ConLaw Federal Judiciary Power

how to focus on bigger picture while reading cases

"after this case, what is the law now?" What is the court trying to answer?

why did framers want to make constitution difficult to change

to prevent tyrranical governments

marbury v madison takeaway

Judicial review was not in constitution and this case granted them that power

marbury v madison 3 part ruling

Court rules against Marbury and held that is could not issue him mandamus

The court declared that it lacked jurisdiction to grant mandamus on its original jurisdiction
Court held that statute which gave it original jurisdiction unconstitutional

when may court review executive conduct (4)

Court ruled that Marbury had a right, but no remedy

Most recent case: bush v gore

No person is above the law

No judicial review for discretionary acts vs judicial review for ministerial acts

judicial review (3)

Established power of judiciary to review legislative acts, actions of the federal executive branch and that no person, not even the president, is above the law, and some laws can be declared unconstitutional

political questions that are not for judicial review

For those questions, the executive and legislative branches are only politically accountable, not legally accountable

This doctrine is aligned with standing - its different from current political question doctrine

nine types of cases judiciary can resolve that are explicitly written in the constitution

(1) cases arising under the Constitution, treaties, and the laws of the United States;

(2) cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, or consuls; and

(3) cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction

(4) controversies to which the US shall be a party;

(5) controversies between two or more states;

(6) controversies between a state and citizens of another states (modified by Eleventh Amendment);

(7) controversies between citizens of different states;

(8) controversies between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states; and

(9) controversies between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens, or subjects (modified by Eleventh Amendment)

supreme court original jurisdiction

cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls and cases in which a state shall be a party.

supreme court appellate jurisdiction

all other cases "both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such regulations as Congress shall make."

federal courts and state courts relationship (2)

U.S. Constitution recognized the limitations on the independence and impartiality of state court judges. See Cohens v. Virginia (1821).

Supreme Court review of state court decisions is essential to ensure uniformity in the interpretation of federal law.

congressional limits on judicial review (2)

The extent to which Congress has the power to alter the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction under the Article III Exceptions Clause remains debatable.

Congress cannot dictate a rule for how a federal court can decide a particular case
United States v. Klein (1871).

Congress cannot dictate a rule for how a federal court can decide a particular case

United States v. Klein (1871).

interpretive methods (6)

interpretive-originalism, modified originalism, original meaning originalism, tradition, process-based theory,pragmitism

interpretive-originalism

says judges should only protect values that are clearly stated in the text of the Constitution or clearly implicit from the framers' intent.

modified originalism

commands courts to ascertain and follow the framers' general intent, but not their specific intentions. Every constitutional provision has an underlying concept reflecting a general intent, but courts in each generation create their own conception.

original meaning originalism

constrains interpretations of Constitution to its original meaning as understood and reflected in public meaning and practices at the time its provisions were ratified.

tradition

instructs courts, in determining the meaning of constitutional provisions, to follow tradition, for instance, the court should protect a right only if there is a historical tradition of social recognition and protection of that right.

process-based theory

explains that a court's primary role is to create a fair process of government but leave substantive value choices to democratic majority decision-making. Under this method, a court is justified in using non-originalism in issues concerning democratic process and procedures (e.g., voting rights, political speech, criminal procedure, procedural due process), but should be originalist in matters concerning substance.

pragmitism

tasks courts with identifying and defining those values that it regards as so important as to be protected from the will of the majority. A court make such decisions based on its view of tradition, history, precedent, as well as social needs, in addition to the text.

jusiticability

can a federal court hear this case? does it pass 5 doctrines?

rationale for justiciability (6)

The doctrines determine when it is appropriate for the federal courts to review a matter and when it is necessary to defer to the other branches of government.

Therefore tied to separation of powers

Justiciability doctrines conserve judicial resources

Allow federal courts to focus their attention on matters most deserving of review

intended to improve judicial decision making by providing the federal courts with concrete controversies best suited for judicial resolution.

promote fairness as only parties before court can assert their rights

criteria to avoid advisory opinion (3)

Must be an actual dispute between adverse litigants

Parties cannot have conspired to bring case to court

A statute giving courts approval to issue advisory opinion on the dispute doesnt make it adverse

There must be a substantial likelihood that a federal court decision in favor of a claimant will bring about some change or have some effect. Hayburn's Case (1792).

declaratory judgments (3)

Courts are authorized to issue a declaratory judgment in a "case or actual controversy within its jurisdiction."

Supreme Court reasoned that federal courts could issue declaratory judgments under the guidelines "so long as the case retains the essentials of an adversary proceeding, involving a real, not a hypothetical, controversy." Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. v. Wallace (1933).

