Justiciability Flashcards

Question

Procedural Rights and Regulated Parties

Answer 1

Nearly always have standing to challenge regulation

Answer 2

Relator has Art. III standing (assigned gov't claim)

Answer 3

Grants judicial review to (i) person who suffers legal wrong because of agency action or (ii) person who is aggrieved by agency action within meaning of statute

Answer 4

(Data Processing) – P must demonstrate: (1) injury in fact (constitutional minimum); (2) be arguably within the zone of interests to be protected or regulated by the statute or constitutional guarantee in question (question of statutory interpretation of COA – neither prudential nor constitutional, Lexmark)

Answer 5

Must follow federal standing rules (Hollingsworth) Exception (ASARCO) – if original P didn’t have federal standing, but state judgment causes direct, specific, and concrete injury to petitioner federal court has jurisdiction

Answer 6

1) By Part | 2) By Application

Answer 7

(Hellerstadt) – informative, but not determinative; legislature can’t require courts do perform “quintessentially legislative functions” of drawing complex lines

Answer 8

Statute cannot be applied to P

Answer 9

No set of circumstances under which statute is valid (bizarre hypos excepted) Conventional wisdom – nearly impossible to succeed outside 1A context (1A special, chilling)

Answer 10

(Jews for Jesus): individual whose speech/conduct may be prohibited can bring facial challenge because statute also threatens nonparties (who want to engage in protected expression but don’t) Test: (1) substantially overbroad – statute significantly compromises 1A protections for nonparties; (2) no obvious limiting construction

Answer 11

Constitutional tests – Ps claim invokes constitutional test (SS, MRR), which may analyze statute as-applied or on its face (e.g. abortion, 2A, EP, federalism cases = facial) Practice tip: don’t label challenge as “facial” increases judicial anxiety (Salerno)

Answer 12

1) If statute only has few unconstitutional applications --> sever, invalidated as-applied 2) If obvious way to sever statute to save it from invalidity --> sever, invalidated as-applied 3) If not obvious that severing is needed to save statute, but this application is okay and there’s an obvious way to sever should court eventually determine it’s necessary --> uphold without deciding severability (Yazoo, U.S. v. GA) 4) Severing must be consistent with legislative intent – severable unless Congress wouldn’t have enacted provisions independent of unconstitutional ones (Jackson, Morales-Santana) 5) Courts will not sever statutes in a way they view as creatively rewriting the statute (Lopez, won’t add jurisdictional hook; but see Skilling honest services fraud rewrite) 6) Presumption of severability (Yazoo)

Answer 13

(Defunis) = P must continue to have cognizable injury from filing to judgment

Answer 14

Prudential (Rehnquist – rooted in policy) or constitutional (Scalia – Art. III)

Answer 15

1) Voluntary cessation (Laidlaw) – if possibility that D will return to old ways, no mootness; heavy burden on D (Heckler) to show “absolutely clear” it won’t happen again (Viteck) 2) Capable of repetition, yet evading review (WI Right to Life, voting cycle) – burden on D to rebut; must be capable of repetition between the same parties

Answer 16

death moots (Singer) completion of sentence doesn’t (Sibron) because (i) short sentences could escape review, (ii) collateral consequences of conviction

Answer 17

Class actions (Geraghty): named Ps can continue to represent class after their case is mooted if class is certified before case is mooted (or if mooted after motion to certify, Genesis)

Answer 18

Vacatur in civil cases (Munsingwear, change of law) Discretionary vacatur in settlement (presumptive value of law clarification) Criminal: dismissal of appeal but not conviction (Dove) State cases – SCOTUS dismisses those that moot (ASARCO), but Defunis vacated/remanded

Answer 19

(Abbot Labs): two factors – (i) fitness of issues for adjudication (current factual development of record is deficient); (ii) hardship to the parties if adjudication is withheld

Answer 20

``` Constitutional core (need enough facts to judge) + Discretionary layers (since remedy is usually injunction, requires equitable evaluation of how much hardship is enough) ```

Answer 21

1) Challenges to statute/reg as unconstitutional (UPW, Abbot Labs) Regulated parties: if required to change behavior immediately --> ripe (Abbot Labs) Takings Clause: no taking (and thus suits for just compensation not ripe) until state challenges are exhausted (Williamson) [Exception: exhaustion futile?] 2) Challenges to discretionary executive action --> generally not ripe (O’Shea) (past ≠ future) Rationale: unclear who will be hurt; injunction reiterates law --> requested prohibitory injunction enforced like structural injunction (interferes with day-to-day state proceedings)