Justiciability Doctrines

Question 1

Apply to federal or state?

Answer 1

Only federal gov, state decides how they want to

Question 2

Background

Answer 2

Judge made rules of judicial restraint limiting subject matter (judicial power)

Because the Supreme Court views these doctrines as implicating the court’s subject matter jurisdiction, they cannot be waived and must be raised by federal courts sua sponte. These doctrines apply to all cases, not just constitutional ones.

Article 3 section 2 extends the judicial power to “cases”:

-Arising under the constitution, federal laws, and treaties;

-Affecting ambassadors, public ministers, consuls; or

-Asserting admiralty and maritime jurisdiction

And to “controversies” involving:

-The US as a party

-Two or more states

-Diversity of citizenship

Question 3

Justiciability definition for short answer

Answer 3

judge made doctrines stemming from case or controversy requirement to keep judiciary in appropriate role for separation of powers

Question 4

Prohibition on advisory opinions –

Answer 4

Definition -not hypothetical or contingent, there must be a case or controversy.

Must satisfy both prongs to keep it from being an advisory opinion:

1. Must have actual dispute between adverse litigants
2. Must have substantial likelihood the decision for claimant will have some effect (world cannot be the same if the world is the same as it was before)(Hayburn’s case is example)

Other examples other than below case: request for advice like older cases , collusive suit

Hit this point last on exam

Question 5

Muskrat (advisory opinion)

Answer 5

Muskrat sues US in court of claims, statute waived sovereign immunity of US because it said so

US can’t give land back so muskrat remedy sought is declaration that act is unconstitutional

Holds that it is not a case or controversy because no adversity (US does not have any interest other than they have enacted this law)

Rule of Law

The United States Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to determine the constitutional validity of an act of Congress if there is no case or controversy between adverse parties

Question 6

Standing

Answer 6

Definition: determines who is appropriate party to bring the suit.

Constitutional requirements for standing:

-Injury in fact: An injury in fact is one that is “concrete and particularized” and “actual or imminent.” Thus, the injury must be both (a) of a sufficient type and (b) of a sufficient likelihood.

–Type of Injury:

Concrete (traditionally recognized as judicially cognizable, not just ideological)

Particularized: personal and individual way (collective not good enough)

Example: Allen case: discrimination is a concrete injury but it was not particularized because they did not suffer personally

–Timing of Injury

—Harm is actual or imminent (substantially likely it will happen)

-Traceability (causation)

–Can track directly to the defendant

–seeking to intrude upon the mechanisms by which the executive branch enforces the law (if too far removed)

-Redressability

Ensures judicial remedy against defendant will alleviate plaintiff’s injury

Must be able to enter binding judgment alleviating injury to some extent

Must only alleviate, doesn’t have to completely fix

Question 7

Mass v. Mellon (standing)

Answer 7

Mass: Saying maternity act is unconstitutional and invading powers of states (taking tax dollars from US treasury and disbursing to help with maternal health) state did not say it would be hurt at all

Ideological injury about political power not actual injury

Which is not enough to get into federal court

Frothingham: alleged she was hurt as a tax payer financially and taking taxes was unconstitutional because of same maternity act

Can’t show actual injury by showing that money taken was same money that came out of pockets

Taxpayer examples won’t always mean no standing

Can challenge tax but not the spending they use

Question 8

Allen v. Wright (standing)

Answer 8

Parent can sue on behalf on child but child must have suffered injury

Parents suing treasury and IRS director

Claims: 1. IRS is not enforcing law prohibiting tax breaks to racially discriminatory schools which incentivizes desegregation and the stigma of their children 2. helping white students flock to private schools so public schools won’t even be integrated (impacting ability to receive racially integrated education as mandated by Brown v. Board)

Elements of standing created (injury in fact, fairly traceable to defendant’s conduct, redressability)

Analysis of Elements:

Injury: 1. ideological injury for not following the law isn’t enough (court said they held it so many times before) 2. not personally injured

Traceability: Irs-kids is trace pattern, regarding tax breaks: private schools could become good, or they could say oh well and lose breaks and get private funding

Too much of a guessing game and we don’t know if IRS caused that harm

Harm is most directly caused by private schools not IRS technically

Policy: separation of powers issue (most justiciability is)

Rule of Law

To have standing to bring a lawsuit, plaintiffs must sufficiently allege that they have personally suffered a distinct injury, and the chain of causation linking that injury to the actions of a defendant must not be attenuated.

