Con Law- Exam 1

What are the 4 sources of judicial power?

1. Constitution 

2. Judiciary Act of 1789 (established federal court system with 13 district courts)

3. Court Cases that expand their power (Marbury v. Madison + Martin v. Hunter’s Lesse)

4. Power of Prestige (traditionally, people respect the courts so their decisions hold weight and power)

What are the 4 constraints on judicial power?

1. Lack of Enforcement by President (Checks and balances) 

2. Checks by Congress (to change # of justices, change appellate jurisdiction, not increasing salary, impeachment, don’t give funds to enforce)

3. Must have jurisdiction in order to litigate (Ex parte McCardle)

4. Must be a justiciable issue (Justiciability= whether courts believe they can take on a case)

What are the 6 guidelines of justiciability?

1. Court does not provide advisory opinions. They can’t make a ruling or any kind of judgement without a legitimate case

2. If a controversy has passed, the case is moot and SCOTUS can’t rule on it

3. If a case is collusive and both parties want the same outcome, there is no controversy so SCOTUS can’t rule on it

4. If a case is not yet ripe, then conflict hasn’t happened yet and SCOTUS can’t make a judgement

5. Person suing has standing to sue ( they’ve experienced something that warrants a lawsuit)

6. Political Question- Court has decided the question is better solved by another branch of government and it’s not their job/role to deal with is 

Explain the facts of Marbury v. Madison (1803)

• Election of 1800

  • John Adams (Federalist) v. Jefferson (Dem-rep)

  • Tie vote that goes to HoR where Hamilton’s vote make Jefferson winner 

  • Federalists were losing control of exec. branch AND congress, so they wanted to hold on to the judicial branch 

• Midnight Appointments 

  • Adams made 200 “midnight appointments” and had them approved by the Senate. His sec. of state (John Marshall) was supposed to deliver them but didn’t deliver at least 5. 

  • New Sec. of State (James Madison) refused to deliver them 

• Judiciary Act of 1789-Section 13 

  • Sec. 13 gave SCOTUS the ability to issue writs of mandamus under original jurisdiction 

• Marbury sued Madison and asked SCOTUS to issue a writ of mandamus to make him deliver the commission under original jurisdiction 

• Justice Marshall’s first case was dealing with this issue he created by not delivering the commissions

Court Questions & Ruling Marbury v. Madison (1803)

3 Court Questions

1. Does Marbury have a right to his commission? Yes because he was appointed AND confirmed which satisfies the constitutional process of appointment

2. Can Marbury take legal action to get his commission? Yes, bc he has a legal right to the job.

3. Can the court grant a writ of mandamus under original jurisdiction? No, because the constitution specifically outlines what original jurisdiction extends to and this isn’t it

Ruling:

• Marshall decided Sec. 13 of Judiciary Act is unconstitutional

  • SCOTUS only has original jurisdiction in cases where state is a party or involving ambassadors, foreign entities or public consuls

  • Can’t extend their OG jurisdiction by law

• Madison and Jefferson technically win, but Marshall gives SCOTUS power of judicial review

What is the importance of Marbury v. Madison (1803)?

• Gives SCOTUS the power of judicial review which is the ability to determine the constitutionality of other branches’ actions

• Puts judicial branch on even playing field with the other 2 by giving them a way to check congressional and exec. power

• 1st time SCOTUS strikes a congressional law

Facts of Martin v. Hunter’s Lesse (1816)

• Sec. 25 of the Judiciary Act gave SCOTUS the power to hear appeals from the highest state court if they relate to federal law/the constitution

• 1781 Virginia Law stated that no enemy could inherit land in Virginia 

• Charlie Martin who was a British Loyalist inherited land from his Uncle 

• Virginia confiscated the land and began to sell to David Hunter 

• Martin goes to court > VA trial court rules in Martin’s favor> VA Supreme Court reverses trial court decision > Martin appeals to SCOTUS> SCOTUS reverses VA supreme court decision under Supremacy clause (article 6) because the Virginia law violated the federal Treaty of Paris which said loyalists will get their land ==> VA Supreme court refuses to enforce SCOTUS decision under argument that SCOTUS doesn’t have the power to review state cases under Article 3

When does SCOTUS hear a case?

