Fed Courts Cases

McCardle

Editor of Vicksburg Times, arrested by US officials under Military Act. Arrested for threatening to release a bunch of names who supported 14th Amendment. He brought a habeas Corpus action. Congress then appeals the part of the Act where it applies to state Courts. This would strip the federal court jurisdiction?

Congress has plenary power to strip the jurisdiction a bit. We don't have jurisdiction, but we can still use our issuing power to get habeas corpus cases. Two readings of McCardle:

Broad: Congress can make exceptions to appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court.

Narrow: This case cut off one of two ways for the court to review appealed Habeas cases.

Wheeling Bridge

Dispute over a built bridge. Company sues over bridge being a nuisance. Then Congress enacts a statute declaring the bridge to be a "lawful structure" to go against an injunction on the bridge.

● Valid: Congress can change/amend the law going forward.

○ This is okay in the injunction process. It is not trying to undo anything from the past (even tho it is).

Klein

Congress tries to pass statute saying that presidential pardons of confederates were proof of guilt re: support Confederacy and if person had accepted pardon, Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction over the case.

Statute is unconstitutional. Congress cannot issue a rule of decision (infringing on Art. III powers). Especially not a rule of decision that is unconstitutional and essentially dives into the powers of the president.

Bank Markazi

Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, regulates the immunity that foreign governments receive when sued in U.S. courts. Congress limited this immunity for certain suits brought against nations determined by the executive branch to be "state sponsors of terrorism." Bunch of P's obtained damage awards against Iran. While case was pending, Congress enacted law that assets at issue in that particular case were subject to execution as long as certain findings were made.

This amendment was okay.

● The law was changed by the statute by establishing new substantive standards, entrusting the District Court application of those standards to the facts.

○ Congress may amend the law and make the change applicable to pending cases, even when the amendment is outcome determinative. (It's totally fine to apply it to a pending case).

○ Distinguished Klein to the extent that it is a forward-looking, constitutional change to the statute (even tho it hit a pending case) Means that Congress can tell SCOTUS how to decide as long as it does not tell SCOTUS to do it in an unconstitutional way.

Patchak

Bradley Property in Michigan taken for Indian reservation to operate a casino. Neighbor sued bc the Indian Tribe in Question had not been formally recognized by government until long after the Indian Reorganization Act had been passed.

VALID: Statutes that strip jurisdiction change the law just like any other Congress's legislative authority.

Lujan

In 1978, the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service, on behalf of Secretary of Interior and the Secretary of Commerce, respectively, promulgated a joint regulation to extend to actions taken in foreign nations. Then they went back on that and said it only applied to actions in the U.S. Wildlife conservation group sues Secretary of Interior, seeking declaratory judgment. Two affs of people who visited over there.

Repeated Standing:

● Injury in fact

○ Actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical, particularized, concrete.

● Causation

● Redressability Aesthetic Injuries Count (looking at the wildlife) No standing here. Not imminent enough to the two people with the affs. (no plans to go back to wildlife)

Maybe a discussion about if they actually had a plan to go back to these places.

Schlesinger

Antiwar group challenged the constitutionality of members of congress holding reserve commissions in the armed forces.

They thought someone in the government was violating the law. "This is not an acceptable basis for standing." No general government grievances.

Clapper

Ps objected to electronic eavesdropping by the National Security Agency, as authorized by the FISA. As amended in 2008, the statute allows the "targeting of persons reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States to acquire foreign intelligence information." P's were attorneys and other human rights organizations who would represent these kinds of clients.

No standing.

Speculative as to whether Government was actually observing their clients (no actual knowledge)

5 link chain of speculative possibilities. Respondents cannot manufacture standing merely by inflicting harm on themselves based on their fears of hypothetical future harm that is not certainly impending.

● We hold that they lack standing bc they cannot demonstrate that the future injury they purportedly fear is certainly impending.

Havens Realty

Court upheld the standing of a "tester" under the Fair Housing Act of 1968. Difference in a black and white tester possibly being lied to. The black tester was lied to.

Informational injury like this is real and fair game.

