MBE Constitutional Law Flashcards
Acc to EP what level of scrutiny is applied when these groups are being singled out:
Race
Alienage
National Origin
Strict scrutiny (gov/necessary/compelling)
STRICT = government burden to prove law is necessary to achieve COMPELLING interest
Acc to EP what level of scrutiny is applied when these groups are being singled out:
Everyone else
Rational Basis (P/not rationally/legitimate)
RATIONAL: plaintiff has burden to show law
NOT RATIONALLY related to LEGITMATE interest
Acc to EP what level of scrutiny is applied when these groups are being singled out:
Gender
Illegitimacy
Intermediate Scrutiny (gov/substantially/important)
INTERIM = government burden to prove law (S)UBSTANTIALLY related to (I)MPORTANT interest
can federal courts give advisory opinions?
No, fed courts only empowered to decide cases and controversies
can a federal court opine on whether proposed legislation would be constitutional?
no, that’s advisory opinion
who does the Eleventh Amendment generally prohibits a suit against?
suits are prohibited against the states for money damages
unless:
> state consents to the suit; or
> congress chose to abrogate the sovereign immunity through an enumerated power
do local governments have sovereign immunity? (county, city etc)
No, just states and state agencies
(from money damages only)
do individual state officers have sovereign immunity?
no; if they can be sued in a personal capacity
can injunctive relief against state officers be sought in a lawsuit?
yes bc they only have immunity form money damages
exception to sovereign immunity
(1) Congress can abrogate state sovereign immunity to
enforce certain individual rights
Reqs:
> intent must be clear
> they have to be exercising a power under civil war amends. aka 13th, 14th, 15th
> can’t abrogate through Article 1
(2) state can consent to suit
*The US govt is allowed to sue states bc consent is implied in the Constitution
can a SC hear a case that’s AISG?
No, bc its grounds are:
> Adequate:
state law would end up controlling anyways so why grant cert
> Independent:
state’s ruling doesn’t dependent on an interpretation of federal law
true or false:
The U.S. Supreme Court will not review a state court decision when the party claiming a federal right is successful under state law.
true
what is standing and what are the elements?
Standing is about who can sue.
Elements:
(1) Injury in fact:
concrete (actual/imminent) + particularized (not common to all members of public)
(2) Causation: injury is caused by D
(3) Redressability: relief requested must be able to prevent or remedy the injury
when is a case justiciable?
when it is subject to trial in court
Taxpayer standing
> taxpayers have standing to challenge their own tax assessment
> no standing to challenge govt expenditures (our tax money that govt spends)
* unless its within the establishment clause
Organizational standing
An organization an sue for its members if:
> member would’ve had standing anyway
> interests are germane to the org’s purpose
Legislative standing
> Legislators never have standing to sue what what voted against
> Legislature may have standing if the claim has to do w its institutional functions
Third party standing
generally not allowed except for these special relationships:
- doctor
- school
- bartenders
- parents
ripeness
case not ready for trial bc nothing has happened yet; law hasn’t been enacted/passed yet so it cant be unconstitutional
“no case or controversy”
Mootness
case is over, nothing left to litigate
“no case or controversy”
exception:
> wont be dismissed if: person will be subjected to the same action but the action wont last long enough to get through the judicial system
Political Question Doctrine
prohibits fed courts from adjudicating bc:
> diff branch has discretion
court lacks judicially discoverable/manageable standards to resolve the issue
4 types of Abstention Doctrines
These doctrines abstain from deciding claims when there are strong state interests
(1) Pullman:
Unsettled law
(2) Younger:
Pending criminal case
(3) Burford:
Complex state regulatory scheme
(4) Colorado River:
Simultaneous similar state/federal cases
3 forms of activities Congress can regulate through their commerce clause power
(1) channels of interstate comm.
- highways, railroads, seaways
(2) instrumentalities of interstate comm.