• Under Original Jurisdiction which is explicitly outlined:

  • State is a party

  • concerns ambassadors, foreign entities or public consuls

• Under Appellate jurisdiction

  • Only cases concerning whether the constitution/a federal law is being applied correctly

  • Exceptions Clause of Article 3

    • What SCOTUS can review under appellate jurisdiction “with such exceptions and under such regulations as Congress shall make”

      • Established in Martin v. Hunter’s Lesse and Ex Parte McCardle

Court Q and Ruling in Martin v. Hunter’s Lesse (1816)

Court Q: Under Article 3, does SCOTUS have jurisdiction to hear appeals coming out of state courts? AKA does judicial review extend to states?

Ruling:

• SCOTUS does have appellate jurisdiction over state supreme courts

  • Article 3 says judicial power extends to all cases (so whether or not they hear a case depends on the case not the type of court) AND Congress has power over the formation of the court system so they can give SCOTUS power to hear appellate cases (like in Judiciary Act)

• Supremacy Clause declares that all treaties and laws made by the federal government are supreme law of the land

What is the IMPORTANCE of Martin v. Hunter’s Lesse (1816)?

Importance:

• Judicial review extends to states AND Constitution/federal can overpower state law in certain matters

• Congress can add to SCOTUS’ appellate jurisdiction

Case Type: Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Judicial Powers: Judicial Review + Original Jurisdiction

Case Type: Martin v. Hunter’s Lesse (1816)

Judicial Powers:

• Judicial Review

  • Includes states

•  Appellate jurisdiction

  • Expandable by Congress

Case Type: Ex Parte McCardle (1869)

Judicial Constraints:

• Appellate Jurisdiction

  • Retractable by Congress

Explain the facts of Ex Parte McCardle (1869)

• In 1867, Congress passed a law extending SCOTUS appellate jurisdiction to state habeas cases (where a prisoner is asking for a judicial order/writ of habeas to determine they’re being unconstitutionally held) 

• 1867: Reconstruction laws are being enforced in the South through military rule

  • William McCardle published articles opposing the laws and he was arrested and tried for libel in a military tribunal

• McCardle argued he was being held illegally as a prisoner of the state BECAUSE he was a civilian in a military tribunal

  • State habeas case was appealed to SCOTUS in 1868==> SCOTUS was mostly siding with McCardle

• Congress passes the Repealer Act to take away SCOTUS jurisdiction over state habeas cases before they can rule on Ex Parte McCardle

Court Q and Ruling in Ex Parte McCardle (1869)

Court Q: Can Congress limit SCOTUS’s appellate jurisdiction over a certain category of cases? Yes, they can under Article 3’s Exceptions Clause

Ruling: The court can no longer rule on this case due to lack of jurisdiction 

• Repealer Act upheld

Importance of Ex Parte mcCardle (1869)

Established a constraint/check by Congress on judicial power

Case Type: Baker v. Carr (1962)

Judicial Constraints:

• Justiciability related to Political Questions

  • BUT, it expanded judicial powers by clarifying what a political question and when a seemingly political question is and is not justiciable

Case Facts of Baker v. Carr (1962)

• Federal mandates only saw how many representatives a state gets (Article 1 says 10 yr census) and not HOW those representatives are split up

• Increasing population density gap between rural and urban areas

  • Creates misrepresentation. why?