FEC v. Cruz

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 which prevented candidates for federal office, who loaned money to their own campaigns, from using more than $250k worth of funds raised after election day to repay the loan. Goal was to prevent corruption (don't have the wealthy donors offer to pay off loans). Senator Cruz loaned his campaign 260k and could recoup all but the $10k and the FEC argued that he did it to establish the factual basis for a First Amendment challenge.

Standing even if injury is willingly incurred.

Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine

Four pro-life medical associations and several individual doctors challenged regulations by the FDA that had loosened restrictions on the use of mifepristone, an abortion drug. Doctors sued in Northern District of Texas arguing that the regulations were adopted in violation of Administrative Procedure Act. Argued that the greater use of the drug would cause some pregnant women to suffer complications requiring emergency care, and that the doctors might end up having to treat the women and help facilitate their abortions, which would violate their own consciences.

No standing

Injury to conscience can be valid.

BUT, this is more of a general grievance and not going to work.

Spokeo

A website that allows users to obtain info about a person after inputting their name, phone number and email address. A search for info about Robins generated incorrect info. It said that he was in his 50's, married, a grad degree, and employed in a professional or technical field, and rich. He said that these errors harmed him in searching for employment by making him appeared overqualified for jobs he might of gained.

Even though this was a statutory violation (procedurally), we need to look at the history to really determine whether this is enough for standing.

Statutory violations by themselves is not enough.

TransUnion

A major credit-reporting agency compared the first and last names to a government list of "specially designated nationals" who pose a threat to national security. If the name matched the credit report marked the individual as a potential match to a name on the list. This process generated a bunch of false positives, P discovered that he was one of them when a dealer refused to sell him a Nissan for being on a terrorist list.

Court split the baby: Standing for those actually effected/reported.

For those not reported, not a concrete injury.

Again, no statutory violations by themselves for standing.

Raines

Line Item Veto. Appellees are six members of Congress (house and Senate).

Appellees have no injury to themselves as individuals. The institutional injury they allege is wholly abstract and widely dispersed. Also this does not deprive members of Congress an adequate remedy (they can repeal the act or exempt appropriations bills) nor forecloses the bill from challenge (someone who suffers a judicially cognizable injury as a result).

Arizona State Legislature

Whole Arizona Legislature suing on the redistricting provisions.

The Arizona Legislature is an institutional plaintiff, asserting an institutional injury, and commenced this action after authorizing votes in both chambers. (SO it's different from Raines) This is good for standing.

Virginia House of Delegates

Unconstitutional Racial Gerrymandering in Virginia. One house of Bicameral legislature brought suit.

Just like individuals in Raines lacked standing, a single House of bicameral legislature lacks capacity to assert interests belonging to the legislature as a whole.

Mass v. EPA

Allowed state of Massachusetts to challenge EPA's decision that it did not have statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

Special Solicitude for States

Causation: Can be a partial cause

Redressability: Can be very small. Just make things less bad.

California v. Texas

Texas lower individual Obamacare mandate penalty to Zero dollars.

No standing. Thomas Concurrence: Invalidating the part, invalidates the whole. This was the standing-through-inseverability argument.

● The argument is that if we are affected by part of this law, we can challenge any part of it.

Haaland

Texas challenged the Indian Child Welfare Act on equal protection and nondelegation grounds. The claim alleged that in foster care and adoption proceedings for Native American children, it gives preference to Native American over non-Native American families.

Lacked standing. Cannot assert equal protection rights on behalf of citizens.

Biden v. Nebraska

Secretary of Education opted to forgive up to $10k or $20k in loans for qualifying borrowers, relying on HEROES act.

Missouri had standing. Very narrow state law based ground where Missouri wasn't getting the fees they needed.

United States v. Texas

Executive branch's implementation of federal immigration law. Texas and Louisiana challenged Biden's enforcement guidelines that "prioritize the arrest and removal from United States of noncitizens who are suspected terrorists or dangerous criminals, or who have unlawfully entered the country only recently."

No standing. A party lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution of another.

Ultimate complaint here is that the Executive is not prosecuting enough people.

Hein

President's Faith-Based and Community Initiative Program conferences violated the Establishment clause because President Bush and former Secretary of Education gave speeches that used "religious imagery" and praised the efficacy of faith-based programs in delivering social services. P's contend they have standing bc they pay federal taxes.

