The Judicial Power

Question 1

Article III extends to cases involving:

Answer 1

Federal judicial power is derived from article 3, and extends to cases involving:

Interpretation of the constitution, federal laws, treaties, and admiralty and maritime laws

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

Question 2

Article III courts

Answer 2

Only article 3 quarts, that is court established by Congress under article 3, are the subject of these flashcards. Congress can define the original and Poellinger diction of these courts, but is bound by the standard set for an article 3 concerning subject matter and party jurisdiction, and the requirement of a case or controversy. Congress can also create courts under article one, for example, tax courts. Judges in those courts do not have life tenure like article 3 judges, and Congress may not assign to article one court jurisdiction over cases that have traditionally been tried in article 3 courts

Question 3

Constitutional and self-imposed limitations of exercise of federal jurisdiction - generally

Answer 3

Federal courts can hear a matter only if there is a case or controversy. Whether there is a case or controversy, that is, whether a case is justiciable, depends on:

What the case is requesting, meaning is it an advisory opinion?

When it is brought, meaning is it ripe or moot?

Who is bringing it, meaning does the plaintiff have standing?

Question 4

Constitutional and self-imposed limitations of exercise of federal jurisdiction - advisory opinions

Answer 4

Federal 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.

Note though that the federal courts can still provide pre-enforcement review of a law, that is by declaratory judgment, action, without rendering an ad advisory opinion, assuming the case or controversy requirements are met.

Question 5

Constitutional and self-imposed limitations of exercise of federal jurisdiction - ripeness - fitness 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 uncertainty or contingent future events that might not occur.

Question 5

Constitutional and self-imposed limitations of exercise of federal jurisdiction - ripeness - generally

Answer 5

To avoid issuing advisory opinions, courts wait until laws and policies have been formalized and can be felt in concrete ways. This means that pre-enforcement reviews of laws or policies are generally not ripe. However, a plaintiff can establish ripeness before law or policy is enforced by showing two things:

The issues are for a judicial decision

And

The plaintiff would suffer a substantial hardship in the absence of review 

Question 6

Constitutional and self-imposed limitations of exercise of federal jurisdiction - ripeness - hardship to parties

Answer 6

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

Question 7

Constitutional and self-imposed limitations of exercise of federal jurisdiction - mootness - exceptions

Answer 7

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

Controversies capable of repetition, but evade review because of their inherently short duration

Cases where the defendant voluntarily stops the offending practice, but it’s free to resume it

Class actions in which the class representatives controversy has become moot but the claim at least one other class member is still viable

Question 8

Constitutional and self-imposed limitations of exercise of federal jurisdiction - mootness - generally

Answer 8

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

Distinguish ripeness from mootness: ripeness bars consideration of claims before they have been developed, mootness bars their consideration after.

Question 9

Constitutional and self-imposed limitations of exercise of federal jurisdiction - standing - generally

Answer 9

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

Question 10

Constitutional and self-imposed limitations of exercise of federal jurisdiction - standing - 3 components

Answer 10

Standing has three major components: injury, causation, and redressability. 

Question 11

Constitutional and self-imposed limitations of exercise of federal jurisdiction - standing - injury in fact

Answer 11

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

A particularized injury: an injury that affects the plaintiff and a personal and individual way

And

A concrete injury: that actually exist, that is not hypothetical. 

Question 12

Constitutional and self-imposed limitations of exercise of federal jurisdiction - standing - injury in fact - no citizenship standing and exceptions

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.

Examples include a citizen suing to force the government to enforce law or taxpayer suing the government how it spends tax revenues

Exception: taxpayer has standing to challenge their tax bill

Exception: a person may have standing to alleged that federal action violates the 10th amendment by interfering with powers reserved to the states as long as the person has a redressable injury in fact. For example, deputy sheriffs required to do handgun checks under federal law, challenging the law as a violation of the 10th amendment.

Exception people have to challenge congressional spending measures on first amendment establishment clause grounds. For example, congressionally approved, federal expenditures to aid parochial schools

Question 13

Constitutional and self-imposed limitations of exercise of federal jurisdiction - standing - injury in fact - when must injury occur

Answer 13

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

Question 14

Constitutional and self-imposed limitations of exercise of federal jurisdiction - standing - injury in fact - who must suffer the injury

Answer 14

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

Question 15

Constitutional and self-imposed limitations of exercise of federal jurisdiction - standing - injury in fact - 3rd party standing

Answer 15

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

It is difficult for the third-party to assert their own rights,

Or

A close relationship exists between the claimant and the third-party.

Question 16

Constitutional and self-imposed limitations of exercise of federal jurisdiction - standing - injury in fact - standing of organizations

Answer 16

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

There is an injury in fact to the members

The members injury is related to the organizations purpose

and

Individual member participation in the lawsuit is not required. For example, they’re not seeking individualized damages.

Question 17

Constitutional and self-imposed limitations of exercise of federal jurisdiction - standing - injury in fact - standing for free speech overbreadth claims

Answer 17

A person has standing to bring a free speech claim alleging that the government restricted substantially more speech than necessary, in other words that the restriction was over broad, 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 who speech would be protected under the first amendment. However, this world is not apply to restrictions on commercial speech. 

Question 18

Constitutional and self-imposed limitations of exercise of federal jurisdiction - standing - causation

Answer 18

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

Example: the Supreme Court found no causation where the parents of black children attending public schools challenged and IRS failure to deny tax breaks to discriminatory private schools, claiming that the brakes caused public schools to be less integrated. The court found it was too speculative whether caused harm, because there were a lot of factors. 

Question 19

Constitutional and self-imposed limitations of exercise of federal jurisdiction - other standing issues - congressional conferral of standing

Answer 19

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 interest, injury to which may be sufficient for standing. 

Question 19

Constitutional and self-imposed limitations of exercise of federal jurisdiction - standing - redressibility

Answer 19

A decision in the plaintiff’s favor must be capable of eliminating their harm. For example, through money damages or an injunction. 

Question 20

Constitutional and self-imposed limitations of exercise of federal jurisdiction - sovereign immunity and the 11A - generally

Answer 20

The Supreme Court has held at the doctrine of sovereign, immunity, reflected in the limit amendment bars, a private party suit against a state and federal and state courts. Similarly, sovereign immunity bars claims against the state in federal and state agencies. 

Question 20

Constitutional and self-imposed limitations of exercise of federal jurisdiction - other standing issues - standing to enforce government statutes

Answer 20

The plaintiff may have standing to enforce a federal statute if they are within the zone of interest congress meant to protect.

Meaning, a court is likely to find standing if it concludes that Congress intended the statute to protect such persons and also intended to allow private person to bring federal court actions to enforce the statute.

Question 21

Constitutional and self-imposed limitations of exercise of federal jurisdiction - other standing issues - test cases

Answer 21

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

Question 22

Constitutional and self-imposed limitations of exercise of federal jurisdiction - sovereign immunity and the 11A - exceptions - express waiver

Answer 22

States can be sued if they consent to being sued. That is, By waiver. Most states have expressly waived sovereign immunity, at least to a limited extent, in their tort claims acts

Question 23

Constitutional and self-imposed limitations of exercise of federal jurisdiction - sovereign immunity and the 11A - exceptions - implicit consent/structural waiver

Answer 23

When they join the federal union, states implicitly agreed that their sovereign immunity would yield to certain federal powers. For example, eminent domain and military related powers. Structural waiver applies when:

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

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

Question 24

Constitutional and self-imposed limitations of exercise of federal jurisdiction - sovereign immunity and the 11A - exceptions - actions against local governments

Answer 24

Local governments are not protected by sovereign immunity. Neither are entities like police departments. So these entities can be sued.