Declaratory judgment jurisprudence emphasizes whether either party could validly bring an action for coercive relief such a money damages or injunction. If so, then it is likely that an actual controversy is present and declaratory relief available.

three constitutional requirements for standing

is a specific person the proper party to bring a matter to court for adjudication? three constitutional requirements: injury, causation, redressability

injury (3)

Must have personally or will imminently suffer an injury

Particularized

Its not a generalized injury that the public is experiencing; the harm is personal to the plaintiff

Injury happened or is fairly certain to happen soon

causation

plaintiff must allege defendant's conduct caused the injury, that the injury is fairly traceable to the defendant's conduct.

redressability (2)

A plaintiff must allege that a favorable court decision is likely to redress (remedy) the injury.

Would a favorable ruling eliminate or lessen the harm?

prudential requirements (3)

Not required by the constitution, but implied by the court

So they can change them

You cannot raise the rights of a third person who isnt before the court

allen v wright (2)

Mere speculation of causation and redressability is not enough - it needs to be concrete

Good case tp bring up in an essay to argue for no standing

mass v epa takeaway

Takeaway

This is an expansive view of standing

Allows redressability to be fulfilled even if it's a partial fix

Also just like other laws/doctrines, court fluctuates in how they analyze standing, so not every case comes out same way

Good case to bring up in essay to argue for standing

policies and values served by standing and why (3 values)

Separation of powers
Restricts availability of judicial review
Separation of powers can be breached either by overexpansion of the role of federal courts or by undue restriction.
Judicial efficiency
by preventing a flood of lawsuits by those who have only an ideological stake in the outcome.
Judicial decision making
by ensuring that there is a specific controversy before the court and that there is an advocate with a sufficient personal concern to effectively litigate the matter.
Fairness
by ensuring that people will raise only their own rights and concerns and that people cannot be intermeddlers trying to protect others who do not want the protection offered.
But strict standing requirements might be unfair if they prevent people with serious injuries from securing judicial redress

Restricts availability of judicial review

Separation of powers can be breached either by overexpansion of the role of federal courts or by undue restriction.

Judicial efficiency

by preventing a flood of lawsuits by those who have only an ideological stake in the outcome.

Judicial decision making

by ensuring that there is a specific controversy before the court and that there is an advocate with a sufficient personal concern to effectively litigate the matter.

Fairness

by ensuring that people will raise only their own rights and concerns and that people cannot be intermeddlers trying to protect others who do not want the protection offered.

But strict standing requirements might be unfair if they prevent people with serious injuries from securing judicial redress

sufficiency of the injury (3)

Injuries to rights recognized at common law are generally sufficient

Injuries to constitutional rights are generally sufficient

Injuries to statutory rights are sufficient for standing purposes provided the plaintiff satisfies Article III's injury-in-fact requirement, i.e., an injury that is both concrete and particularized. Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins (2016).

statutory rights violation (2)

Does the injury bear a close relationship to a harm that was traditionally recognized as giving right to an action in American courts?

physical harm, monetary harm, or various intangible harms considered concrete e.g., reputational harms, disclosure of private information, and intrusion upon seclusion. Ramirez.

ripeness (4)

prevents a federal court from adjudicating matters deemed premature because the injury is speculative and may never occur.

the determination of whether a federal court can grant pre-enforcement review of a statute or regulation.

Courts look at

The fitness of the issues for judicial decision, and

The hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration. Abbott Labs. v. Gardner (1967).

ripeness justifications (3)

Advances separation of powers → avoids judicial review when its unnecessary for the federal courts to become involved because there is not substantial hardship to postponing review

Enhances judicial economy → limits the occasion for federal court j/d and the expenditure of judicial time and resources

Quality of judicial decision making → ensuring that there is an adequate record to permit review

factors considered in ripeness (3)

Possible Unnecessary Compliance versusProsecution

Courts will deem a case ripe when an individual is faced with a choice between forgoing allegedly lawful behavior and risking likely prosecution with substantial consequences; a credible threat of enforcement is sufficiently ripe. Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus (2014).

To help establish a credible threat, a plaintiff may point to a record of past enforcement. 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (2023).

Certain enforcement

Courts will deem a case ripe when the application of the law is inevitable and consequences attach to it, even before the actual enforcement proceedings occur. See Regional Rail Reorganization Act Cases (1974); Lake Carriers' Ass'n v. MacMullan (1972).

Collateral injuries

Courts will deem a case ripe where collateral injuries, that are not the primary focus of the lawsuit, are likely to occur. See Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Envtl. Study Group (1978).

mootness

an actual controversy exist at All stages of a federal court proceedings, both at the trial and appellate levels.

circumstances that moot a case (4)

A case is moot if a criminal defendant dies during the appeals process.

A case is moot if a civil plaintiff dies where the cause of action does not survive death.

A case can be rendered moot if the parties settle the matter.