Payment of taxes is not enough to establish standing against the federal government. Hard to argue as a tax payer you have enough economic harm from this one thing. It would also lead to a mess in the courts.

NEEDS TO BE CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION.

Need Flast prongs:

Taxpayer must establish a logical link between the status and the type of legislative enactment attacked.

Taxpayer must establish a nexus between that status and the precise nature of the constitutional infringement alleged. a. Usually Establishment Clause.

Singleton

Claim of a state's unconstitutional decision to terminate a pregnancy. Missouri state excluding abortions that are not "medically indicated" from the purposes for which Medicaid benefits are available to needy persons. Do these physicians who do the nonmedically indicated abortions have standing?

Yes, the physicians have standing. It is appropriate for physician to assert the rights of women patients for infringing on their right to an abortion. Prongs (check for Art. III standing as well)

Close Relationship of the litigant to the third person whose right he seeks to assert.

Ability of the third party to assert his own right.

Are there obstacles (both legal or practical) preventing the third party from asserting their own rights?

Barrows

Racially Restrictive Covenant in light of Shelley v. Kramer. It was whether the D landowner could raise the rights of her black purchasers to avoid her obligation under the covenant.

Unique situation where it would be nearly difficult if not impossible for the persons whose rights are asserted to present their grievance before any court.

Eisenstadt

Public lecture to tee up contraception.

Article III standing (He is in jail which is an injury and can get out of jail)

Close Relationship: "seller"/"buyer" distributor.

Impediment: They would not be subject to prosecution.

Why? Legal obstacle. The statute applied to the distributors. So it would make more sense that the distributor do it.

Craig v. Boren

Beer vendor case.

Article III standing: Sales that I would make, but I am not. Lost revenue. Redressable by throwing it out.

Close Relationship: Buyer-seller relationship.

Impediments: Mootness problem?

June Medical

Louisiana enacted a law requiring that abortion providers in the state have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.

Article III standing: Go get the extra admitting privileges.

Close relationship: Dr/Patient relationship.

Obstacles: Same reasons as before.

Kowalski

Change in Michigan constitution making appeal by an accused who had pleaded guilty available not as of right but only by leave of the court. Legislature then eliminated appointed appellate counsel for indigents. Two lawyers filed suit in federal court to challenge the state law. Standing was based on DIRECT economic injury.

Lawyers were raising the rights of "hypothetical" clients and therefore did not have a "close relationship" with the third parties.

Not a close relationship (hypothetical clients)

Impediment: no real obstacle. They can choose who they want to represent.

Not regulating P's conduct.

O'Shea

Class action for injunctive relief against police, prosecutors, and judges in Cairo, Illinois. P's alleged a continuing pattern of racial discrimination in law enforcement. Most of the complaint was about the p's trying to maintain a boycott against certain white merchants and D's allegedly unlawful interference with that. There was a judge and magistrate who were alleged to engage in a continuing practice of illegal bond-setting and sentencing.

No Jurisdiction. Not ripe. Neither the complaint nor P's allege that at the time of the complaint, they themselves were serving an allegedly illegal sentence or were on trial or awaiting a trial before.

If you violated a law that is perfectly valid, you might be arrested, you might get in front of one of these magistrates, and you might get one of these issues.

So it's Article III standing:

Concrete and particularized and imminent injury.

This is not imminent.

Article III ripeness could just be imminence. Basically Article III standing and ripeness goes hand in hand.

Lyons

Adolph Lyons was stopped for a routine traffic offense and without provocation or justification, subjected to a department-authorized chokehold which left him unconscious, spitting up blood, lying in his own urine. Broken taillight. Brutal brutal beating.

Lyons standing to seek the injunction requested depended on whether he was likely to suffer future injury from the use of the chokeholds by police officers.

What happened in the past does not make a real and immediate threat that he would again be stopped for a traffic violation or for any other offense by an officer or officers who would illegally choke him into unconsciousness without provocation or resistance.

They are saying Lyons is not any more likely than any other citizen. Note: Need standing for each form of relief sought.

WT Grant

Government brought an antitrust action to enjoin the use of interlocking directorates among competing corporations. After the overlapping directors resigned, D's asked to have suit dismissed as moot?

