Justiciability Doctrine

Question 1

General: Jud. Doctrines

Answer 1

Judiciary is court of limited jurisidiction, these doctrines determine what you can and can’t hear. Must meet all 5.

Question 2

Pros:

Answer 2

Conserves Judicial resources.

Preserves Separation of Powers.

Question 3

Advisory Opinions

Answer 3

• Actual dispute between adverse litigants (no decisions on anticipated conduct)
• Substantial likelihood decision will bring change or have effect in real world

(Plaught v. Spendthrift Farm)

Question 4

Plaught v. Spendthrift

Answer 4

Congress wanted SC to reopen cases
Congress cannot overrule Supreme court
This would diminish court to legal council

Question 5

Hayburn

Answer 5

• Court not advisory board
• Court was ordered to review pensions.
• Duty of making recommendations was not of judicial nature

Question 6

Ripeness

Answer 6

Determines if matters are mature for Review
- Do you have to break law to challenge? (dec action)
TEST:
• Hardship- What is the hardship of complying w/ the statute? Look at degree of hardship. Likelihood harm/injury has occurred or will imminently occur. Hypothetical threat not enough. If enforcement certain does not have to be imminent.
• Fit for Judicial Inquiry- Possible to attain effective resolution or something to be gained by waiting? If purely legal question then likely to be ripe. If factual record required is there enough to come to reasonable decision?

(Poe/Abbott)

Question 7

Ripeness: Poe

Answer 7

Hardship must be real and imminent

• CN law says no contraception has not been enforced
• Couple says they will suffer emotional and physical hardship
• Court says not imminent

Question 8

Ripeness: Abbot Laboratories

Answer 8

Hardship was sufficiently direct and imminent/immediate and was purely legal

-Label leg. would require Abbott to substantially invest in new materials and destroy everything they had or not complying

Question 9

Ripeness: Mitchell

Answer 9

Hypothetical Threat Not Enough

• Act would not allow federal employees to take part in political campaigns
• Plaintiffs were seeking advisory opinions on broad claims

Question 10

Ripeness: Lake Carries v. MacMullan

Answer 10

Threat that law would be enforced was inenvitable

-even though enforcement wouldn’t be for 5 years

Question 11

Mootness

Answer 11

• Must be live controversy- if not, no real world impact

3 Exceptions

• Wrong capable of repeitition (Moore)
• Voluntary Cessation (Laidlaw)
• Class Action (Garaghty)

Question 12

Mootness Exception: Wrong Capable of Repetition

Moore/Roe

Answer 12

-Wrong capable of repetition but evading review. Some injuries by nature are too short. Is injury likely to recur to PLAINTIFF again?

MOORE- Challenge to election. Election over by the court heard case.

• No possibility of granting any relief BUT
• Capable of repetition, yet evading review

ROE- woman could get pregnant and require another abortion.

Question 13

Mootness Exception: Voluntary Cessation

Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Environmental Services

Answer 13

-D voluntarily ceases bad behavior but is free to return to it at any time. Only if there is no reasonable chance that D could resume behavior can case be moot.

LAIDLAW- violating clean water act. Said they would stop but they could have restarted at any time

Question 14

Mootness Exception: Class Action

US Parole v. Geraghty

Answer 14

• Proceed even when party bringing suit leaves case. So long as members of the class have a live controversy can continue. Personal Stake Requirement in obtaining classification.

GERAGHTY- guy sued on behalf of prisoners and was released before case heard. Retains a “personal stake”.

Question 15

Political Question

Answer 15

• Some Const. provisions are left to the political branches of Gov. to interpret and enforce. Court will not adjudicate and therefore leave these to governmental process. EX. Foreign Policy

(Baker v. Carr)

Question 16

Political Question: Baker v. Carr

Answer 16

• Court says separate from political question because it was brought under equal protection
• Appellants being denied equal protection of laws by being underrepresented in state leg.

Question 17

Standing

Answer 17

Determines whether person is proper party to bring suit

TEST:
Constitutional (3 elements)
•Injury in fact: must be personal. Concrete and personalized. Distinct and palpable (not speculative/abstract) Can’t be hypothetical
•Causation: Injury traceable to D’s conduct
•Redressability: Remedy will actually cure

LIMITS
•Party may only assert his/her rights (no 3rd party)
•Can’t sue as a tax payer

(Allen/Mass v. EPA/Lyons/Lujan)

Question 18

Standing: Allen

Answer 18

Injury must be traceable and not too abstract

-Allowing tax incentives for private schools opens up funding and allows school that racially discriminate to operate for cheaper.

Injury- Diminishes children’s opportunity to attend a racially integrated school. Injury to their dignity too abstract

• Court asserts this injury is not traceable (no causation) to the IRS.

Question 19

Standing: Mass. v EPA

Answer 19

Complete Relief not required

• Injury- EPA has refused to regulate carbon monoxide emissions from vehicles. Caused land loss- OK if your not the only one affected
• Causation- Court says nature of action requires small steps. The fact that the step is small does not break the change of causation.
• Redressability- Even w/ slow pace of global warming. Courts ruling does not have to provide complete relief.

Question 20

Standing: Lyons

Answer 20

Plaintiff must be the one that could suffer injury again

• seeks injunction so officers cannot use chokehold on anyone else.
• can’t prove that there is reasonable chance he will suffer injury again

Question 21

Standing: Lujan

Answer 21

Injury must be to person bringing suit. Cause of action not enough.

• Endangered species Act- agencies doing business in other countries don’t have to consult act.
• Injury- increases the rate of extinction and threat to endangered species. Personal interest in later observing species
• Threat of injury not imminent and actual(may not return, past exposure aint), no actual person is harmed. Even if act allows people to bring suit, still must see injury to person. Cause of action NOT ENOUGH.