The Judicial Power

Question 1

Where do federal courts derive their power

Answer 1

Article III grants the federal courts power over cases

1) interpreting the constitution, federal laws, treaties, and admiralty and maritime laws

2) disputes between states, states and foreign citizens, and citizens of diverse citizenship

Question 2

Case and Controversy Requirement

Answer 2

The federal judicial power under Article III extends only to cases and controversies

For there to be a case or controversy, there must
1) be litigants with the requisite adversity of legal interests
2) the plaintiff must have standing
3) the claim must be ripe
4) the claim must not be rendered moot
5) the claim cannot concern a political question

Question 3

What is an advisory opinion

Answer 3

opinions about the proper resolution of abstract legal questions divorced from an actual dispute between adverse parties.

These take the form of opinions that lack (1) an actual dispute between adverse parties or (2) any legally binding effect on the parties

Question 4

Federal Declaratory Judgment Act

Answer 4

Federal courts may issue declaratory judgments (pre-enforcement review of a law) with established facts arising out of a case or controversy of sufficient immediacy and reality

There must still be an actual case or controversy

Question 5

Standing Requirement

Answer 5

A person must have standing at all stages of litigation, including on appeal

Three Requirements for Standing:

1) The plaintiff must have suffered an injury in fact
– this requires a particularized injury (an injury that affects the plaintiff in an individual way) and a concrete injury (one that actually exists)

2) There must be a causal connection between the injury and the challenged conduct
– the injury must be fairly traceable to the challenged conduct
– the link must not be unduly attenuated or speculative

3) There must be a likelihood that a favorable decision will redress the plaintiff’s injury
– the prospect of obtaining relief from the injury must not be too speculative

Question 6

No Citizenship Standing

Answer 6

People have no standing merely as citizens or taxpayers to claim that government action violates federal law or the constitution - the injury is too generalized

However, a taxpayer has standing to challenge their own tax liability

Question 7

Congressional Spending Exception to Citizenship Standing

Answer 7

People have standing to challenge congressional spending (not executive) measures on First Amendment Establishment Clause grounds

Question 8

When must the injury occur and to whom (standing)

Answer 8

The injury must have already occurred or imminently will occur. In a suit for pre-enforcement relief (declaratory judgment), look to see whether there is a likelihood of harm.

Generally, there is no third party standing. The plaintiff must be the one who suffered the injury, but there are exceptions.

Question 9

Standing to Assert Rights of Others

Answer 9

A claimant with standing in their own right may assert the right of a third party if:

1) it is difficult for the third party to assert their own rights; or

2) a close relationship exists between the claimant and third party

Question 10

Standing for Organizations

Answer 10

An organization has standing to sue on behalf of its members if:

1) there is an injury in fact to the members;
2) the member’s injury is related to the organization’s purpose; and
3) individual member participation in the lawsuit is not required (not seeking individualized damages)

Question 11

Standing for Free Speech Overbreadth Claims

Answer 11

A person has standing to bring a free speech claim alleging that the government restricted substantially more speech than necessary even if that person’s own speech would not be protected under the First Amendment.

Essentially, the plaintiff can bring a claim on behalf of others whose speech would be protected under the first amendment.

HOWEVER, this rule does not apply to restrictions on commercial speech.

Question 12

Ripeness Requirement

Answer 12

Federal courts will not resolve a controversy that is not yet ripe. A legal dispute is not yet ripe when (1) it has not yet developed into an actual controversy, (2) it has not yet caused an injury, or (3) it is otherwise asserted prematurely.

This means that pre-enforcement reviews of law or policies are generally not ripe

Question 13

When Pre-Enforcement Review is Ripe

Answer 13

A plaintiff may be able to establish ripeness before a law or policy is enforced by showing

1) the issues are fit for a judicial decision (involves a legal issue); and
2) the plaintiff would suffer substantial hardship in the absence of review

A case is not fit for judicial review if it relies on uncertain or contingent future events that may not occur.

Question 14

Mootness Doctrine

Answer 14

Federal courts will not resolve a case that is rendered moot. This means that a live controversy must exist at all stages of the proceeding.

A controversy will be rendered moot when:
1) the parties no longer have a meaningful and concrete stake in the resolution; or
2) an event takes place after filing the lawsuit which ends the plaintiff’s injury

Question 15

Exceptions to Mootness Doctrine

Answer 15

Wrongs Capable of Repetition Yet Evading Review
– When the duration of the challenged conduct is too short to be litigated fully before the expiration of the conduct, and the plaintiff is reasonably suspected to be subject to the same conduct in the future

Voluntary Cessation by Defendant
– When the defendant halts conduct that is causing the plaintiff injury, but is free to resume the conduct at any time

Class Actions
– if the representative’s claim becomes moot, the class action will not be dismissed as long as at least one member of the class has an ongoing injury

Question 16

Sovereign Immunity and the 11th Amendment

Answer 16

The Supreme Court has held that the doctrine of sovereign immunity reflected in the 11th Amendment bars a private party’s suit against a state in federal and state courts.

Question 17

Exceptions to Sovereign Immunity

Answer 17

Express Waiver – States can be sued if if they consent to it (waiver). Most states have expressly waived sovereign immunity, at least to a limited extent, in their tort claims act.

Implicit Consent/Structural Waiver – When they joined the federal union, states implicitly agree that their sovereign immunity would yield to certain federal powers (eminent domain and military related powers)

Actions Against Local Governments – Local governments (city or county) are not protected by sovereign immunity. Neither are entities like police departments.

Suits by Other States or Federal Government – States can be sued by other states and the federal government can sue states

Bankruptcy – States lack sovereign immunity in bankruptcy proceedings, so a person can sue a state in relation to a bankruptcy proceeding

State Officers – A person can sue a state official (1) for damages personally or (2) to enjoin the official from future conduct that violates the constitution or federal law, even if this will require prospective payment from the state. However, a suit against a state official is prohibited by sovereign immunity to the extent is seeks retroactive damages

Congress Removes Immunity – Congress can remove a state’s immunity as to actions created under the FOURTEENTH Amendment power to prevent discrimination, but it must be unmistakably clear that congress intended to remove immunity

Question 18

Adequate and Independent State Grounds

Answer 18

The Supreme Court will not exercise jurisdiction if the state court judgment is based on adequate and independent state law grounds - even if federal issues are involved

State law grounds are adequate if they are fully dispositive of the case. They are independent if the decision is not based on federal case interpretations of identical federal provisions.

If the state has not clearly indicated that its decision rests on state law, the Supreme court may hear the case.