Aughenbaugh Poli 314 Constitutional Law VCU set 2

0.0(0)
studied byStudied by 0 people
learnLearn
examPractice Test
spaced repetitionSpaced Repetition
heart puzzleMatch
flashcardsFlashcards
Get a hint
Hint

Docket

Get a hint
Hint

A court's calendar, showing the schedule of cases it is to hear.

Get a hint
Hint

Three sources of Federal Court Jurisdiction

Get a hint
Hint
  1. Criminal

  2. Civil

  3. Bankruptcy

Card Sorting

1/68

Anonymous user
Anonymous user
encourage image

There's no tags or description

Looks like no tags are added yet.

Study Analytics
Name
Mastery
Learn
Test
Matching
Spaced

No study sessions yet.

69 Terms

1
New cards

Docket

A court's calendar, showing the schedule of cases it is to hear.

2
New cards

Three sources of Federal Court Jurisdiction

  1. Criminal

  2. Civil

  3. Bankruptcy

3
New cards

Certorari

A writ or order by which a higher court reviews a decision of a lower court.

4
New cards

Certorari petition

a petition submitted to the Supreme Court requesting review of a case already decided.

5
New cards

This is how most cases are now heard.

6
New cards

Jurisdiction

The authority of a court to hear a case.

7
New cards

justiciable

Appropriate for court assessment.

8
New cards

Difference between Jurisdiction and Justiciability

A distinction must be drawn further between the Jurisdiction over a certain matter that is conferred upon a court by law, and Justiciability, whose concern is with how appropriate it is that the matter be determined judicially. The fact is that there is a great tendency to confuse these two categories.

9
New cards

Seven Court rules regarding Justiciability

  1. Adverseness

  2. Standing

  3. Ripeness

  4. Mootness

  5. Political Question

  6. Strict Necessity

  7. Stare Decisis

10
New cards

Adverseness

Parties and issues have to be real, not hypothetical, and have to present conflicting claims regarding a particular issue. So, no advisory opinions, like in Great Britain and France, and there have to be competing sides to case.

11
New cards

Advisory Opinion

A ruling on a law or action that has not been challenged.

12
New cards

Standing

A legal rule stating who is authorized to start a lawsuit.

13
New cards

Individuals have to show injury to a legally protected interest and that other remedies have been exhausted (exhaustion). Injury has to be specific to person and not hypothetical

14
New cards

Example: Environmental Lawsuits

can one have standing to sue on behalf of wetland where the person does not live?

15
New cards

Frothingham v. Mellon

No taxpayers have standing, taxes are not a big enough burden.

16
New cards

Overruled by Flast v. Cohen

17
New cards

Taft Court denied taxpayers right to challenge congressional spending legislation because:

18
New cards

A. Warren Court: loosened restrictions on standing; see Flast (1968) B. Burger & Rehnquist Courts: have restricted standing in some areas of the law (see environmental suits), while encouraging standing in others (see states suing other states or states suing the feds) C. See summary of Court's rulings on standing on pp. 116

D. See example RE how the Court changing its view on standing affected a challenge to CN's birth control law in mid

19
New cards

Flast v. Cohen

A. Case Facts: Flast and others challenged the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 on the grounds that the law violated the Establishment and Free Exercise of Religion clauses of the First Amendment. The Act provided funding for instructional materials and textbooks for religious schools, which Flast challenged on 1st Amendment establishment clause grounds. The district court denied standing and Flast appealed to the Supreme Court.

20
New cards

B. Question: Should the Frothingham barrier be lowered when a taxpayer attacks a statute on grounds that it violates the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment?

21
New cards

C. Holding: Yes (8

22
New cards

D. Reasoning (Warren):

  1. Does Frothingham establish a constitutional bar to taxpayer suits or was the Court imposing a rule of self restraint not commanded by the Constitution?

  2. The Court's rules regarding justiciability are hardly based on solid historical grounds (U.S. courts do not give advisory opinions, but British courts do) and are hard to define.

  3. Government's position is that the Court should deny standing on separation of powers grounds

Congress alone has the authority concerning taxing and spending. 4. Court rejects this position, stating that the issue of the case (congressional taxing and spending) is not as important as the injury claimed. 5. If a person can demonstrate: A. his/her status (injured) is linked to the legislation in question; and B. that status is linked to the precise nature of the constitutional violation. 6. Here, Flast can show his injury is linked to a specific law, and such injury is prohibited by the Constitution's Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses.

