Pg 4 Flashcards
How do you approach an 11th amendment bar issue on an essay?
Ask these questions:
1. Does the amendment apply to the P?
– 11th bars: suits by citizens of other states, foreign nationals, and citizens of a state suing their own state (applies to all private Ps)
– doesn’t bar: a state bringing the action, one state suing another state, the US suing a state, etc.
2. Is a state being sued?
- the bar only applies when a state government is the D, which includes agencies of the state, but not political subdivisions like municipal corps/counties/school boards.
3. Is the suit looking for relief in a way that is barred by the 11th?
– barred: damages, past debts, retroactive relief
– not barred: equitable actions like injunctions or declaratory judgements
4. Has the state waived immunity?
– must have express waiver: state voluntarily consents to suit (clearly indicated, involuntary)
5. Is there a valid federal statute that overrides immunity? Federal statutes based on enforcing the 14th amendment are not subject to the 11th bar because the 14th was enacted later than the 11th.
– Congress can abrogate a state’s 11th protection from federal suits if they are using their power under the 14. I.e.: age is not a suspect class under the EPC, so laws that discriminate on age are constitutional if the classification is rational
What is case or controversy?
Article 3, section 2 of the constitution requires a definite and concrete claim alleging violation of a right for which there’s a recognized cause of action duly filed in court between opposing parties with adverse legal interests over a genuine dispute in order for a federal court to hear a case
Is it possible for the Supreme Court to give advisory opinions?
No. The Supreme Court only decides actual controversies between adverse parties. They cannot even answer specific requests by the president. The court must wait to decide major issues until a case brings them forward.
Ie: congress cannot ask an interest group to bring an action just a test a new act.
What is judicial self-restraint?
Judicial review is a reluctant power, so there is a duty to avoid deciding constitutional questions unless necessary. This includes things like advisory opinions, mootness, collusiveness, ripeness, prematurity, abstractness, and standing.
Courts will not pass on the constitutionality of an act of Congress or state legislature if the merits of the case can be fairly determined on non-constitutional grounds. It is possible for a court to say that Congress violated the Constitution, but that only happens when it’s absolutely necessary
What is the rationale behind the Supreme Court not being allowed to give advisory opinions?
Advisory opinions erode the court’s power since people don’t have to heed them, so they undermine the basic theory behind the adversary system, and they unnecessarily force the court to decide complex constitutional issues
What are the elements of a case?
– Genuine present dispute
– legally cognizable
– justiciable controversy
- resolvable by judicial action
What is involved in the element of a case that requires a genuine present dispute?
The dispute must be over a recognized cause of action at law or equity. This means the parties must be genuine adversaries
What is involved in the element of a case that requires that it be legally cognizable?
There must be a violation of rights that are guaranteed in the United States Constitution
What is involved in the element of a case that requires that there be a justiciable controversy?
There must be a true conflict between adverse legal interests. The parties must have opposing positions
What is involved in the element of a case that requires that it be resolvable by judicial action?
It must be a dispute that the court can resolve because it is legally cognizable
What is the policy limitation of extra judicial review?
Courts will not render judgements that are not binding or conclusive on the parties or judgements that are subject to later review or alteration by administrative action.
The idea is that the federal judiciary will not let its decisions be frustrated by executive or legislative branches revising, suspending, modifying, or reviewing their decisions. The Constitution requires the independence of the judiciary and separation of powers, so the executive and legislative branches are prevented from reviewing judicial decisions.
Ie: the court will not decide veteran’s pension claims because the secretary of war can reverse these, and will not make decisions about airline routes because the president can reverse these
What are the issues that would require a federal court to dismiss a case without even reaching the constitutional merits?
If there’s no case or controversy, if a party does not have standing, if it is not ripe, if it is moot
What is standing?
Each plaintiff must show a concrete/particularized injury that is traceable to the action or inaction of the defendant and capable of judicial redress. This requires that the plaintiff have a personal stake in the dispute.
Is standing waivable?
No, because the purpose is to protect the courts, not the parties
Can the court raise the issue of standing?
Yes, and it can be raised an appeal