Question 9

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (standing)

Answer 9

Rule of Law

Under Article III of the Constitution, a party does not have standing to litigate a generalized grievance against the government in federal court if she suffered no personal injury other than the harm suffered by all citizens.

Facts

Endangered Species Act required federal agencies to consult with the secretary of the interior or commerce before undertaking actions that might jeopardize endangered or threatened species.

the secretaries issued a joint regulation stating that the ESA consultation requirement extended to federal actions taken in foreign nations but was reversed to just the US and high seas.

Defenders of wildlife and other orgs sued for declaratory and injunctive relief believing that omitting the foreign territories and those species went against the statues

Claimed 3 injuries for standing:

1. Kelly and Skillbred claimed that she would “suffer harm in fact” because some of the animals would be threatened that they planned on studying
2. Interconnection of ecosystems across the globe and its members’ interest in animals (ecosystem nexus)
3. Provision of of Act authorized any person to file suit to enjoin its violation (statute granted standing)

[The lower] court held that . . . the citizen-suit provision creates a “procedural righ[t]” to consultation in all “persons”—so that anyone can file suit in federal court . . . . [The] court held that the injury-in-fact requirement had been satisfied by congressional conferral upon all persons of an abstract, self-contained, non-instrumental “right” to have the Executive observe the procedures required by law. We reject this view (because most show standing)

Issue

Does a party have standing to litigate a generalized grievance against the government in federal court if she suffered no personal injury other than the harm suffered by all citizens?

Holding and Reasoning (Scalia, J.)

No. A plaintiff may not litigate a generalized complaint against the government based on harm suffered equally by all citizens. Standing under Article III of the Constitution contains three elements. The burden is on the plaintiff to demonstrate these elements. If not the one that suffered harm it is substantially harder to prove.

Injury: Is a concrete injury, particularized because it would be suffered personally, so type is not covered, and not imminent harm so timing isn’t covered

Traceable: not

Redress: weaves into roll of executive branch (executive supposed to enforce the law but congress said we will let judiciary enforce the law which is wrong)

Question 10

Hollingsworth v. Perry (standing)

Answer 10

Citizens proposed ballot initiative called prop 8 to ban same sex marriage in california to amend state constituion

Two same sex couples said it was against the 14th amendment

Official proponents of prop 8 intervened and district court declared the prop unconstitutional and then they sought review from supreme court

No standing, generalized grievance is insufficient

Question 11

Raines v. Byrd (standing)

Answer 11

President signed line item veto act (president can cancel certain spending and tax benefit measures after signing them into law)

Congress members filed suit before the veto was even used

Argued it harmed them in their official capacities by diluting the effect of their votes

Not particularized and the claimed injury would rum with the seat not the person (institutional harm not personal)

Who can sue (and make the line item unconstitutional)? The person that loses the money they would have gotten if he did not veto it

Question 12

United States v. Texas (standing)

Answer 12

Louisiana and Texas argued federal government was not following own law of arresting and deporting noncitizens

Must be capable through judicial process instead of just political (Raines)

Along with injury issue also redressability as judiciary could not issue binding relief (can’t tell executive to go arrest people)

Question 13

Summers v. Earthland (standing)

Answer 13

Federal statute required Forest Service to provide an extensive notice, comment, and appeal process before implementing land and resource management plans

But Forest Service exempted certain fire rehab acitivities and salvage timber sales from the process

Environmental orgs filed suit after using these regulations without providing notice the salvage of timber from the sequoia national forest damaged by a fire

Claimed injury: visited forest before and planned to do again and interests would be harmed by proposed sale

Court issues preliminary injunction to stop the sale (settled)

Parties were not satisfied with that settlement so they sought a nationwide injunction against the enforcement of Forest Service’s regulations in other locations

District Court and appeals granted injunction but Supreme Court disagreed

“deprivation of a procedural right without some concrete interest that is affected by the deprivation—a procedural right in vacuo—is insufficient to create Article III standing.”

