Judical Pwrs Art. 3

Anotações:

• 1. Arise under the  Constituion, laws, or US treaties 2 Of Admirality and Maritime Jds 3. In which US is a party 4. Btwn 2 or more states 5. Btwn a state and citizens of anther state 6. Btwn citizens of different states 7. Btwn citizens of the same states claiming lands under grants of diff states8. Btwn a state or citizens thereof and foreign states, citizens or subjects

1. Justiciability : dtrms which Cases/Controversies the court hear and which they dismiss
   1. Advisory Opinion
      1. a.The Court will not give an opinion whether a law is constitutional unless it arises in a case or controversy
         1. b. The Court will not issue an opinion that is outside the context of a justiciable case or controversy
            1. c. In these cases there is no actual dispute between adverse parties involving the legal relations of those parties and also the Court’s decision would only be a non-binding recital of the views of the Court
               1. d. The Court can always interpret the Constitution If two parties are disputing over the language from the Constitution, the Court can always hear it
   2. Ripeness-Often arises when there is not yet a case or controversy nor sufficiently imminent injury to P (controversy is speculative and remote).
      1. Imminence
         1. Injunctive relief
            1. Factors for analyzing Ripness

               Anotações:

               •                                                           i.     The probability that the injury/harm will take place is imminent.                                                      ii.     Hardship to a plaintiff if immediate review is denied.                                                    iii.     Fitness of the issues                                                    iv.     Does the Court have all the information that it needs to effectively decide the issue?                                                      v.     Is there any reason the Court should wait for more information, or an actual prosecution before it decides a case?                                                    vi.     Is there any reason the Court should wait for an actual prosecution?                                                   vii.     Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner (1967): FDA rule requiring prescription drug advertisements and labels to state the generic name of the drug; Court didn’t have to wait until actual violation, all the information about the case was present     
               1. Whether it is likely to happen again
   3. Mootness - At one point you had a live controversy, but it’s not anymore

      Anotações:

      •     a.  If events after the filing of the lawsuit end the plaintiff’s injury, the case must be dismissed as moot   b.   A plaintiff must present a live controversy, an ongoing injury at all stages of the federal court proceedings   c.    You must have current adversarial parties   d.   Means that it’s too late, since any decision made will no longer affect the outcome     
      1. (1) Voluntary cessation of an illegal activity will not moot a case

         Anotações:

         •     For this individual student, the case is moot but not other students who may run into the same problem.  (this case is capable of repetition)     
         1. (2) Capable of repetition yet evading review
            1. (3) You can file as a class action
   4. Political Question -allegations of constitutional violations that the federal courts will not adjudicat
      1. Baker v. Carr: 6 part test: Court refuses case if any of the 6 conditions are met
         1. 1. Textually Demonstrable Constitutional Commitment to another branch (TDCC)

            Anotações:

            •   • Analyzing TDCC: The House refused to sit Powell in the Congress because he had diverted House funds.  Powell sued arguing that the House could only exclude him if he failed to meet the requirement in Art. I § 2 (age, citizenship, and residence) and he met all of these.  The House argues: Art. I § 5 says that “each House shall be the Judge of the…qualifications of its own members” and this gives the House a TDCC to determine the qualifications for membership.  HELD:  This isn’t a Political Question, therefore it’s a justiciable case.  Art. I § 5 was at most a grant to Congress of the right to determine whether the qualifications in Art. I § 2 were met.  By excluding him, they did something (imposed an additional qualification) that wasn’t expressly given to Congress by the Constitution; therefore the Court could here the case.    •       If Congress had expelled Powell pursuant to Art. I § 5 cl. 2 (you can expel a member for disorderly behavior with 2/3 vote) then the Court would not here the case because of the TDCC. •       But if you are Powell’s lawyer and you want to get around the TDCC argument, you look for some ambiguity in the Constitutional Clause.  If you argue that the Court needs to interpret the meaning of “disorderly behavior”, then all the Court is doing is interpreting the Constitution (something which is within their traditional role)   TDCC- Senate Impeachment Clause: Art. I § 3 cl. 6 state “Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.”  The Senate has the sole power; there’s a TDCC so the Court must stay out.  (it would disturb the separation of powers otherwise—impeachment is the only way to remove a judge)    
            1. 2. Lack of Standards for resolving issue
               1. 3. Unsuitable policy determination
                  1. 4. Separation of powers-lack of respect for other branches
                     1. 5. Political decisions already made (comes up on foreign emergencies)
                        1. 6. Multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question
         2. • Goldwater says there’s a 3 part test:
            1. 1. Has text committed resolution to other branches?
               1. 2. Would Court have to move beyond judicial expertise?
                  1. 3. Prudential considerations (desire to avoid deciding major controversial issues)
   5. Standing- whether the plaintiff is the proper party to bring a matter to the court for adjudication

      Anotações:

