Justiciability Cases [DONE] Flashcards
Marbury v. Madison
Marbury (P) was a last-minute judicial appointee of outgoing President Adams, whose commission was not delivered to him before Adams left office; Jefferson, the incoming President, declined to deliver the commission.
Rule: Where the Constitution of the United States, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, conflicts with laws enacted by Congress, the Supreme Court may declare such laws unconstitutional and invalid.
[Case on Point for Judicial Review]
Factors that made Marbury the perfect vehicle for establishing the lines of responsibility between the different federal institutions:
Marshall takes advantage of the ability to rule on this case in a way favorable to the Jeffersonians & establishes precedent to keep him from getting impeached.
(1) The law Marshall criticized and held unconstitutional was a law that had been made a long time ago.
(2) The faction in power had changed, Democratic Republicans had taken over (In fact, so much so that they had the presidential seat, a majority in the House and a supermajority in the Senate)
(3) John Marshall had been involved in the process himself!
Marshall v. Hamilton on Courts
Marshall: the American constitutional system relies on the active engagement and contestation of interpretations of the Constitution to uphold constitutional principles and maintain the integrity of the system.
Hamilton: The courts have neither force nor will, but merely judgment.
Cooper v. Aaron
Arkansas state officials challenged the application of a federal integration decision to their legislative schemes.
The constitutional right of children not to be discriminated against in school admission on the basis of race, as established by the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education, cannot be nullified by the states.
[Case on Point for Supremacy Clause]
Ex Parte McCardle
SCOTUS Confirmed that the Marbury view of reading of the exceptions power of the Supreme Court for appellate jurisdiction was the correct reading.
[Case on Point for Appellate Jx]
Moore v. Harper
[Effect: Struck down independent state legislature theory]
North Carolina gained an additional seat in the US house of representatives which redistricted the state. The map created was challenged and legislators asked the Supreme court to review whether Elections Clause of US constitution gives state legislatures alone the authority to regulate federal elections. Independent State Legislature theory. Gerrymandering issue where a state will draw district lines to skew certain districts with heavy party lines, skewing election results.
Article I S4 [The Federal Elections Clause] [[Default Rule: a statute or amendment could be created by the Congress]] does not vest exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding federal elections.
Baker v Carr [General justiciability]
[Case on point for non-justiciable PQ]
Tennessee voters seek a reapportionment of state assembly districts; the districts have not been reapportioned since 1901.
Non justiciability of political questions: the guaranty clause cannot be used as a basis for invalidating state action
Bush v. Gore
Florida decides the presidency. Rules for counting the votes in Florida, when there is a dispute about the way they were doing the counting. The state legislatures decide based on Federal Elections Clause. Therefore, FL law is in question. State legislature made rules about how counting will happen. FL. S. Ct. interpreted those rules at will and making different rules from what the legislature actually made.
[Case on point for policy against EC & supplemental supremacy]
[HISTORICAL FACT: 4 presidential elections where the winner won EC but lost PV. they’re all republican.
2019 - trump
2000- bush
88 - harrison
76 - hayes
JQA won neither lol]
Lujan [Standing]
Facts: Defenders of Wildlife (P) seek to have the Endangered Species act interpreted to cover government agency activities in foreign countries.
Rule: Congress may not convert the public’s interest in an Executive officer’s compliance with a law into an individual right to sue.
Concrete personal injury, actual or immediately threatened
How I remember : “No plan to go back and the court can’t be the one to make it right”
Mass. v. EPA
Facts: Calling global warming the most pressing environmental challenge of our time, a group of state and local governments, as well as certain private organizations, brought suit against the EPA contending that it had abdicated its responsibility under the Clean Air Act to regulate the emissions of four greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide.
Rule: Congress has accorded litigants the right to challenge agency action (or inaction) to protect their interests.
How I remember:
“Massachusets EPA (enforce the law) ‘cause we a state
Greenhouse gasses on the rise shoreline got some rising tides
EPA say no redress dissent probe causation test
Also don’t see imminence
And what could they say to fix the mess”