This vague desire to return is insufficient to satisfy the requirement of imminent injury. “Such ‘some day’ intentions—without any description of concrete plans, or indeed even any specification of when the some day will be—do not support a finding of the ‘actual or imminent’ injury that our cases require.”

Dissent: harm shown even though no specific dates or times

Question 14

Cali v. Texas (standing)

Answer 14

Two private citizens and several states filed suit seeking to declare individual mandate and obamacare (healthcare mandate) unconstitutional

Supreme court held it was constitutional in another case

Argued they suffered pocketbook injury

Even if injury was present, traceability was lacking (irs can no longer seek penalty from those who fail to comply so no government action connected to plaintiff’s injury)

Question 15

Steel Co v. Citizens (standing)

Answer 15

Environmental group sued steel manufacturer under emergency planning right to know act for failing to file required reporting

Manufacturer filed the reports before suit

No redressability prong because reports filed

For a case to be moot, must have standing in the first place (injury stopped before they filed the lawsuit)

Question 16

Mass v. Epa (standing)

Answer 16

Sued EPA for denying rule making petition to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles under clean air act

Injury: coastal lands impacted by emissions

Redressability: may not eliminate global warming but will at least slow it

Question 17

Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski (standing)

Answer 17

Whether a request for nominal damages based upon completed violation of a legal right satisfies redressability requirement: they answered yes. While no actual damages nominal damages will provide some relief

Different from seeking nominal damages for attorney cost and fees

Students threatened by voicing religous beliefs on campus

Question 18

Flast exception to Taxpayer Standing

Answer 18

(1) a challenge to a congressional or state legislative exercise of the taxing and spending power (rather than a challenge to any other governmental power)

(2) Alleged violation based upon the Establishment Clause (separation of church and state broadly)(rather than based upon any other constitutional provision)

Does not necessarily met other requirements of standing

Case;
Exception to Mellon rule that federal taxpayers do not have standing to complain about expenditures of federal funds and them being unconstitutional

Sued to prevent federal funds from going to religious schools for their books and instruction

Two part test:

1. must established logical link between that status and type of legislative enactment attacked (not sufficient for regulatory statute) tie your status as a taxpayer to congress’ power to tax and spend
2. Must establish nexus between status and precise nature of alleged constitutional infringement

Aka: must show enactment exceeds constitutional limitations not just it is beyond their powers

They satisfied both by alleging it was an unconstitutional exercise of taxing and spending power and alleged it also violated the Establishment Clause of the 1st amendment (used to protect against the favoring and support of one religion over another)

Question 19

Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State (taxpayer standing)

Answer 19

Illustrates narrowness of Flast

Article 4 grants congress power to dispose and make all needful rules and regulations for property in the US

Under federal property and administrative services act federal agencies could transfer to private entities surplus that wasn’t found useful to government

Valley Forge Christian College was given 600,000 worth of land that was an old army hospital. Did not charge just had a condition that the land must be used for thirty years for educational purposes

Americans United sued alleging conveyance violated Establishment Clause

No standing under Flast because:

1. Source of their complaint is not a congressional action, but a decision by the department of health, education, and welfare (Flast is only limited to exercises of congressional power)
2. Also, property transfer was not an exercise of authority conferred by the taxing and spending clause but the property clause

Question 20

Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn (taxpayer standing)

Answer 20

Tax credit scheme rather than government expenditure (can receive tax credit for contributions made to STO’s (school tuition organizations) including religious schools

