PREREQUISITES TO FEDERAL JURISDICTION & JUDICIAL REVIEW Flashcards
Judicial Review limited to?
cases and controversies under Art III, Sec. 2. No advisory opinions
Private Rights v Public Rights Models - Private Rights?
Private Rights Model - function of courts is exclusively to resolve the rights of the parties before them in the context of traditionally structured lawsuits involving specifically injured Ps seeking relief from specific Ds
Marbury v Madison - “the province of the Court is solely to decide on the rights of individuals”
Private Rights v Public Rights Models - Public Rights?
The special function of the Court to make sure that other branches of govt adhere to constitutional limitations on their power
Marbury v Madison - “it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is”
What is an advisory opinion?
any judgment subject to review by or advice given to co-equal branch of government.
3 requirements for standing
- Injury in Fact
- legally cognizable (D;s action must have caused harm & there is causal connection b/t injury and D’s conduct)
- redressable (court’s ruling must redress/remedy the injury)
3 Elements of Injury in Fact?
- distinct and palpable (must affect you individually and materially)
- not abstract or hypothetical (case & controversy)
- actual and imminent (Twiqball - fairly traceable to action being challenged)
What are the 2 types of standing limitations?
- Prudential - rules that the court imposes upon itself but would not be unconstitutional
- Constitutional - cases and controversies
Allen v Wright
F - parents of black school children allege stigmatic injury and inferior education
C - no standing - stigmatic injury fails b/c not distinct and palpable
R - One does not have standing to sue in federal court unless he can challenge the violation of a right personal to him
US v Scrap
F - law students challenged failure of Interstate commerce Commission to prep environmental impact statement prior to suspending surcharge on freight.
C - standing b/e there is injury in fact that is distinct and palpable, not abstract or hypothetical, actual and imminent (b/c they use park)
Heckler v Matthews
F - challenged fed statute giving larger SS benefits to women than men alleged injury was non-economic, discrimination.
R - standing upheld b/c discrimination can cause non-economic injuries to persons who are personally denied equal treatment.
LA v Lyons
F - P choked unconsciousness by police.
R - injury is hypothetical b/c future injury to P too speculative.
Lujan v Defenders of Wildlife
F - Endangered Species Act no longer requiring action by foreign nations.
R - Congress cannot create standing when an injury in fact, a causal connection and redressability are not present.
C - no standing
Mass v EPA
F - Mass suing EPA b/c they failed to issue regulations regulating greenhouse gas emissions
C - standing b/c states have special solicitude - stake in protecting state as quasi-sovereign
(State cannot sue fed govt on behalf of its citizens, but can on its own behalf to protect its own interests)
What is a Qui Tam Action?
lawsuit brought by private citizen (Relator) against person or company who is believed to have violated the law in the performance of a K with the govt or in violation of a govt regulation, when there is a statute which provides for a pealty for such violations.
Qui tam suits are grought for “the govt as well as the P”
What is taxpayer standing rule?
Federal taxpayer must allege:
- that challenged enactment is an exercise of the taxing and spending power; and
- that the challenged enactment offends a specific limitation on the taxing and spending power.
Frothingham v Mellon
F - A federal taxpayer contended that a federal statute providing funds to states undertaking programs to reduce maternal and infant mortality exceeded Congress’ power, and “that the effect of the appropriations complained of will be to increase the burden of future taxation and thereby take her property without due process of law.”
R - A person asking the Court to hold a federal act unconstitutional “must be able to show, not only that the statute is invalid, but that he has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury as the result of its enforcement and not merely that he suffers in some indefinite way in common with people generally.”
Flast v Cohen
Upheld standing of federal taxpayers to challenge federal expenditures for parochial schools under the religion clause of the First Amendment.
C federal taxpayer status is a sufficient basis for standing to sue in federal court to challenge taxing and spending programs enacted by Congress as violative of the Establishment Clause.
(Establishment Clause - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion)
TEST: A federal taxpayer has standing to challenge a federal appropriation and spending measures if she can establish that the challenged measure:
1. Was enacted under Congress’s taxing and spending power; and
2. Exceeds some specific limitation on the power
Legislators Standing
Lack standing b/c injury is hypothetical
What is mootness?
Case must be dismissed b/c court’s ruling cannot have any practical effect in achieving the desired result.
What are the exceptions to mootness?
- Voluntary cessation of the allegedly illegal conduct
3. reasonable likelihood that the constitutional issue is “capable of repetition, yet evading review”
What is ripeness?
Justiciability doctrine determining when review is appropriate.
Art II requires that there be present injury or an imminent threat of ijury.
What is Flast 2-prong taxpayer standing test?
A federal taxpayer has standing to challenge a federal appropriation and spending measures if she can establish that the challenged measure:
- Was enacted under Congress’s taxing and spending power; and
- Exceeds some specific limitation on the power