      •     COURT CREATED PRUDENTIAL LIMITATIONS:  (1)  No third party standing   (2)  No generalized grievances   (taxpayers can’t litigate merely on their status as federal taxpayers)     
      1. Injury in Fact- someone who has been hurt
         1. (or) Plaintiff must allege and prove that he has been or will be imminently injured

            Anotações:

            •      Imminence is a matter of perception by the individual judges/court and how they define this (broadly or narrowly) will determine whether there is standing or not     
      2. Causation –depends on the certainty of redressability (whether what court does can redress the injury—also relates to mootness)

         Anotações:

         •  1.     Plaintiff must allege proof that the defendant caused the injury so that a favorable court decision is likely to remedy the harm a.     The core of Article III is a prohibition against the Supreme Court issuing advisory opinions à if the decision will have no effect than it is simply an advisory opinion Defendant must actually be the cause of the harm plaintiff suffered    
      3. No 3rd party standing
         1. EXCEPTIONS to “no 3rd party standing rule”: (1) If you have a sufficiently close relationship with someone else

            Anotações:

            •        Congress confers the third-party standing   b.  Associational standing                                                                                                      i.     An association may litigate on the behalf of its own members in a situation where there is no injury to the association itself but the members themselves would have standing, and as long as individual participation (members must not all have separate claims) by the members is not necessary     
            1. Exceptions: If you have an obstacle that prevents the third party’s appearing in court. (Ex. Women who are afraid to litigate their abortion rights)
      4. No generalized ggrievances

         Anotações:

         • 1.   Plaintiff must not be suing solely as a citizen or as a tax payer objecting to the actions of the state or federal government 2.   Must be litigating something that affects you personally   3.  Exception to where tax-payer standing is permitted: a.  Government expenditure of  money pursuant to a federal statute has violated the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment     
      5. 3. Plaintiff seeking injunctive or declaratory relief must show a likelihood of future harm
      6. Warth v. Seldin (1975) plaintiff must generally allege a specific “case or controversy” between herself and the defendant in order to have standing.

         Anotações:

         • Plaintiffs claimed that a local zoning ordinance excluded persons of low and moderate income from living in a certain community. Defendants responded by claiming that Plaintiffs lacked standing to bring suit.

Anotações:

• all Cases affecting 1 Ambassadors 2. All other Public ministers and consuls 3 cases in which a state is a party Supreme ct has appellate jd in all other cases both as to law and fact , with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the congress shall make, mccardle case.

1. Marbury v. Madison (1803)- Established Judicial review

   Anotações:

   • William Marbury (Marbury) requested the Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court) to issue a Writ of Mandamus ordering the President, Thomas Jefferson (Jefferson) to appoint him Justice of the Peace.
   1. Marbury has the right to his commission.

      Anotações:

      • Chermerinsky p42: Appt is made when the commission was signed by press and commission was complete when Sec of State affixes US seal to it.
   2. Judicial Remedies agst Exec: specific duties no Political Matters

      Anotações:

      •  Chemerinsky p42:  ct drew distinction 4 when judiciary could afford relief:  Judiciary could provide remedies against the exec when there is a specific duty to a particular person, but not when it is a political matter left to exec discretion
   3. Judicial Rev (inc mandamus) only appropriate for ministerial acts where exec had to perform duties and not political acts w/in discretion of the exec

      Anotações:

      • Chemerinsky p42:
   4. Established pwr to rvw constitutionality of exec actions

      Anotações:

      • Chemerinsky p43: Some matters such as whether to veto a bill or who to appoint 4  an office are entirely w/in the president;s discretion and can't be judicially reviewed. But where the exec has a legal duty to act or refrain from acting the fed judiciary can provide a remedy inc writ of mandamus.
   5. Ct declared it had Orig jd over this case Chem p43-44
   6. Fed cts = limited JD: congress can't enlargen orig JD Chem: p44-45
   7. Constitution imposes limits gov powers. chem p 45
   8. Sup ct has power to decide constitutionality of laws
   9. Judges have to take an oath of office that would be violated if they enforced uncon laws
   10. Constitution is the supreme law of the land
2. Ex Parte McCardle

   Anotações:

   • McCardle, a newspaper editor arrested for writing articles critical of Reconstruction, petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States (United States) for a writ of habeas corpus. McCardle argued the Military Reconstruction Act (the Act) and his prosecution were unconstitutional.
   1. Court no longer had JD over McCardle Case

      Anotações:

      • Congress, by repealing the United State Supreme Court’s (Supreme Court) appellate review of writs of habeas corpus, effectively took jurisdiction over McCardle’s case away from the Supreme Court.
3. United States v. Klein (1871)- 1870 statue = Unconstitutional

   Anotações:

   • The Respondent, Klein (Respondent), brought suit in the United States Court of Claims, seeking compensation for property taken during the Civil War. The Respondent now argues for affirmation on appeal.
   1. Congress has power to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the federal courts
   2. Congress is not allowed to tell courts how to rule on cases

Anotações:

• Trials take place in state where crime was committed. If Crime wasn't committed in a state Congress picks location of trial