the plaintiffs could show a direct and tangible injury that was traceable to the IRS’s actions and that could be redressed by a favorable court decision.
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring their lawsuit. The Court found that the alleged injury, the impact on desegregation efforts in public schools, was too indirect and speculative to support standing. The connection between the IRS’s tax exemption policies and the plaintiffs’ injury was deemed attenuated, as it relied on multiple speculative links, including the behavior of private schools and the choices of individual parents.
Reasoning
The Court’s reasoning focused on the constitutional and prudential limits of federal court jurisdiction, emphasizing the necessity of a concrete and particularized injury that is directly traceable to the defendant’s conduct. Justice O’Connor, writing for the majority, argued that the plaintiffs’ grievances were too abstract, involving generalized grievances about IRS policies rather than specific, direct harms. Furthermore, the Court noted that establishing a direct causal link between the IRS’s actions and the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries was speculative, as it would require assumptions about the decisions of third parties (private schools and parents) not before the court. The decision underscored the principle that the judicial power of federal courts is limited to resolving real and concrete disputes, not abstract policy disagreements. The Court also highlighted concerns about the separation of powers, suggesting that the plaintiffs’ request for broad judicial intervention into IRS policy-making exceeded the judiciary’s role within a democratic society.
Case: Murthy v Missouri 2024
*****social media platforms often have independent reasons to moderate content and that the plaintiffs failed to show specific instances where government actions directly caused them harm
Bases standard on the constituion
Murthy v. Missouri was a significant 2024 U.S. Supreme Court case addressing the intersection of government influence, social media, and First Amendment rights. The case originated when the states of Missouri and Louisiana sued the federal government, alleging that agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) had pressured social media platforms to censor content critical of the Biden administration, particularly regarding COVID-19 and the 2020 election. The plaintiffs argued that such actions violated free speech rights.
WIKIPEDIA
In June 2024, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6–3 decision that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, stated that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a substantial risk of suffering an injury traceable to the government’s actions. She noted that social media platforms often have independent reasons to moderate content and that the plaintiffs failed to show specific instances where government actions directly caused them harm.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Justice Samuel Alito, in his dissent joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, contended that the case was a significant free speech issue. He argued that there was sufficient evidence suggesting the government’s actions were unconstitutional and expressed concern that the decision could serve as a model for future officials aiming to control public discourse.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
The ruling allows the federal government to continue communicating with social media companies, which some argue is essential for disseminating accurate public information during critical times. However, the decision also raises concerns about the potential for increased government involvement in content moderation without clear guidelines, potentially impacting the balance between combating misinformation and protecting free speech.
To establish standing in this case a plaintiff must show she suffered or will suffer injury that is concrete and actual or imminent, and that it is fairly traceable to the defendant. Also, that redress is favorable by the ruling.
Lujan v Defenders of Wildlife 1992
** Does congressional power create standing when projects that the government fund must protect so that they do not threaten endangered species
Facts
The case centers on a rule promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior, which interpreted Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) to apply only to actions taken within the United States or on the high seas. This reinterpretation marked a shift from a previous 1978 regulation that extended these obligations to actions taken in foreign nations. The respondents, Defenders of Wildlife among other environmental organizations, challenged the rule’s validity, arguing that it improperly limited the geographic scope of Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA. They sought a declaratory judgment to reverse the rule change and to reinstate the original broader interpretation.
Issue
The primary legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the respondents had the standing necessary to seek judicial review of the rule promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior.
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the respondents did not have standing to challenge the rule because they could not demonstrate a concrete and particularized injury that was actual or imminent, which is directly traceable to the challenged action and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.
Reasoning
Justice Scalia, delivering the opinion of the Court, outlined that to establish standing, a plaintiff must show (1) an injury in fact that is concrete and particularized, and actual or imminent; (2) a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of; and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.
Injury in Fact: The Court found that the respondents did not meet the injury in fact requirement. Although they claimed an interest in studying and observing certain species in their natural habitats abroad, their plans to revisit these locations were not concrete and imminent but speculative “some day” intentions. Thus, the alleged injury was not sufficiently imminent.
Causation: The opinion questioned whether the respondents’ injuries were fairly traceable to the Secretary’s rule, pointing out that the causal chain involves independent actions by third parties not before the court (foreign project funding agencies).
Redressability: The Court also held that it was not likely that the injury would be redressed by a favorable decision. Even if the rule were invalidated, it would not necessarily change the actions of the foreign aid agencies involved in projects that might harm the species. The Secretary of the Interior alone could not enforce foreign agencies to comply with the ESA.
Justice Scalia emphasized the necessity of maintaining a strict separation of powers and the proper limits on judicial power. He rejected the idea that mere “procedural injuries” where plaintiffs allege harm from the government’s failure to follow statutory procedures, without showing how such failures concretely affect them, could confer standing. The Court argued that to allow otherwise would enable Congress to transfer to the judiciary the President’s duties to execute the laws, altering the fundamental separation of powers structure outlined in the Constitution.
Case: Defunis v Odegaard 1974
** Mootness If law student can prove discrimination in the admission process and if the case is mott because he is in his last semester of law school.