- cars, boats, trains
(3) any behavior that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce
~ Anything about passing law about a good/widget is const
- Behaviors can be judged in the aggregate
- congress only needs a rational basis to conclude the aggregate of something substantially affect interstate commerce
limitations of the commerce clause
> limited power to regulate non-economic intrastate activity
- cant aggregate
- requires detailed findings of substantial effect on interstate commerce
(ex: guns near schools; gender motivated violence)
> doesn’t allow Congress to require ppl engage in commerce
(ex: Afford. care act)
The Taxing Clause
> congress can tax even if its to regulate behavior
(ex: tax on ciggs to discourage it, health care tax to encourage)
> tax only needs to be rationally related to raising money
can be for any purpose
The Spending Clause
Permitted to spend for the general welfare aka any public purpose
> can be used to incentivize states to do something by imposing conditions on their federal funds
- cant be unconstitutional conditions
*can’t enforce conditions that are ambiguous/unrelated to the program - coerce state behavior w its spending conditions
powers that rarely give congress the power to pass a law
General Welfare Clause
> congress cant LEGISLATE for general welfare; only TAX and SPEND for it
Police Power
> congress cant commandeer states to do anything
Necessary and Proper Clause
> if used needs to be paired w another legislative power
who can enforce the civil war amendments and which are they
The 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments set out individual rights and congress can enforce them (section 5 power)
13th amendment
(against slavery)
> congress can pass laws rationally related to ending the badges or incidents of slavery
> Congress here can regulate both public and PRIVATE action
14th amendment
Equal Protection & Due Process Clause
> Congress can enforce these rights through legislation but cant expand them
> Congruence and proportionality test:
- requires a reasonable fit between the right constitutional right and the means of enforcement
- if enforcement too broad that it expands the right = unconstitutional
(ex: a statute that creates a right)
Other powers of Congress
> declare war
establish post office
plenary power over non-citizens
control naturalization process
power over federal elections
power to enact any legislation necessary and property to execute an enumerated power
federal lands
15th amendment
> prohibits denying citizens the right to vote based on race
enforce through Voting Rights Act
If you see a Q w/ an Executive order that “enforces law” but conflicts w a statute is it constitutional?
No, its unconstitutional bc even though agencies can enforce law that they cant be in conflict w a statute bc their powers are subject to control by Congressional statute
Presidential Powers:
Domestic Affairs
> can enforce the law but cant make it
power over administrative agencies that enforce law
- can issue exec orders saying how to enforce the law
- can set enforcement/rule-making priorities
- cant tell them to enforce the law in a way that exceeds their statutory mandate given by congress though
Presidential Powers:
Pardon Power
President can pardon federal crimes
Doesn’t apply to impeachment
Presidential Powers:
Veto Power
After a bill passes both houses fo Congress, it must be presented to President for signature
President has 10 days to:
> sign (making it a law) or
> veto (rejecting, sends back to congress)
~ Doesn’t need to give a reason for a veto.
~ Cant veto some parts and not others (aka line-item veto= unconst.)
~ Congress can override Veto w 2/3 vote from each house
*Only President can Veto, if Congress veto’ing then its wrong
Presidential Powers:
Appointments Power
Appointment:
> Only President can appoint ambassadors, judges, and anyone w executive power meaning its someone who can make rules, issue regulations, or prosecute
> Both Pres and congress can appoint when entity they’re creating/appointing members has no executive power then BOTH can cus its not labeled exec but when it is then ONLY the president can do it
> Inferior officers:
appointed by Dept. head, Pres alone, or Ct of law
Congress can create offices; cannot appoint officers
President’s Power over
Foreign Affairs
(1) Commander in Chief:
~ controls military; can do whatever for welfare of armed forces
~ CANNOT DECLARE WAR
(2) Chief Diplomat Power:
> president can negotiate treaties; they must be ratified by supermajority of senate to have force of law
> if conflict, Const. trumps treaty
> can negotiate Exec agreements w other countries but they don’t bind successor Presidents
Presidential Powers:
Removal
> Pres. can remove federal officers
Congress can pass a law that:
(i) creates an agency and
(ii) protects the head of that agency from being fired by the President
~ but congress can’t create multiple layers of protection
Separation of Powers:
Impeachment
President, VP, civil officers, Justices, can be removed from officer on impeachment for treason, bribery, other high crimes/misdemeanors
> House of rep impeaches by majority vote
> Senate convicts by 2/3 vote
> If Pres. is on trial then Chief Justice presides
~Consequences:
- removal
- cant holf future office
- but no criminal penalties attach
Separation of Powers:
Impoundment
Congress can pass a statute that gives the President discretion to withhold funds
But there’s a separation of powers violation if the President doesn’t spend the money (aka impounds) when Congress has mandated to spend the funds a certain way
Separation of Powers:
Legislative Veto
Congress can’t reserve for itself (or a sub-component of itself) the right to veto legislation.