23
New cards

E. Concurrences & Dissents:

  1. Douglas (concurrence

NOT IN O'BRIEN textbook): Feels the Court should explicitly overturn Frothingham with its ruling in this case. 2. Harlan (diss

24
New cards

Free Exercise Clause

A First Amendment provision that prohibits government from interfering with the practice of religion.

25
New cards

Establishment Clause

Clause in the First Amendment that says the government may not establish an official religion.

26
New cards

Flast's two part test

The tax payer standing test:

  1. The law must result from congress's taxing and spending power

  2. The law must exceed a specific constitutional limitation on the taxing and spending power.

27
New cards

Burger/Rehnquist Court

Conservative court

28
New cards

Have restricted standing in some areas of the law.

29
New cards

Rehnquist Court tightened standing requirements by raising new obstacles for citizens bringing environmental lawsuits.

30
New cards

Example: Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife

31
New cards

Rehnquist Court made it easier for whites to gain standing to challenge affirmative action and minority set

aside programs.

32
New cards

Example: Northeastern Florida Chapter of the Associated General Contractors v. Jacksonville.

33
New cards

Rehnquist Court expanded standing for the states to challenge the constitutionality of other states' regulations under the commerce clause on the grounds those regulations diminished the states' tax revenues.

34
New cards

Example: Wyoming v. Oklahoma

35
New cards

Ripeness

A case that is ready for litigation and does not depend upon hypothetical future events.

36
New cards

Cases are rejected because injury claimed has not occurred or other avenues of appeal have not been exhausted.

37
New cards

Mootness

A criterion used by courts to avoid hearing cases that no longer require resolution.

38
New cards

Issue is such that a court ruling would not be decisive or settle the contesting claims.

39
New cards

Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church & State, Inc.

Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church & State, Inc. (454 U.S. 464, 1982)

40
New cards

A. Case Facts: 1949 Federal Property & Administrative Services Act gave Department of Education the authority to sell surplus government property for educational use to nonprofit, tax

exempt educational institution, including religious schools. AUSCS challenged the law allowing the Education Department to sell the property to religious schools on the grounds that it violates 1st Amendment religious freedom and exercise clauses. The district court dismissed the suit, but the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals reversed.

41
New cards

B. Question: Does AUSCS have standing to bring suit in this case?

42
New cards

C. Holding: No (5

4).

43
New cards

D. Reasoning (Rehnquist):

  1. Article III standing has not been defined consistently by the Court;

  2. Reiterates Flast's two

part test to determine standing... 3. AUSCS fails the first prong of the Flast test in two ways...

44
New cards

E. No concurrences; one dissent (Brennan) (Stevens' dissent not included):

  1. AUSCS has standing because Congress uses its taxing and spending authority to benefit religion, in violation of the establishment clause

  2. Whether in violation of the property clause (Article IV, Section 3) or the establishment clause, Congress is benefiting religion, and AUSCS members have sustained real injury.

45
New cards

F. Principles:

  1. Majority claims it is using Flast's two

part test; dissent claims it uses Frothingham; which do you think it is? 2. Look at how standing either opens or closes the door to federal court access...and the Court cannot make up its mind on how it will apply this rule

46
New cards

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife

A. Case Facts: Under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, federal agencies were required to consult w/ Department of Interior RE their policies that could jeopardize endangered species. DOI interpreted this law to mean any policies home or abroad. Reagan administration limited this to policies at home in 1986. Defenders challenged this policy shift RE projects in Sir Lanka and Egypt on the grounds that it violated the ESA of 1973. The district court dismissed, but the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed.

47
New cards

B. Question: Did the Defenders of Wildlife have standing to sue DOI RE the change in policy concerning endangered species?