• Colegrove v. Green (1946)

  • Past case where misrepresentation based on population density was brought up under the Guarantee clause (article 4) which states that the U.S. guarantees every state a republican gov’t but the specifics of that gov’t are decided by states/congress

  • Courts said that reapportionment is a political question that has to do with HOW congress is exercising their power to enforce the guarantee clause so this case is about political question and non-justiciable

  • Set a precedent that all apportionment cases= non-justiciable

• By 1962, TN hadn’t redistricted in 60+ years, so Baker sued Carr (TN sec. of state) under the 14th amendment Equal protection clause

Court Q and Ruling (by who?) in Baker v. Carr (1962) 

Q: Is reapportionment a justiciable issue? WHICH LED TO ==> What counts as a political question in the context of justiciability?

Ruling:

By Justice Brennan (liberal, pro-individual rights and freedoms justice)

• Outlined the definition of a political question

  • Constitution- the power has been explicitly assigned to another branch

  • Out of Court- there’s no judicial way to solve it

  • Nonjudicial Policy Determination needed 1st

  • Infringement- ruling on it would require the court to infringe on another branch’s power

  • Precedent- Requires strict adherence to past precedent

  • Embarrassment- If multiple gov’t entities have REALLY varying opinions, deciding on this case with no enforcement ability could be embarrassing for federal gov’t

  • Guarantee Clause

  • Foreign Relations

  • War

• Since this case was brought under 14th amendment, it’s not a political question and the court can decide it

  • Reversed district court ruling against Baker and remanded case back down for lower courts to decide under new guidelines

Why is Baker v. Carr (1962) important?

• Most important political question case we have because it outlines guidelines of what a political question is

• Expanded Judicial power by clarifying a part of justiciability 

What were the arguments on both sides in Baker v. Carr (1962)?

• Carr’s argument:

  • Past precedent shows that SCOTUS can’t rule on apportionment cases because they’re political 

• Baker’s argument:

  • This case is different from Colegrove v. Green because the last 60 years of history have shown that TN citizens are being systematically discriminated against and Congress has not used their power to stop it 

Case Type: Powell v. McCormack (1969)

Legislative Powers: Qualifications Clause

• No federal infringement on Qualifications Clause

Case Facts of Powell v. McCormack (1969)

• Article 1, Section 5 of the constitution says “Each house shall be the judge of … qualifications of its own members”

• Rep. Powell was a NY HoR representative and had been continuously re-elected for 25 years

  • In the 1960s, Powell was involved in some legal controversy (defamation suit)

• 89th Congress investigated Powell and found him in violation of 2 House Rules: 1) He used federal money to fly female staff to vacation with him and 2) paid his wife a 20k salary even though she didn’t work for the gov’t 

• Powell was re-elected for the 90th Congress but HoR refused to seat him without further investigation

  • They passed a resolution to exclude Powell and had McCormack (house speaker) tell NY to elect a new rep.

• Powell sued McCormack for violating the qualifications clause

Arguments on both sides of Powell v. McCormack

Powell: Article 1, Section 5 does not give HoR the implied power to exclude members that meet the constitutional qualifications for office

McCormack: This case is a political question because it has to do with HOW Congress is exercising their power in Article 1, section 5 so Congress shouldn’t rule on it. 

Court Q and Ruling (by who?) in Powell v. McCormack (1969) + Dissenting Opinon

Court Q: Does Congress have implied powers to establish the qualifications for HoR membership outside those mentioned in the Constitution?

Ruling by Justice Warren (very liberal justice who sides more with protecting individual rights) 

• This case is NOT a political question because political documents make it clear that the founders didn’t want Congress to add qualifications (not a political question because this isn’t even a power of Congress)

  • Lack of a limiting instruction in the constitution about how qualifications could be changed implies that Framers didn’t intend for them to be changed SO there is NO implied power in Article 1, section 5.

• Article 1, Section 5 species that Congress can only judge the qualifications that already exist

• Whoever takes power as a representative is entirely up to the voters, SCOTUS or Congress can’t make that decision for them by changing qualifications

• Ruled in favor of Powell and preserves the individual rights of voters

Dissenting Opinion: Justice Stewart argued the case was moot because the 1996 election and 90th congressional term (that Powell was barred from serving on) already passed by the time this case reached SCOTUS.