Question 25

Constitutional and self-imposed limitations of exercise of federal jurisdiction - sovereign immunity and the 11A - exceptions - suits by other states or the federal government

Answer 25

States can be sued by other states, and the federal government can sue states

Question 26

Constitutional and self-imposed limitations of exercise of federal jurisdiction - sovereign immunity and the 11A - exceptions - bankruptcy

Answer 26

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

Question 27

Constitutional and self-imposed limitations of exercise of federal jurisdiction - sovereign immunity and the 11A - exceptions - certain actions against state officers

Answer 27

A person can sue a state official for damages personally or to enjoy 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 the state official is prohibited by sovereign immunity to the extent that it seeks retroactive damages.

Question 28

Constitutional and self-imposed limitations of exercise of federal jurisdiction - sovereign immunity and the 11A - exceptions - congress removes the immunity

Answer 28

Congress can remove estates immunity as to actions created under the 14th amendment power to prevent the discrimination, but it must be unmistakably clear that Congress intended to remove the immunity.

Question 29

Constitutional and self-imposed limitations of exercise of federal jurisdiction - abstention - unsettled question of state law

Answer 29

A federal court will temporarily abstain from resolving a constitutional claim when the disposition rests on an unsettled question of state law

Question 30

Constitutional and self-imposed limitations of exercise of federal jurisdiction - abstention - pending state proceedings

Answer 30

Federal courts will not join pending state, criminal proceedings, and in some cases, pending state, administrative or civil proceedings involving an important state interest, acceptance, cases of proven, harassment or prosecution taken in bad faith

Question 31

Constitutional and self-imposed limitations of exercise of federal jurisdiction - political questions - generally

Answer 31

Political questions will not be decided. These are issues constitutionally committed to another branch of government or inherently and capable of judicial resolution.

Question 32

Constitutional and self-imposed limitations of exercise of federal jurisdiction - political questions - examples

Answer 32

Challenges based on the Republican form of government clause of article for, challenges to congressional procedures for ratifying, constitutional amendments, the president conduct of foreign policy, the partisan legislative apportionment (that is political gerrymandering.)

Question 33

Constitutional and self-imposed limitations of exercise of federal jurisdiction - political questions - compare, nonpolitical questions

Answer 33

Arbitrary exclusion of a congressional delegate and production of presidential papers and communications are not political questions. Also, the Supreme Court has said that a lawsuit challenging the validity of a federal statute should not be dismissed as a political question even if the case involves it a dispute between branches, a federal government regarding foreign affairs.

Question 34

Jurisdiction of the supreme court - original jurisdiction

Answer 34

The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors, public ministers, consuls, and those in which state is a party, but Congress has given concurrent jurisdiction to lower federal courts in all cases except those between states.

Question 35

Jurisdiction of the supreme court - appellate jurisdiction

Answer 35

The Supreme Court has a pell jurisdiction, in all cases of which the federal judicial power extends under article 3, subject to congressional exceptions in 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 government, and the power of state act under the supremacy clause. When exercising it a pent jurisdiction, generally, the Supreme Court will hear the case only after there has been a final judgment by lower court. Cases can come to the court by one of two ways: writ of certiorari or appeal. 

Question 36

Jurisdiction of the supreme court - appellate jurisdiction - writ of certiorari

Answer 36

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

Cases from the highest state court, capable of providing a decision where the constitutionality of a federal statute, federal treaty, or state law is an issue or a state statute, allegedly violate state law

And

All cases from federal courts of appeals

Question 37

Jurisdiction of the supreme court - appellate jurisdiction - appeal - rare cases

Answer 37

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 38

Jurisdiction of the supreme court - adequate and independent state grounds

Answer 38

If a state courts decision rests on two grounds, one that is state law, and one that is federal law, and the Supreme Court reversal of the federal law ground will not change the result in that case, then the Supreme Court cannot hear the case.