Separation of Powers:
Delegation of Powers
Nondelegation doctrine
Congress is allowed to delegate may powers to admin agencies but they have to provide an intelligible principle to guide them
Separation of Powers:
Immunities of the 3 branches
(1) Executive Immunity
~ Pres. immune from civil liability for official acts
~ Not immune from things done in their private capacity or before they became Pres
(2) Judicial Immunity
~ immune from all judicial acts unless they didn’t have jurisdiction
~ May be liable for non-judicial acts (e.g., employment discrimination)
(3) Legislative Immunity
~ Speech and Debate clause protects them from liability for anything said during legislative process
~ those statements can’t be used as evidence against them + extends to their aides
Separation of Powers:
Executive Privilege
Certain confidential info can be privileged (President can withhold it from courts or Congress)
But the privilege can be outweighed by a demonstrated need (Ex: crim prosecution)
Federalism
there’s is a national govt (fed) and state government
4 categories of power distribution:
(1) Neither state nor federal government can act
(2) Only Fed govt can act
(3) Only States can act
(4) Concurrent jurisdiction
The Supremacy Clause
States can’t:
> pass a law to regulate the Fed govt unless Congress allows it
> directly tax the Fed govt (taxing fed employees ok)
> shield officers from Fed liability
Federal govt can:
> tax a state
> federally regulate a state; but CANT commandeer it tho
Dormant Commerce Clause
the STATE, not congress, has passed a law that discriminates against out of state businesses so now those states are suing
States can only make laws on interstate commerce if they don’t either:
~ Discriminate other states’ commerce
~ Unduly burden it
~ Purposely regulate out-of-state activity
Exceptions to violations of Dormant Commerce Clause
A discriminatory state law will survive if:
(1) its necessary to serve an important state interest
(2) the state is acting as a market participant
(3) congress authorized it
Dormant commerce clause:
Undue Burden on Interstate Commerce
Violation of DCC if:
burden imposed on interstate commerce clearly outweighs local benefits
Does State law that purposefully regulates conduct wholly outside state’s borders violates the dormant commerce clause?
yes
When can a state, tax interstate commerce?
~ when congress is silent
~ the tax doesn’t discriminate or unduly burden interstate comm
~ there’s a substantial nexus btween the taxing state and the activity getting taxed
~ there’s a fair apportionment of tax liability among the states
Ad Valorem Property Taxes
based on real or personal property
States can tax movable commodities that are within their borders on a specific date (ex: cars)
* unless merely in transit
Can tax instrumentalities of commerce if it has a taxable situs or sufficient contacts w/in the taxing state
3 types of Federal Preemption
(1) Express Preemption:
~ congress explicitly said fed law preempts state law
(2) Conflict Preemption
~ impossible to comply w both fed and state law at the same time
(3) Field Preemption:
~ when fed regulation so thick that there cant be concurrent state law (immigration)
Interstate Compact Clause
States can enter into agreements w/ each other when Congress consents
Consent only required for times that alter the power balance btween state and fed govt
Full Faith and Credit Clause
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to acts of other states
> States must honor out-of-state judgments that are final + w/ proper jurisdiction + on the merits
Can a state is ignore another state’s court judgment
No, that’s a violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause