The Judicial Power: Congressional Checks on the Judicial Power + Self-Imposed Limits on the Judicial Power: The Political Question Doctrine

Question 1

Constitutional Checks on the Judicial Power

Answer 1

Article I

• Federal judges may be impeached by the house and senate
• Congress may amend statutes

Article II

• The president nominates federal judges
• Federal judges are confirmed by the senate

Article V – the Constitution may be amended by congress or state legislature

Question 2

The Political Question Doctrine

Answer 2

It prevents courts from intervening when (1) constitutional text assigns responsibility for the decision to another branch of the government, (2) the governing constitutional rule does not contain a “judicially manageable” legal standard, or (3) when prudential factors prevent judicial resolution of the issue.

Question 3

Ex Parte McCardle

Answer 3

The Exceptions Clause in Article III gives Congress the right to limit SCOTUS’s appellate jurisdiction.

Question 4

Ex Parte McCardle

Issue

Answer 4

Whether the Exceptions Clause in Article III gives Congress the right to limit SCOTUS’s appellate jurisdiction.

Question 5

Ex Parte McCardle

Facts

Answer 5

In 1867, Congress gave SCOTUS the right to hear appeals from habeas corpus cases but repealed the law in 1868. McCardle sought certiorari after Congress gave SCOTUS the right but the case didn’t come before SCOTUS until Congress divested SCOTUS of that jurisdiction.

Question 6

Ex Parte McCardle

Reasoning

Answer 6

The Exceptions Clause, Article III § 2, cl. 2, gives Congress the power to changed SCOTUS’s appellate jurisdiction. Congress exercised that right by giving SCOTUS jurisdiction over habeas corpus cases and by divesting it of that right.

Question 7

Ex Parte McCardle

Holding

Answer 7

Congress took that jurisdiction away so SCOTUS couldn’t hear McCardle’s case.

Question 8

Writ of Habeas Corpus

Answer 8

A writ of habeas corpus enables a detainee or prisoner to challenge the legality of his detention by the government.

Question 9

Ex Parte Yerger

Answer 9

SCOTUS has jurisdiction over habeas corpus cases of people held by federal officials.

Question 10

Ex Parte Yerger

Issue

Answer 10

Whether SCOTUS has jurisdiction over habeas corpus cases of people held by federal officials.

Question 11

Ex Parte Yerger

Facts

Answer 11

The military imprisoned Yerger for murder. The government argued SCOTUS didn’t have jurisdiction.

Question 12

Ex Parte Yerger

Reasoning

Answer 12

Jurisdiction limits must be construed narrowly. The 1868 repealer act only repealed the habeas corpus jurisdiction conferred on SCOTUS by the 1867 act. SCOTUS still had jurisdiction over habeas corpus cases given to it by the Judiciary Act of 1789, which gave SCOTUS jurisdiction over habeas corpus cases of people held by federal officials.

Question 13

Baker v. Carr

Answer 13

A challenge of misapportionment under the Equal Protection Clause is justiciable.

Question 14

Baker v. Carr

Issue

Answer 14

Whether a challenge of misapportionment is a political question and not justiciable

Question 15

Baker v. Carr

Facts

Answer 15

Baker sued Tennessee under the Equal Protection Clause for not changing its voting districts in 60 years, causing some votes to carry more weight than others. The district court found this to be a political question and thus not justiciable

Question 16

Baker v. Carr

Reasoning

Answer 16

Cases are nonjusticiable if (1) the issue is a decision allotted to another branch by the Constitution, (2) it’s not judicially discoverable or manageable, (3) there is a policy that needs to be decided by another branch, (4) the judiciary couldn’t decide the issue without disrespecting another branch, (5) the political decision of another branch must be followed, or (6) varied answers from different departments might cause embarrassment. Baker’s case didn’t meet any of these so it was justiciable.

Question 17

Baker v. Carr

Concurrence

Answer 17

The federal courts needed to get involved because Baker had no other recourse

Question 18

Baker v. Carr
Dissent

Answer 18

Apportionment is a partisan issue so the courts shouldn’t be involved. As long as there is a rationale behind the apportionment, the 14th Amendment (equal treatment) is not violated.

Question 19

United States v. Klein

Answer 19

Congress can’t issue laws that limit the power of the other branches

Question 20

United States v. Klein

Issue

Answer 20

Whether Congress may pass laws that limit the power of the other branches

Question 21

United States v. Klein

Facts

Answer 21

Wilson issued a full pardon to people who promised to support the Union. The state seized petitioner’s property after he died and his estate sued. The state lost in the Court of Claims and appealed. Congress passed as law saying having a pardon was proof of treason and that proof negated SCOTUS’s jurisdiction.

Question 22

United States v. Klein

Reasoning

Answer 22

The law was unconstitutional because it a rule that dictated the Court’s decision and negated the President’s pardon. Thus, it limited the power of the judicial and executive branches.

Question 23

United States v. Klein

Holding

Answer 23

Klein’s heirs were entitled to his estate

Question 24

Powell v. McCormack

Answer 24

Powel was elected to the House but denied his seat because of alleged misconduct. The House thought it had the power to do this because the Constitution says the House alone had the power to decide who is qualified. SCOTUS said it had that power to decide who was qualified and no more. Since the House found that Powel qualified, the seat was his.

Question 25

Nixon v. United States

Answer 25

The Senate’s control over impeachment proceedings is a nonjusticiable issue.

Question 26

Nixon v. United States

Issue

Answer 26

Whether the Senate’s control over impeachment hearings is a justiciable issue.

Question 27

Nixon v. United States

Facts

Answer 27

Nixon was a former chief judge imprisoned for making false statements. He refused to resign so the Senate formed a committee to impeach him. Nixon claimed the committee violated Article 1, § 3, cl. 6 because he interpreted as saying the whole Senate had to hear his case.

Question 28

Nixon v. United States

Reasoning

Answer 28

The Constitution says the Senate the SOLE power to investigate impeachments. Unlike Powell, there was no other provision that would be “defeated” if the Senate had the sole authority to define the word “try.” The requirements in the Constitution for Senate impeachment hearings are so precise that it would not make sense to interpret it to say the judiciary could have a say.

Question 29

Nixon v. United States

Holding

Answer 29

The Senate had a right to form a subcommittee

Question 30

Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

Answer 30

When the agency assigned to regulate a law defines a term in that law, the courts can’t interpret the term differently unless “they are arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute.”

Question 31

Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

Issue

Answer 31

Whether the courts can interpret a term in a law differently than the regulating agency does when the agency assigned to regulate a law defines a term in that law

Question 32

Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

Facts

Answer 32

The Environmental Protection Agency defined “stationary sources” of pollution as entire complexes rather than each part that contributed to pollution and the Natural Resources Defense Council challenged that definition.

Question 33

Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

Reasoning

Answer 33

If there’s a gap in a law and Congress appointed an agency to regulate it, it’s the agency’s job to fill that gap. Courts must defer to the agency’s interpretation under normal circumstance.