Arizona taxpayers challenged it under establishment clause alleging standing under flast

District court said they didn’t have standing, court of appeals reversed and said they did have standing, Supreme Court reversed saying they did not have standing:

Tax credit is not the same as the religious tax the establishment clause was trying to prevent (awarding citizens credit still allows other citizens who don’t to remain in control of their own funds)

Dissent: Kagan disagreed saying credits were just as effective in financing religious activities

Question 21

3P standing rule (Singleton)

Answer 21

-must have standing first then look to:

(1) the relationship of the plaintiff to the asserted third-party’s rights (must be close relationship and want same things)

(2) the obstacles to the third-party’s assertion of its own rights.

Case:
Unconstitutional interference with the decision to terminate pregnancy (Missouri statute excluding abortions not medically indicated from the purposes for which Medicaid benefits are available to needy persons

Affirmed court of appeals who reversed district court’s dismissal

Two issues: plaintiff physicians who perform these abortions have standing

1. issue of injury in fact

No doubt there is concrete injury because they have performed and will continue to perform these operations for which they would be reimbursed if the limitation is removed

2. proper plaintiff to bring the suit

Looks to relationship of the litigant and the person whose right he seeks to assert (may be as effective as the absent party or because of confidential nature)

Looks to third party and the ability to assert his own right (a patient cannot safely have an abortion without the doctor and a woman cannot easily secure the abortion without the doctor being paid by the state)

Doctor is qualified to litigate for the patient regarding constitutionality

Also there is a case or controversy because there are adverse parties

Question 22

Associational Standing Rule

Answer 22

Allow association to sue as long as:

1. members have standing (at least one member)
2. case has to be germane (related to) to the purposes of the organization (Rhodes said he has never seen a case they have lost on this point)
3. neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation in the lawsuit of the individual members

Question 23

Ripeness

Answer 23

definition: whether suit is premature because injury is speculative and may never occur

In preenforcement issues:
Requirements:

1. Substantial likelihood of enforcement

Additional considerations:

2. fitness of issue for judicial resolution (has everything happened yet or should we let it fizzle?) need for further factual development
3. Hardship to parties if review denied

Question 24

Abbot Lab v. Gardener (ripeness)

Answer 24

1962: Congress amended act to make manufacturers print established name larger and more prominently on proprietary drugs. The established name is one designated by Secretary of Health, education, and welfare.

Point was to show there are the same drugs for lower prices

Action brought by 37 drug manufacturers and association which supply 90% of the nation, issue: challenging the regulation saying the commissioner exceeded his authority

Court of Appeals said no case or controversy existed

Supreme Court:

1. Issue is purely legal and both sides have approached the case as one with congressional intent and that the government has not made an effort to justify it
2. Compliance was expected, was not an informal suggestion
3. Impact of regulations is sufficiently direct and immediate as to render appropriate for judicial review at the time (has an effect on day to day business of all prescription drug companies by having to change all material like labels and ads and if they don’t they would be vulnerable to criminal and civil penalties) effective upon publication

Question 25

Susan B Anthony List (ripeness)

Answer 25

Pro life advocacy group challenged false political statements which could be filed as a complaint with the Ohio Election Commission

Lower courts dismissed

Supreme Court:

Allegation of future injury is good enough for standing if it is certainly impending or there is a substantial risk of harm

The Court explained that the group’s challenge was a pure legal issue clearly “fit” for judicial review without further factual development, and the group would suffer a hardship by having “to choose between refraining from core political speech on the one hand, or engaging in that speech and risking . . . criminal prosecution on the other.”

