The Judicial Power: Congressional Checks on the Judicial Power + Self-Imposed Limits on the Judicial Power: The Political Question Doctrine Flashcards
Constitutional Checks on the Judicial Power
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
The Political Question Doctrine
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.
Ex Parte McCardle
The Exceptions Clause in Article III gives Congress the right to limit SCOTUS’s appellate jurisdiction.
Ex Parte McCardle
Issue
Whether the Exceptions Clause in Article III gives Congress the right to limit SCOTUS’s appellate jurisdiction.
Ex Parte McCardle
Facts
In 1867, Congress gave SCOTUS the right to hear appeals from habeas corpus cases but repealed the law in 1868.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.
Ex Parte McCardle
Reasoning
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.
Ex Parte McCardle
Holding
Congress took that jurisdiction away so SCOTUS couldn’t hear McCardle’s case.
Writ of Habeas Corpus
A writ of habeas corpus enables a detainee or prisoner to challenge the legality of his detention by the government.
Ex Parte Yerger
SCOTUS has jurisdiction over habeas corpus cases of people held by federal officials.
Ex Parte Yerger
Issue
Whether SCOTUS has jurisdiction over habeas corpus cases of people held by federal officials.
Ex Parte Yerger
Facts
The military imprisoned Yerger for murder. The government argued SCOTUS didn’t have jurisdiction.
Ex Parte Yerger
Reasoning
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 The 1868 repealer act only repealed the habeas corpus jurisdiction conferred on SCOTUS by the 1867 act.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.
Baker v. Carr
A challenge of misapportionment under the Equal Protection Clause is justiciable.
Baker v. Carr
Issue
Whether a challenge of misapportionment is a political question and not justiciable
Baker v. Carr
Facts
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
Baker v. Carr
Reasoning
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.
Baker v. Carr
Concurrence
The federal courts needed to get involved because Baker had no other recourse
Baker v. Carr
Dissent
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.
United States v. Klein
Congress can’t issue laws that limit the power of the other branches
United States v. Klein
Issue
Whether Congress may pass laws that limit the power of the other branches
United States v. Klein
Facts
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.
United States v. Klein
Reasoning
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.
United States v. Klein
Holding
Klein’s heirs were entitled to his estate
Powell v. McCormack
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.
Nixon v. United States
The Senate’s control over impeachment proceedings is a nonjusticiable issue.
Nixon v. United States
Issue
Whether the Senate’s control over impeachment hearings is a justiciable issue.
Nixon v. United States
Facts
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.
Nixon v. United States
Reasoning
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.
Nixon v. United States
Holding
The Senate had a right to form a subcommittee
Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
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.”
Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
Issue
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
Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
Facts
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.
Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
Reasoning
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.
