The Judicial Power

Question 1

Article III

Answer 1

Federal Judicial power (derived from Art III) extends to cases involving:

Interpretation of the Constitution, federal laws, treaties, and admiralty and maritime laws.

Disputes between states, states and foreign citizens, and citizens of diverse citizenship.

Question 2

Constitutional and Self-Imposed Limitations on Exercise of Federal Jurisdiction - “Strict Necessity”

Answer 2

Federal courts can hear a matter only if there is a “case or controversy.”

Whether there is a case or controversy depends on:

1. What the case is requesting (is it an advisory opinion)?
2. When it is brought (is it ripe or moot)?
3. Who is bring it (does the P have standing)?

Question 3

No Advisory Opinions

Answer 3

Fed courts cannot issue advisory opinions, which are decisions that lack:

1. an actual dispute between adverse parties, or
2. any legally binding effect on the parties.

Question 4

Ripeness

Answer 4

To avoid issuing advisory opinions, courts wait until laws and policies have been formalized and can be felt in concrete ways.

A P can establish ripeness before a law of policy is enforced by showing two things:

1. the issues are fit for judicial decision AND
2. The P would suffer substantial hardship in the absence of review

Question 5

Fit for Judicial Decision

Answer 5

The more the case involves legal as opposed to factual issues, the more likely the case will be fit for review.

This means that, generally, an issue is not fit for judicial decision if it relies on uncertain or contingent future events that might not occur.

Question 6

Hardship to Parties

Answer 6

The P also needs to show that they would have to risk substantial hardship to provoke enforcement of law. The more hardship the P can show, the more likely the court will find the case to be ripe.

Question 7

Mootness

Answer 7

A live controversy must exist at all stages of review. Therefore, the P needs to be suffering from an ongoing injury, or else the case will be dismissed as moot.

Question 8

Exceptions to Mootness

Answer 8

A claim is not considered to be moot int eh following situations, even if the injury has passed:

1. Controversies capable of repetition but that evade review because of their inherently short duration,
2. Cases where the D voluntarily stops the offending practice but is free to resume it,
3. Class actions in which the class representative’s controversy has become moot but the claim of at least one other class member is still viable.

Question 9

Standing

Answer 9

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

Question 10

Standing Components

Answer 10

Standing has three major components: Injury, Causation,, and Redressability

Question 11

Standing - Injury

Answer 11

To have standing, a person needs to show an injury in fact, which requires both:

1. A particularized injury - an injury that affects the P in a personal and individual way AND
2. A concrete injury - one that actually exists (not hypothetical).

Question 12

Citizenship Standing?

Answer 12

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.

EXCEPT: Challenging Tax Liability - a taxpayer has standing to challenge their tax bill.

EXCEPT: Tenth Amendment - A person may have standing to allege that federal action violates the 10th Amend by interfering with powers reserved to the states as long as the person has a redressable injury in fact.

EXCEPT: congressional Spending - People have standing to challenge congressional spending measures on 1st Amendment Establishment Clause grounds. The injury must ahve already occurred or imminently will occur. P must be the one who suffered the injury but there are exceptions.

Question 13

Standing to Assert Rights of Others

Answer 13

A claimant with standing in their own right may assert the rights of a 3P if:

1. it is difficult of the 3P to assert their own rights, or
2. A close relationship exists between the claimant and the 3P.

Question 14

Standing for Organizations

Answer 14

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

1. there is an injury in fact to the members,
2. the members’ injury is related to the organization’s purpose, and
3. individual member participation in the lawsuit is not required.

Question 15

Standing for Free Speech Overbreadth Claim s

Answer 15

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 1st Amendment.

Essentially, the P can bring a claim on behalf of others whose speech would be protected under the 1st Amend. However, this rules does not apply to restrictions on commercial speech.

Question 16

Causation - Standing

Answer 16

There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of

Question 17

Redressability - Standing

Answer 17

A decision in the litigant’s favor must be capable of eliminating their harm

Question 18

Congressional Conferral of Standing

Answer 18

Congress can’t eliminate the case or controversy requirement and, thus, cannot grant standing to someone who doesn’t have an injury.

However, a federal statute may create new interests, injury to which may be sufficient for standing.

Question 19

Standing to Enforce Government Statutes

Answer 19

A P may have standing to enforce a federal statute if they are within the “zone of interests” Congress meant to protect.

Question 20

Test Cases

Answer 20

Standing isn’t defeated simply because the P wanted to bring a case to test the constitutionality of a particular rule. The injury is still traceable to the government, even if the P knowingly triggered the application of the rule.

Question 21

Sovereign Immunity and the Eleventh Amendment

Answer 21

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

Question 22

Sovereign Immunity Exceptions - Waiver

Answer 22

Express Waiver - states can be sued if they consent to it (that is by waiver). Most states have expressly waived sovereign immunity, at least to a limited extent, in their tort claims, etc.

Implicit Consent / Structural Waiver - When they joined the federal union, states implicitly agreed that their sovereign immunity would yield to certain federal powers.

Waiver extends to suits brought by the federal government as well as to suits by private parties if Congress delegates its power.

Question 23

Structural Waiver Applies When

Answer 23

A federal power is complete in itself AND

the states implicitly consented to the federal government exercising that power as part of the plan of the Constitution.

Question 24

Sovereign Immunity Exceptions Continued

Answer 24

Actins Against Local Governments

Suits by Other States or the Federal Government

Bankruptcy

Certain Actions Against State Officers (can sue for damages personally or to enjoin the official from future conduct that violates the constitution or federal law.

Congress Removes the immunity

Question 25

Abstention

Answer 25

Unsettled Question of State Law - A federal court will temporarily abstain from resolving a constitutional claim when the disposition rests on an unsettled question of state law.

Pending State Proceedings - Fed Courts will not enjoin pending state criminal proceedings, except in cases of proven harassment or prosecutions taken in bad faith.

Question 26

Political Questions

Answer 26

Political Questions will not be decided. These are issues (1) constitutionally committed to another branch of government or (2) inherently incapable of judicial resolution.

Examples: Challenges based on the “Republican Form of Government” Clause of Article IV; challenges to congressional procedures for ratifying constitutional amendments; the President’s conduct of foreign policy; and partisan legislative apportionment are political questions.

Question 27

Appellate Jurisdiction

Answer 27

The Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction in all cases to which federal judicial power extends under Article III, subject to congressional exceptions and regulation.

This includes the power of judicial review, pursuant to which the Supreme Court can review the constitutionality of acts of other branches of the federal government, and the power to review state acts under the Supremacy Clause.

When exercising its appellate jurisdiction, generally the Supreme Court will hear the case only after there has been a final judgment by the lower court.

Cases can come to the Court by one of two ways:

1. Writ of Certiorari - Most Cases
2. Appeal - Rare Cases

Question 28

Writ of Certiorari

Answer 28

The Supreme Court has complete discretion to hear cases that come to it by certiorari. The cases that come by certiorari are:

Cases from the highest state court capable of providing a decision where (1) the constitutionality of a federal statute, federal treaty, or state statute is in issue, or (2) a state statute allegedly violates federal law; and

All cases from federal courts of appeals

Question 29

Appeal - Rare Cases

Answer 29

The Supreme Court must hear cases that come to it by appeal. These cases are confined to decisions by three-judge federal district court panels that grant or deny injunctions.

Question 30

Adequate and independent State Grounds

Answer 30

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