What is the importance of Powell v. McCormack (1969)

• No implied powers in Article 1, section 5

• Congress can’t change qualifications listed explicitly in the constitution 

Case Facts of U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton (1995)/ Arguments

• Elections Clause of Article 1 says that states decide the time, place, and manner of elections

• 10th amendment issues any power not assigned to federal govt is reserved for states

• Arkansas approved Amendment 73 to the state constitution with 60% of voter approval 

  • Amendment would prohibit anyone who already served a certain # of terms in Congress from being added to the ballot (but they could be added as a write-in)

• Rep. Thornton sued Arkansas saying the amendment was unconstitutional based on Powell v. McCormack

• US Term Limits + Arkansas argued that

  • Qualifications clause and Powell weren’t relevant because the amendment was about ballet access not qualifications

  • Power for Amendment comes from elections Clause and 10th amendment

Case Type: U.S Term limits v. Thornton (1995)

Legislative Powers: Qualifications

• States can’t limit qualifications to office, ONLY constitution gives that power 

Court Q + Ruling (INCLUDE vote distribution) in U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton (1995)

Court Q: Can states add qualifications to be congress member?

Ruling made by Rehnquist Court

• First 5-4 decision with Kennedy (traditionally conservative) siding with liberals

Justice Stevens’s ruling: Amendment 73 is unconstitutional bc:

• Qualifications clause is the only source of congressional qualifications SO states can’t add qualifications INCLUDING via ballot access

• Constitution is a pact between the federal government and the people

  • Every individual (including incumbent voters) have a right to choose their representation and states can’t get in the way

• 10th amendment doesn’t apply because states can’t reserve a power they didn’t originally have in 1789

Dissent by Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist, and O’Connor

• Constitution is a pact between the federal government and people of the state

• 60% of Arkansas voted for Amendment 73 so technically the people DID choose their rep

What is the importance of U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton (1995)?

• Qualifications Clause is the ONLY source of qualifications for congress

  • States can’t add/remove

• Federal government’s first priority is to protect the people, not people IN states

Case Type: Gravel v. United States (1972)

Legislative Constraint:

• Limits on Speech and Debate Clause

Case Facts: Gravel v. United States (1972)

• Senator Gravel held a public meeting for his subcommittee here he made a statement about the Vietnam War and read portions of a classified doc (Pentagon Papers) on the record and asked them to be publicly published

• Gravel worked with 2 ppl 

  • Dr. Rodberg (his aide)

  • Beacon Press Publishing

• The Justice Dept ordered a grand jury to determine if Gravel’s actions could be criminally charged 

  • Subpoenaed Rodberg and the Beacon Press publisher

• Gravel argued that Rodberg and Beacon Press were protected under the Speech and Debate clause BECAUSE the actions of a member’s staff are an extension of his own actions

What is the Speech and Debate Clause?

protects members of Congress from arrest and lawsuits during official legislative duties

Court Q and Ruling (from who?) + Dissent (from who?) in Gravel v. United States (1972)

Burger Court

Justice White split the ruling into 2:

Re: Gravel’s aide 

• Speech and Debate clause applies to a member’s staff ONLY if their actions related to official legislative conduct

  • no protection for criminal conduct

Re: Beacon Publishing

• Publication of the Pentagon Papers was NOT essential to the deliberation of the Senate so it was unnecessary ==> Beacon Press is not protected under S & D

Dissent: Brennan, Douglas and Marshall

• Speech and Debate clause should be broader and extend to include ANY means that a member chooses to perform their legislative function

What/who is covered under the S & D clause according to Gravel v. United States (1972)?

