POLS 3223 cumulative review

3 foundational principles for the Constitution

separation of powers / checks and balances

federalism

protection of individual liberties

article III

provides federal courts with the authority to hear cases involving federal laws; least controversial of the three articles; much is borrowed from English system; does not establish a lower system of courts, but it gives Congress the power to create them

what is original jurisdiction

case originates in the SCOTUS; article III provides this power

very rare

what does article III say about original jurisdiction

disputes involving the states and foreign ambassadors

different appellate routes

appeal as a matter of right

certification

writ of certiorari

routes for a case to reach the SCOTUS

original jurisdiction

appeal as a matter of right

certification

writs of certiorari

different opinions of a case

majority

dissenting

concurring

plurality

per curiam

methods of constitutional interpretation (lens in which a case is viewed)

originalism

textualism

structuralism

stare decisis

pragmatism

polling other jurisdictions

liberalism

conservatism

stare decisis

looks to what courts have written about the clause / case; adherence to precedence

building block of establishing the SCOTUS

article III

2 main components of article III

compensation clause and life tenure

judiciary act of 1789

established a federal court structure (Supreme Court, circuit courts, district courts)

specified the jurisdiction of the federal courts

gave SCOTUS the power to review state supreme court cases; gave congress the power to create courts

became the basis for Marbury v Madison

marbury v madison

judicial review was established; the ability of the court to declare a law unconstitutional

first time the court declared something unconstitutional

brilliant because it addressed all parties involved while also giving the Court some “teeth”

struck down a part of the judiciary act of 1789

congress cannot expand original jurisdiction of the SCOTUS through regular legislation

martin v hunter’s lessee

Supreme Court sustained its power to review state court decisions that met the requirements of Section 25 (gives the SCOTUS mandatory appellate jurisdiction over state supreme court decisions that passed on the validity of federal laws)

what does it mean that the constitution is a baseline

states have to give at least the constitutionally guaranteed rights, but they can give more (education, abortion)

separation of powers / checks and balances

governs the relations between branches of government

federalism

governs the relations between the federal government and state governments

powers not granted to the federal government…

are granted to the states

protection of individual liberties

governs the relations between the government and the people

the bill of rights is a (positive/negative) document

what does this mean?

negative

it doesn’t necessarily grant citizens rights, it just prohibits the government from taking them away

what is the most important foundational document

the constitution

everything has to adhere to the constitution

majority opinion

Court’s decision written by prevailing justice, signed by at least five justices

dissenting opinion

disagrees with majority decision, written by opposing justices, can be joined by multiple justices

concurring opinion

agrees with majority conclusion but offers different reasoning, written by any justice in majority

plurality opinion

lacks majority support for single rationale, represents judgment but not reasoning

per curiam opinion

issued in Court’s name, usually brief and unsigned

appeal as a matter of right

a party is legally entitled to have a higher court review a lower court’s decision

certification

a lower court asking for help or clarification; rare

writ of certiorari

the Court is called for a case to be heard and reviewed; latin for “be informed”

primary path for a case to reach the Court

rule of 4

if 4 justices agree for a writ of certiorari, they will hear the case

writ of certiorari procedure

losing party files for a petition for a writ, if 4 justices agree, the case is heard, the court issues the writ, the court examines the case then issues a decision

rule 10

what makes judges grant writs of certiorari; outlines the criteria for granting a writ

pros and cons of stare decisis

pros: stability, predictability

cons: hard for courts to adapt to modern times, adhering to outdated ethical standards

pros and cons of originalism

pros: stability, predictability, adherence to original meaning of text

cons: hard for courts to adapt to modern times, adhering to outdated ethical standards. limiting approach, did all the framers agree on the issues?

textualism

emphasis on what the Constitution says; strict, rigid, adherence to the Constitution

different from originalism because originalism focuses on the intended meaning of the words; textualism looks strictly at the words

structural analysis

interpretation should be consistent with or follow from overarching structures or governing principles established in the Constitution

e.g. McCulloch v Maryland, or cases dealing with gerrymandering

pragmatism

effects of various interpretations; courts should adopt the ones that avoid bad consequences; doing the best for society; cost-benefit analysis; similar to judicial precedent

polling other jurisdictions

examines practices elsewhere; looking elsewhere to see how other places handle a similar issues; generally frowned upon UNLESS the case deals with a nuanced, new thing