Challenge: statute will be enforced against plaintiff’s future conduct

Future Conduct example: Poe v. Ullman

Dismissed pre-enforcement challenges to statutes prohibiting contraceptive devices and advice associated with them

Married couple and doctor brought suit because they needed advice and complained state statute infringed upon their rights

Court dismissed for lack of justiciable issue but then the doctors got arrested for same advice and then the statute was invalidated

Question 26

Mootness

Answer 26

definition: (injury must continue between parties at all stages of proceedings) after suit is filed

-Every element must be moot not just one

Question 27

Defunis v. Odegaard (mootness)

Answer 27

University of Washington law school for not admitting him due to discrimination

Trial court granted injunction (admitted him to the school)

Washington Supreme Court reversed on appeal and held law school admissions policy did not violate the constitution when he was in his second year of law school

Supreme Court:

Exceptions:

Class action (no)

Defendant mooting by voluntary cessation of some conduct: For it was the admissions procedures that were the target of this litigation, and a voluntary cessation of the admissions practices complained of could make this case moot only if it could be said with assurance “that ‘there is no reasonable expectation that the wrong will be repeated.’”

Here it is not defendant’s conduct but that he was in final year of law school and the school did not object to his registration

Capable of repetition yet evading review: no because he will not have to apply to law school again

Dissent: court disserves public interest, these issues will arise again in colleges and universities, can’t avoid difficult cases

Question 28

Exception for mootness: capable of repetition yet evading review

Answer 28

Roe v. Wade (overruled by Dobbs)

Mootness problem: pregnancy would be over before case reached supreme court but court said it was not moot

Elements:

1. Injury is reasonably capable of repetition to the same claimant again
2. Injury is of short duration that the judicial process will not be complete before injury has ceased

Frequent in election contexts too (prohibiting broadcasting political ads before the election)

Question 29

Exception of properly certified class action for mootness

Answer 29

New class rep with a live claim can substitute the current one (not collective or mass actions)

Question 30

Exception of defendant allegedly mooting controversy by voluntary cessation of some conduct (i.e. does not make the case moot)

Answer 30

Unless assurances defendant will not resume challenged practice

Question 31

Political Question Doctrine

Answer 31

definition: subject matter inappropriate for judicial review because actions only politically examinable.

Two indica (elements):
1. a textually demonstrable commitment to a coordinate branch of the federal government

2. the lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving the issue

IF PRECEDENT, THEN THERE IS NO POLITICAL QUESTION

Should be left to political branches rather than the judiciary (Marbury v. Madison)

Underlying concerns:

Respect for separation of powers (avoiding decisions implicitly or explicitly given to the executive or legislative branches)

Political matters requiring uniform government response

Question 32

Luther v. Borden (political question)

Answer 32

Luther alleged Borden and others were breaking into his house

Defendants said they had a valid reason by government of Rhode Island in attempting to arrest him for insurrection

There should be a judicial determination of which two competing groups should be recognized as government: charter government or rebellion’s government and their proposed new constitution

Supreme Court refused to answer saying:

Question of government legitimacy not for the judiciary: they expound the law not make it.

Congress provided legislation that President was to decide in a case of insurrection, the President recognized the charter government as legitimate, and the court enforced that decision and did not express opinion of political rights and questions raised by Luther

Question 33

Baker v. Carr (political question)

Answer 33

Plaintiff’s complained urban votes were being diluted while rural votes were getting stronger

District court dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, but Supreme Court reversed

Supreme Court:

They said District Court viewed it as having a legislative apportionment held unconstitutional and involved a political question (regarding Equal Protection clause)

Just because the suit seeks protection of a political right does not mean it presents a political question

it is the relationship between the judiciary and the coordinate branches of the Federal Government, and not the federal judiciary’s relationship to the States, which gives rise to the “political question.” Mainly separation of powers

The question here is the consistency of state action with the Federal Constitution, does not intermingle with a branch of government

Also no policy determinations here

Hold: appellant plaintiffs are entitled to a trial and a decision under Equal Protection principles

All six indica:

Prominent on the surface of any case held to involve a political question is found a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department; or a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it; or the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion; or the impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government; or an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; or the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments of one question.