• Anything essential to the deliberations of the Member’s respective house 

• Member’s staff only when they’re performing protected legislative conduct 

Case Type: McCullough v. Maryland (1819)

Legislative Powers:

• Implied Powers- Necessary and Proper Clause

Case Facts: McCullough v. Maryland (1819)

• First National Bank chartered in 1791 but it’s constitutionality was never officially argued 

  • Hamilton argues it’s allowed with a loose interpretation of Necessary and Proper clause

  • Jefferson argues its not constitutional because it’s not an enumerated power nor ABSOLUTELY necessary

• Second National Bank chartered after 1812

  • 1818: Bank started calling in loans made to states

• States don’t like national bank

  • Maryland issues 2% tax on its National Bank branch

• McCullough (MD national bank manager) refuses to pay tax

• Maryland sues McCullough

Court Q and Ruling (by who?) in McCullough v. Maryland (1819)?

Court Q’s: Does Congress have the power to charter a bank?

Ruling: Unanimous Decision by Marshall Court (Marshall is BIG federalist + federal rights supporter)

• Marshall says constitution is a blueprint that needs to endure in the future ==> can’t endure with constant litigation

• Congress can do anything that is necessary and proper to carry out their duties

  • “Let the ends be legitimate and the means be within the scope of the constitution”

• Can’t be taxed bc of Supremacy Clause

 

Importance of McCullough v. Maryland (1819) ruling

Important Leg. Powers case

• Gave Congress implied powers

• Codifies a loose interpretation of the necessary and proper clause

Explain the facts of McGrain v. Daugherty (1927)

• Congress began investigating Teapot Dome Scandal

  • Attorney General Daugherty was believed to be involved bc of his brother Mally Daugherty who was a bank president HIGHLY suspected to be involved

• Senate Committee conducting the investigation subpoenaed Mally Daugherty

  • Mally refused to appear in court and was arrested by Senator McGrain

• Mally sued McGrain saying Congress couldn’t compel him to testify

Court Q and Ruling in McGrain v. Daugherty (1927)

Court Q: Does congress have the power to compel an individual to appear before a committee in an investigation?

Ruling:

The power to inquire for a legitimate purpose is an implied legislative power

• legislative purpose means the information derived from investigation must be directly used to influence legislation

The power of inquiry can be enforced through the power to punish and compel testimony

• Witnesses still have the right to refuse to answer questions IF they don’t relate to the investigation

Importance of McGrain v. Daugherty (1927)

• Gave Congress’ the implied power of inquiry and the implied power to punish 

• Established the proper legislative purpose test:

  • Investigations are legit if they have a legislative purpose

• Established that witnesses have some rights to not answer questions that are unrelated to investigation

  • Set up Watkins v. U.S. 

Case Type: McGrain v. Daugherty (1927)

Legislative Powers:

• Established implied power to investigate AND power to compel testimony

  • Implied power to punish as a way to enforce investigation

Case Facts: Watkins v. United States (1957)

1945: Congress creates a standing committee called HUAC (House Un-American Committee) to investigate un-american activities (communism) in the US

1950s: HUAC was compelling witnesses to testify to their own involvement/affiliation with the Communist Party

Watkins was suspected of being a commie and was subpoenaed ==> He refused to answer Qs from HUAC about who he associated with in the past

• Bc of this, he was help in contempt of congress, suspended from his job, fined, and put in jail for a year

Court Q and Ruling (by who?) in Watkins v. U.S. (1957)

Court Q: Does Congress’s power of investigation include the power to expose private individuals with no justification (infringe on their 1st amendment rights)?

Ruling by Chief Justice Warren:

• Congress can expose people’s private affairs IF it serves a legislative function

• Witnesses have first amendment rights in congressional court 

  • They can refuse to answer questions unrelated to investigation

• IN THIS CASE, Congress didn’t specify their intent/legislative function when asking Watkins who he associated with

  • SO, he couldn’t be held in contempt for refusing to answer

Importance of Watkins v. U.S.

2nd update in Power of Investigation cases that upheld witness rights in congressional court to deny a question if the legislative function is unclear