Con law I rules

Advisory Opinions

 An opinion is a legal opinion given by a court on a question of law that does not arise from an actual case or controversy. The “case or controversy” requirement found in Article III of the USC prohibits the Supreme Court from ruling on advisory opinions.

standing

is the determination of whether a specific person is the proper party to bring a matter to the court for adjudication. There are two types of standing: (1) constitutional standing and (2) prudential standing.

Constitutional standing

 requirements must be satisfied for a dispute to be adjudicated by a federal court.  In order to have standing within a federal court, the following must be present: (1) injury in fact; (2) causation; and (3) redressability.

injury in fact

a plaintiff must show that: (1) they have suffered an invasion of a legally protected interest; (2) their injury is concrete and particularized (distinct and palpable) ; and (3) the injury is actual or imminent (certainly impending)

Causation

requires a plaintiff to allege that the injury is fairly traceable to the defendant’s conduct.

redressability

 requires a plaintiff to allege that a favorable federal court decision is likely to redress the injury.

 prudential standing

Unlike the Constitutional standing requirements, the prudential standing principles may be overridden. These principles include: (1) generalized grievances and (2) third-party interests.

generalized grievances

A suit will be dismissed for lack of standing when the plaintiff has a generalized grievance shared by all citizens or taxpayers alike. A generalized grievance is present when a plaintiff does not claim an injury to a PERSONAL RIGHT, but instead objects as a taxpayer or as a citizen to a government policy.

However, if a plaintiff challenges a law enacted under the Taxing and Spending Clause, a generalized grievance may be brought in a federal court.

third party interest

Secondly, a suit will be dismissed for lack of standing when the plaintiff presents a claim on behalf of a third party. A plaintiff cannot assert the violation of a legal right suffered by a third party who is not before the court. However, there are exceptions to this principle: (1) close relationship between plaintiff and the third party; (2) where the third party is unlikely to be able to sue; and (3) the overbreadth doctrine.

ripeness

Ripeness is a justiciability doctrine that determines when review is appropriate. The ripeness doctrine seeks to separate matters that are premature for review because the injury is speculative and may not occur, from those that are appropriate for federal court action.

The criteria for evaluating ripeness are 1) hardship for the plaintiff and 2) fitness for review. The greater the hardship, the more likely that the court will grant review.

mootness

A case is deemed moot when there is no longer an actual controversy between adverse litigants. A plaintiff must present a live controversy at all stages of federal court litigation. There are three exceptions to the mootness doctrine: 1) wrongs capable of repetition, but evading review; 2) voluntary cessation; and 3) class action suits.

wrongs capable of repetition, but evading review

The first exception allows an action that is moot to continue only if: 1) there is an injury likely to recur in the future; 2) it is possible that it could happen to the same plaintiff again; and 3) it is of such a short duration that it likely always will evade review.

Voluntary cessation

The second exception applies when a defendant voluntarily ceases the improper behavior and there is NO REASONABLE CHANCE that the defendant could resume the offending behavior. A case is NOT to be dismissed as moot if the defendant voluntarily ceases the improper behavior, BUT is free to return to it at any time.

class action suits.

Finally, the third exception to the mootness doctrine states that A PROPERLY CERTIFIED class action suit may continue even if the named plaintiff's claims are rendered moot, AS LONG AS the members of the class have a LIVE CONTROVERSY.

The Necessary and Proper Clause

grants Congress the power to enact laws that are necessary and proper for executing the enumerated powers of Art 1 Sec 8 and all the powers granted by the Constitution.

The Court uses the Rational Basis test to determine if Congress's action is constitutional. If the statute constitutes a means that is rationally related to the implementation of a constitutionally enumerated power, then that statute is a valid exercise of Congress's legislative power under the Necessary and Proper Clause.

Tenth Amendment

The Amendment states that the powers that are not delegated to the United States by the constitution are reserved to the States or to the people. Under the Tenth Amendment, states are empowered to enact legislation for the health, safety, and general welfare of their citizens. The Amendment prohibits the government from commandeering and conscripting states.

Commandeering occurs when the federal government commands or compels state governments to adopt federal laws or regulations.

Conscription occurs when the federal government enacts a law that compels state actors to enforce federal programs or regulations.

The Taxing and Spending Clause

The Clause vests Congress with the power to impose taxes and allocate funds whenever doing so will be beneficial to the common defense or general welfare of the nation. Congress may constitutionally persuade states to act under the Taxing and Spending Clause by conditioning the receipt of federal money upon compliance.

The Taxing and Spending Clause, In order for this exercise to be valid, the following must be satisfied:

1) Congress's spending power must be for the general welfare of the people;

2) Any conditions on congressional spending MUST be clear and unambiguous;

3) Congress's interest in the conditions and federal spending MUST be related to the federal interest in the particular program or project itself; and

4) the conditioned-spending program cannot violate any other constitutional provision, most importantly, the Tenth Amendment.

The Supremacy Clause

The Clause states that federal laws and treaties are supreme over state laws, and that state judges are bound to supreme federal law. Federal law will preempt state law in areas where the Federal Government and the states share responsibilities.

Preemption

can be either express or implied.