Facts
In 1971, Marco DeFunis Jr. applied for admission to the University of Washington Law School, a state-operated institution. The Law School, which received approximately 1,600 applications, limited its incoming class to 150 students. DeFunis was denied admission and subsequently filed a lawsuit in a Washington trial court. He claimed that the Law School Admissions Committee’s procedures and criteria discriminated against him based on his race, violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The trial court ruled in DeFunis’s favor and ordered his admission to the Law School. By the time the case reached the Supreme Court, DeFunis was already in his final year of law school.
Issue
The central issue was whether the Law School’s admission policy invidiously discriminated against DeFunis based on race, violating the Fourteenth Amendment. However, the case also raised a question of mootness, as DeFunis was already in his final term of law school by the time it was under consideration by the Supreme Court.
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the case was moot. The Court did not rule on the substantive constitutional issues regarding racial discrimination in admissions policies. Instead, it vacated the judgment of the Washington Supreme Court and remanded the case for appropriate proceedings.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court’s reasoning was based on the principle that federal courts lack the power to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of litigants in the case before them. Since DeFunis was already in his final term of law school and the respondents had assured that he would complete his education and receive his degree regardless of the Court’s decision, the controversy was no longer “definite and concrete.” Therefore, any decision by the Court on the constitutional issues would not affect the outcome for DeFunis. The Court also rejected the argument that the case fell under the exception of being “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” Since DeFunis would not have to undergo the law school’s admission process again, the issue was not “capable of repetition” concerning him, and there was no indication that similar cases could not reach the Court more expediently in the future. The mootness of the case was determined irrespective of any changes to the admissions procedures. Thus, the Court concluded that it could not, consistent with Article III of the Constitution, consider the substantive constitutional issues presented.
Mootness and standing
Law student remedy was focusing on admission that’s why he had no standing if remedy and he was already in his last semester. Dissent disagrees though…
Mootness in class action
The Supreme Court has asserted unequivocally that a plaintiff claiming standing to file a class action must have a personal stake at the time the lawsuit is filed; the fact that other class members may have suffered injury will not suffice.
Ripeness
Justicabilty doctrine when review is appropiate
Case: Nixon v. United States 1993
*** Poltical question and six factors and was non justicable to hear from the supreme court
Facts
Walter L. Nixon, Jr., a former Chief Judge of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi, was convicted by a jury of making false statements before a federal grand jury and sentenced to prison. Despite his conviction, Nixon refused to resign from his position, thereby continuing to collect his judicial salary while serving his prison sentence. The House of Representatives impeached Nixon on charges related to his false testimony and for bringing disrepute to the Federal Judiciary. After the House presented the articles to the Senate, the Senate invoked Impeachment Rule XI, which allows a committee of Senators to hear evidence against an impeached individual and report that evidence to the full Senate. Nixon challenged this procedure, arguing that it violated the Constitution’s Impeachment Trial Clause, which states that the “Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.” The District Court and the Court of Appeals deemed Nixon’s claim nonjusticiable, leading to Nixon’s appeal to the Supreme Court.
Issue
The issue before the Supreme Court was whether Senate Rule XI, permitting a committee of Senators to hear impeachment evidence and report it to the full Senate, violates the Impeachment Trial Clause of the Constitution. Additionally, the Court had to decide whether Nixon’s claim was justiciable—that is, appropriate for judicial resolution.
Holding
The Supreme Court held that Nixon’s claim was nonjusticiable because it involved a political question. This determination was based on the Constitution’s clear commitment of impeachment trial authority to the Senate and the absence of judicially manageable standards for reviewing the Senate’s procedures in trying impeachments.
Reasoning
The Court reasoned that the Impeachment Trial Clause’s language, specifically the use of the word “sole,” signifies a unique and exclusive power granted to the Senate to try impeachments, without interference from the judiciary. The Court found that the Constitution does not provide a specific methodology for how the Senate should conduct impeachment trials, leaving the Senate wide discretion in determining its procedures. The Court also emphasized the significance of the word “try” within the constitutional text, interpreting its meaning as not limiting the Senate to any particular procedure for conducting an impeachment trial. Additionally, the Court highlighted the constitutional structure’s emphasis on separation of powers and checks and balances, noting that allowing judicial review of Senate impeachment trials would disrupt this balance by involving the judiciary in a fundamentally legislative process. The decision underscored the Court’s deference to the Senate’s autonomy in impeachment matters and the principle that certain issues are constitutionally entrusted to specific branches of government without judicial oversight.
Justiciability Doctrines
- Standing Doctrine- The court must have standing that includes the following three elements:
1a. Injury of fact, the plaintiff must have suffered a injury or harm that is imminent and personal to the plaintiff that is not speculative.
2b. Causation, the plaintiff must be able to tract the harm or conduct back to the defendant.
3c. Redressability, the court must be able to fix the conduct or problem.
- Mootness or Ripeness, Moot deals with timing. For example: Defuntas case when the law student was Sueing about his law school admissions and by the time it reached Supreme Court he was about to graduate and the case was about his admissions, so Moot case.
Ripeness - has the case reached a level for litigation. Is it ripe yet. - Political Questions Doctrine
Courts will avoid adjudicating cases that multle other courts may have conflciting or confusion to the law.