No textually demonstrable commitment or lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards (judiciary goes over equal protection/14th amendment all of the time)

Question 34

Nixon v. United States (PQD)

Answer 34

Federal District Judge convicted of a felony for making false statements to a grand jury investigating bribery charges

House impeached him and senate removed him from office

Nixon filed suit for declaratory judgement that the conviction was void, arguing that the constitutional power to try all impeachments required the full Senate to take part in evidentiary hearings

House does impeachment senate evicts

Lower courts dismissed for nonjusticiable political question, which Supreme Court affirmed

Supreme Court:

A controversy is nonjusticiable—i.e., involves a political question—where there is “a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department; or a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it.

The clause for impeachment grants authority to the senate and nowhere else with the word “sole” and the requirements include oath/affirmation, two thirds vote to convict, and when the president is tried the chief justice shall preside

Nixon argues the word “try” means to include a judicial trial

Lack of judicially manageable standards for resolving question: Try is broad and can have different meanings, not sure what framers meant specifically

Textual Commitment: Reasons Supreme Court and judiciary in general not chosen to have role in impeachments: left to the legislative branch Senate

1. two sets of proceedings: one for impeachment trial and one for criminal trial (Constitution explicitly provides for two separate proceedings)
2. Impeachment was designed to be the only check on the judicial branch by the legislature (Nixon’s argument would place authority in the hands of the same branch that the impeachment process is meant to regulate)

Nixon argues judicial review is in order to place a check on the legislature and if Senate is given power to interpret the impeachment clause it will usurp judicial power

Safeguards:

Whole of the impeachment power is divided between the two legislative bodies

Two-thirds supermajority vote requirement

Difficulty of fashioning relief

What relief other than setting aside the judgment?

Judicial interference would be appropriate if they did something to threaten the integrity of the results in a proceeding

Question 35

Zivotofsky v. Clinton (pqd)

Answer 35

The Court held that adjudging the constitutionality of a congressional statute did not implicate the political question doctrine, even though the statute impacted foreign affairs an arena where the Court has frequently employed the political question doctrine

2003 Congress enacted a statute requiring that upon request passports of U.S. citizens born in Jerusalem record place of birth as Israel

Before, state department policy refused to record place of birth as Israel (to avoid taking political position)

The Zivotofskys then filed suit against the Secretary of State, with the lower courts dismissing the suit on the basis that the case involved a nonjusticiable political question regarding the Executive’s authority to recognize foreign sovereigns.

Supreme Court reversed dismissal and remanded the case to the district court to address the merits of the controversy

Supreme Court:

Issue: whether it unconstitutionally encroached on executive authority

Part of the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is

There was no textually demonstrable commitment to the Executive, as adjudging the constitutionality of a statute is the role of the courts.

Also no problem with judicial discoverable and manageable standards

Question 36

Rucho v. Common Cause (pqd)

Answer 36

Voters and others in North Carolina and Maryland challenged their states congressional districting maps as unconstitutional gerrymanders (North Carolina said discriminating against democrats, Maryland said discriminating against Republicans)

District Court in both cases ruled in favor of plaintiffs and defendants appealed to Supreme Court

Issue: Whether there is an appropriate role for the federal judiciary in remedying the problem of partisan gerrymandering (legal rights and principles not political question)

federal courts are not equipped to apportion political power as a matter of fairness, nor is there any basis for concluding that they were authorized to do so

Main bulk of argument: lack of judicial and manageable standards:

First and foremost,: the majority says, it cannot find a neutral baseline—one not based on contestable notions of political fairness—from which to measure injury. . . .

And second, the majority argues that even after establishing a baseline, a court would have no way to answer “the determinative question: ‘How much is too much?’ ” . . .

Figuring out what is “fair” is beyond the competence of the federal courts

Legislatures also are allowed to a certain degree to gerrymander (no discernible and manageable standards for deciding whether there has been a violation, results from each case would be inconsistent)

“But we have no commission to allocate political power and influence in the absence of a constitutional directive or legal standards to guide us in the exercise of such authority”