48
New cards

C. Holding: No (7

49
New cards

D. Reasoning: Scalia

  1. Standing has 3 elements: (1) A. Injury in fact (1) B. Causal connection between injury & conduct complained of (1) C. Likely, not speculative, the injury will be redressed by judicial action

  2. Here, Defenders do not show injury in fact

cognizable interest maybe, but not injury in fact see ecosystem nexus and animal nexus 3. Redressability an issue, as even if Secretary of Interior changed the regulation, there is some doubt that agencies tasked with funding the regulations would provide the necessary funds

50
New cards

E. Blackmun, joined by O'Connor, in dissent:

  1. Defenders has raised genuine issues of fact concerning injury and redressability that Court should here

  2. Court majority is issuing a broad rule that would severely hamstring Congress's efforts to allow citizens to sue federal agencies

51
New cards

F. General Principles:

  1. Standing's 3 elements

  2. Dissent's claim RE standing

need to merely show...

52
New cards

Baker v. Carr

Case Facts: Baker sued TN RE the state's apportionment plan, which historically favored rural districts versus urban areas (like most states at that time; btw, why is state apportionment so important?), on the grounds that the plan violated his equal protection under the law rights per the 14th Amendment (his vote counted less than those residents in rural districts). The federal district court agreed with Baker, but claimed it could offer no remedy per the Constitution.

53
New cards

Questions for the Court: Was TN's malapportionment a political question that precluded the Court from offering a remedy to Baker? Did Baker have a constitutional claim under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment?

54
New cards

Holding: 6

2 (Brennan): No, this was not a political question, but the Court did not rule on whether Baker had a 14th Amendment constitutional claim (remanded that question to the district court for consideration).

55
New cards

Majority reasoning (Brennan): Why does the Court have jurisdiction in this type of case? Why is this case not a political questions dispute? Why types of legal questions are typically labeled political questions by the Court, according to Brennan? What is ultimately persuasive to Brennan that this case is not a political question?

56
New cards

Concurring/dissenting questions: Douglas (concurrence): emphasizes that 14th Amendment is quite clearly applicable to this case (writing for the federal district court that will be hearing this case on remand?); Clark (concurrence): absent state correcting its policies or Congress intervening, the Court has to intercede to protect voter rights; Frankfurter (dissenting): disagrees with the majority overturning years of precedent on whether voting rights cases are political questions, and in particular, has a different interpretation of what the Court has said what the political questions d

57
New cards

Goldwater v. Carter

A. Case Facts: Senator Goldwater and other Senators challenged in federal court Prez Carter terminating a defeating treaty with Taiwan. The Court did not issue an opinion on the merits of the case, but rather sent the case back to district court to dismiss, but for various reasons.

58
New cards

B. Question for Court: Should the federal courts hear this case?

59
New cards

C. Holding: No (5

60
New cards

D. Opinions:

  1. Powell Concurring: Case not ripe for judicial review...Congress has not taken any official action and Rehnquist's use of political question doctrine does not comport with Baker V. Carr precedent

  2. Rehnquist, joined by Burger, Stewart, and Stevens: This is a political question, as it concerns President's conducting foreign affairs, especially since Constitution is silent on whether Senate has any role in the termination of a treaty see U.S. v. Curtiss

Wright 3. Blackmun, joined by White, dissenting in part: would have not only granted cert and read briefs, but would have heard oral arguments because the issue is so important and not covered in the Constitution. 4. Brennan, dissenting: Rehnquist misinterprets political question doctrine, because if the Constitution gives specific authority to a political branch of gov't., then it could be political (and out of the scope of the Court); but if the Constitution is silent, then it is the job of the Court to answer the question (like in this case).

61
New cards

E. Concurring/Dissenting Opinions not applicable

62
New cards

F. Principles:

  1. What is meant by ripeness?

  2. What is meant by political question doctrine?

  3. Why would the Court avoid this case like the plague?

63
New cards

Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow

2004

64
New cards

Hollingsworth v. Perry

prop 8 in california strike down gay marriage

65
New cards

Gill v. Whitford

case seeking to define the constitutional limits on gerrymandering

66
New cards

Justice Brandeis's concurrence in Ashwander

a summary of why the Court should exercise judicial restraint

67
New cards

Court's Docket and How it Decides Cases

Docket and How it Decides Cases Writs of certiorari and work of clerks Rule of 4 Oral arguments Conference deliberations Postconference writing & circulation of opinions

68
New cards

circular logic

Assuming your claim is already proven and then using your "proven" claim to support itself.

69
New cards

Taney Court