POWERS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT Flashcards
Case and Controversy (3)
- no advisory opinions (adverse parties)
- proper timing (ripeness and mootness)
- standing
Ripeness (2)
- actual harm
OR - immediate threat of harm
“bleeding plaintiff”
Mootness (Not moot if..)
4
- harm capable of repetition to THAT P (but by nature might evade review ex. pregnant woman challenging abortion statute)
- class action and remains alive to at least 1
- collateral consequences/continuing issue (ex. sue gov but die, damages may still go to estate)
- D voluntary ceases harm but might continue again
Standing (3)
- actual, concrete injury
- causation “fairly traceable”
- redressability
Organization/Association standing (3)
sue for injury to self or its members IF:
- member/members would have standing
- injury related to purpose of org/assoc
- no reason that requires member participation
Rights of others of 3rd p standing (3)
only to raise his or her rights EXCEPT IF:
- actual injury
- special relationship
- hindrance to 3rd p raising own rights
ex. Dr raises rights of patient to abortion
Citizen standing
NO STANDING AS A CITIZEN
*even if statute allows, P must suffer personal harm
Taxpayer standing
- may sue to challenge their OWN tax liability
- federal taxpayers have NO STANDING to challenge how gov spends the money it has collected (same for state taxpayers)
Taxpayer standing EXCEPTION
- laws under Congress taxing and spending powers (not exec or admin action)
- exceeding a specific constitutional limit on taxing and spending (an establishment clause challenge to a taxing and spending law)
Legislator standing
Legislators may challenge acts that cause them a PERSONAL AND CONCRETE harm
ex. member being denied right to vote on particular piece of legislation
* generally no standing to challenge laws properly enacted or believes unconstitutional
Supreme Court review of STATE COURT JUDGMENTS (4)
- matter of federal law
- final judgment
- from highest state court authorized to hear the case
- no independent and adequate state ground on which court decision is based
Independent state ground
state law does not depend on an interoperation of FEDERAL LAW or incorporate a FEDERAL STANDARD
Adequate state ground
no matter how the federal issue in the case is decided, the outcome will still be under the resolution of the STATE LAW ISSUE
Doctrine of Abstention
a FED CT will decline to hear case challenging state law IF it involves a CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE to STATE LAW, but the meaning of the state law is UNSETTLED/UNCLEAR
or
the matter is ALREADY PENDING before state judicial or admin tribunals
Political Questions Doctrine (Nonjusticiable questions)
FED CT will not decided questions constitutionally committed to another branch of gov to decide or are beyond competence or enforcement capability of judicial branch
Political Questions (examples) (6)
CHALLENGING:
- republican form of government or “guarantee clause”
- foreign affairs/military command decisions
- impeachment procedures (up to congress)
- seating of delegates at a national political convention
- election/qualification of congress members (age, citizenship, residency)
- procedures to amend constitution