Express preemption

 preemption occurs when federal laws contain clauses that clearly preclude state or local regulation in a particular field. Even with this preemption type, courts must consider congressional intent

what is implied preemption

This occurs when federal laws preempt state law without explicit language but instead based on the intent of congress. the three types include: conflict, objective/obstacle, and flied.

what is conflict preemption

if there is a conflict between federal and state law Even if federal law does not expressly preempt state law, preemption will be found where compliance with both federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility.

what is object preemption

State law is preempted if it stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes or objectives of Congress.

flied preemption

occurs when federal law wholly occupies a regulatory field, leaving no room for state regulation. through either Clear Congressional Intent or Comprehensive Federal Regulation

The Commerce clause

The Clause of the United States Constitution states that Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States and with the Indian tribes.

There are three categories of valid interstate commerce regulation:

1) channels of interstate commerce;

2) instrumentalities of interstate commerce; and

3) regulation of INTRAstate activities that substantially affect INTERstate commerce.

Channels of interstate commerce

The first category applies when the law regulates channels of interstate commerce. Channels of interstate commerce are the pathways in which interstate commerce is conducted. Examples of channels are highways, railroads, airspace, and the internet.

instrumentalities of interstate commerce;

The second category applies when the law regulates instrumentalities, persons, or things in interstate commerce. Instrumentalities of interstate commerce are the vehicles that carry interstate commerce. Examples of instrumentalities are trains, trucks, planes, boats, etc.

If the law regulates either the channels or instrumentalities of interstate commerce, Rational Basis review must be employed. Under Rational Basis review, the law is constitutional so long as the regulation is rationally related to the regulation of interstate commerce.

The final category applies when there is a regulation of intrastate activity that substantially affects interstate commerce. Under this category, the activity can be economic

An activity is economic if it regulates the production, distribution, or consumption of something that is quintessentially economic. If the activity is economic per se or if the activity is an essential part of a larger federal economic regulation, Congress is permitted to employ, in the aggregate, a rational basis for their conclusion of the intrastate activities substantial effect on interstate commerce.

The final category applies when there is a regulation of intrastate activity that substantially affects interstate commerce. Under this category, the activity can be NONECONOMIC

An activity is non-economic when it does not regulate the production, distribution, or consumption of something that is quintessentially economic. If the activity is non-economic, regulation may be upheld if either: 1) the statute contains a jurisdictional element establishing the connection of the non-economic activity to interstate commerce; or 2) congressional findings demonstrate the existence of a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce.

Dormant Commerce Clause

The Constitution vests in Congress the power to regulate Interstate commerce. States nevertheless may regulate local aspects of Interstate commerce. However, a regulation that discriminates against Interstate commerce will be found unconstitutional, unless the regulation is necessary to achieve an important, NON-ECONOMIC, state interest.

There are two ways that a law can be discriminatory: (1) the law is facially discriminatory or (2) the law is facially neutral, but the purpose or effect of the law is discriminatory.

facially discriminatory

A law is facially discriminatory if its terms expressly draw a distinction between in-staters and out-of-staters. Facially discriminatory laws will only be upheld if (1) the court finds that the law is necessary to achieve an important governmental purpose and (2) there are no reasonable alternatives available.

facially neutral, but the purpose or effect of the law is discriminatory.

A state law is facially neutral when its terms treat in-staters and out-of-staters alike. However, if the purpose and/or the effect of the law is found to be discriminatory, the law is subject to strict scrutiny.

If the state law is facially neutral and is found to be non-discriminatory, then a balancing test is used, sometimes referred to as the Pike or Undue Burden test. Under this test, a law will be found invalid if the burden on interstate commerce outweighs the legitimate (nondiscriminatory) local interests.

economic protectionism

Furthermore, when a law is designed to shield locals from interstate competition, the law is considered economic protectionism. Economic protectionism occurs when a state or local law creates an economic advantage for locals at the expense of out-of-staters. These laws are per se unconstitutional.

congressional approval, exception to Dormant commerce

Congress has plenary (total) power to regulate commerce among the states.  Thus, even a clearly discriminatory state law will be allowed if it is approved by Congress.

market participant, exception to Dormant commerce

The market participant exception applies when a state acts as a market participant in buying or selling goods, as opposed to a market regulator. This exception allows a state or local government to favor its own citizens in receiving benefits from state or local governments or in dealing with government-owned businesses.

Privileges and Immunities (Art IV)

Article IV of the Constitution states that the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of citizens in the several states. The Privileges and Immunities Clause prohibits states from discriminating against out-of-state citizens with regards to fundamental rights OR important economic interests. An activity that supports an important economic interest is an activity that a person relies on for their livelihood. Unlike the DCC, the privilege and immunity clause is only applicable to natural persons (citizens) who are citizens of another state, not corporations or aliens.

Privileges and Immunities (Art IV) must prove

When a state law discriminates against out-of-state citizens regarding the practice of a fundamental right or the right to earn a livelihood, the law is presumed to be unconstitutional. Thus, the state must prove that there is a:

1)      substantial justification for the difference in treatment; and

2)      whether there are any less-restrictive means to satisfy the State’s interest.