Wolf v Colorado; justice Frankfurter took a survey of the states to bolster a conclusion

liberalism

favors government intervention and more regulation

conservatism

favors government staying out of peoples’ lives and less regulation

pros and cons of textualism

pros: stability, continuity, predictability

cons: very limiting approach

pros and cons of structural analysis

pros: preserves core foundations in the constitution, adaptable

cons: subjective, unpredictable

pros and cons of pragmatism

pros: adaptable to modern standards

cons: unpredictable, subjective

pros and cons of polling other jurisdictions

pros: consistency and harmony, justices can identify best practices

cons: subject to cherry picking, ignores local context

pros and cons of liberalism

pros: allows for judicial activism

cons: opens the door for rule by law and weaponization of the law

pros and cons of conservatism

pros: limits governments ability to overreach

cons: can limit judicial activism when it is needed

original intent

what the framers wanted to do

original understanding / meaning

what clauses were meant to those who enacted it

can the SCOTUS overrule states’ decisions?

two ways the SCOTUS reaches decisions

legalistic theory of judicial decision making

realistic theory of judging

legalistic theory of judicial decision making

what the justices should do

focuses on the role of law, broadly defined, and legal methods

realistic theory of judging

what the judges actually do

considers non-legalistic factors, including the role of politics

compensation clause

congress cannot reduce a federal judge’s salary; strengthens judicial independence

life tenure

judges’ life tenure allows for judicial independence

only way of removal is death, resignation / retiring, or impeachment (very rare)

marbury v madison background / facts

John Adams made over 200 “midnight appointments” for government officials, James Madison refused to deliver at least 5 commissions and John Marshall failed to deliver some of the commissions. Marbury was denied a commission, despite his commission being signed and complete, went to the SCOTUS and demanded a writ of mandamus ordering Madison to deliver the comission.

marbury v madison issues and decisions

does Marbury have a right to his commission? Yes

if Marbury has a right, is there a legal solution to provide this right? No, but one needs to be made

if this right exists, does the Supreme Court have the power to provide this right? Yes, the court holds the right to observe issues that are naturally judicial, even if it deals with other branches

which case deals with judicial self-restraint?

eakin v raub

judges are duty bound to declare legislation void that violates constitutions, since constitutions are the only legitimate source of a government’s power

agrees with Marbury v Madison

gibson’s dissent in eakin v raub

argues that a law should only be invalidated if its unconstitutionality is clear, obvious, and beyond reasonable doubt; otherwise, courts should defer to legislature

considered the rebuttal to Marbury v Madison

5 characteristics that make a case nonjusticiable

advisory opinions

collusive suits

mootness

ripeness

political questions

advisory opinions

where the Court gives its opinion on something that isn’t legally binding; the Court can’t rule on hypothetical scenarios

collusive suits

where both parties / litigants are cooperating and conspiring secretly; eg. both parties want a law invalidated

mootness

Court will not decide cases where the controversy is no longr active by the time they review it; where the issue is already settled

exception to cases capable of repetition

ripeness

if the controversy is too new and brought on too early; the case didn’t follow the proper path up to the SCOTUS

political questions

if a dispute raises a “political question,” it is deemed nonjusticiable, the issue is better suited for another branch of government

standing requires

i. the party must have suffered a concrete injury or be in imminent danger of suffering such a loss

ii. the injury must be “fairly traceable” to the challenged action of the defendant (usually the government in constitutional cases)

iii. the party must show a favorable court decision is likely to provide redress

generalized grievance suits

where the defendant has “a generally available grievance about government”

examples of generalized grievance suits

taxpayer suits: where a party does not want the government ot use their tax money in a particular way

government-induced suits: where legislators who voted against a law challenge its constitutionality or when the executive branch will not enforce a law because it thinks it violates the Constitution