Not Moot.

The voluntary cessation of allegedly illegal conduct does not deprive the tribunal of power to hear and determine the case (does not make it moot). A controversy may remain to be settled in such circumstances, ie the dispute over the legality of the challenged practices.

The defendant is free to return to his old ways.

Already v. Nike

Nike sued Already for infringement of trademark shoe design. Already counterclaimed for a declaration of trademark invalidity. Nike saw the writing on the wall and moved to have its claims against Already dismissed with prejudice and covenanted to not make any claims or demands against them.

Moot. Was whether "the allegedly wrongful behavior could reasonably be expected to occur."

Aladdin's Castle

Municipal ordinance declared as constitutionally vague after being repealed.

Not moot. If the decisions below were vacated, the municipality could reenact the same ordinance.

Associated General Contractors v. Jacksonville

Minority set-aside program in Jacksonville. Challenged the constitutionality of it. After Supreme Court granted cert, Jacksonville repealed it and enacted a new one.

Not moot.

There is no mere risk that Jacksonville will repeat its allegedly wrongful conduct; it has already done so.

If that were the rule, a D could moot a case by repealing the challenged statute and replacing it with one that differs only in some insignificant aspect.

New York State Rifle and Pistol Association

City of New York passed an ordinance allowing the use of handguns at only seven firing ranges located within the city. P asserted the right of ordinary citizens to possess firearms and the right to take their guns to second homes or firing ranges elsewhere. When Supreme Court granted review, city amended ordinance to allow the P's the right to engage in the conduct that was the subject of their complaint.

Moot. State amended the law to make it legal so not a problem anymore.

First National Bank

Massachusetts corporations attacked a statute forbidding them from sending money to influence voter referenda on issues not materially affecting business interests. Statute specified that no issue concerning the taxation of individuals could be deemed materially affecting business interests. Corporations were opposing a state constitutional amendment authorizing a graduated individual income tax. By the time the case reached Supreme Court, referendum happened, proposed amendment defeated, but Court found a live controversy.

Not moot.

Similar amendments have been proposed by the legislature on four occasions. In each instance, the time between proposal and submission to voters is too short to allow complete judicial review of the restriction on corporate expenditure.

Little doubt this proposal was going to be revived in the future and subject to the restriction.

Honig

A "stay-put" provision of the Education of the Handicapped Act, directs that a disabled child "shall remain in his or her then current educational placement" pending administrative and judicial review of the proposed changes. Can't expel disabled children for stuff that comes out of their disabilities. A student never returned to school or tried to, but was still expelled in the first place.

Not moot.

Although the student had not returned to school, he still suffered from the emotional disability that led to his expulsion.

Court found a "reasonable expectation" that the problem would recur and that any resulting claim would likely evade review.

DeFunis

DeFunis was an unsuccessful white applicant for admission to the University of Washington Law School. He sued in state court, claiming that the minority admissions program violated equal protection. He won in trial court and was admitted. He was overturned by Washington Supreme Court. Went to Supreme Court. BUT, by the time they were arguing there, he was in his final term of law school and the law school agreed not to seek to cancel registration for any term in which he was already enrolled.

Moot.

All parties agree that he is now entitled to complete his legal studies.

A determination by this Court of the legal issues is no longer necessary to compel that result, and could not serve to prevent it.

Trump v. Casa

Supreme Court took up the question of federal court authority on nationwide injunctions. President Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship, stating that persons born in the U.S. are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US and not guaranteed citizenship if their biological mother was not lawfully present. Several groups brought suit and three federal district courts found the executive order as unlawful and issued a nationwide preliminary injunction to block its implementation.

Congress had not given the federal courts the authority to issue nationwide or universal injunctions under the Judiciary Act of 1789. What was decided by this?

● Not Article III, just Congress.

● APA vacatur (set aside)

● Maybe they can give "complete relief" maybe they cannot.

● What about state standing?

○ With third-party standing.

● Nationwide class action standing?

Zivotofsky

There is the law where an applicant is born in another territory disputed by another country, the city or area of birth may be written in the passport. Passport officials should enter "Jerusalem" and "not write Israel or Jordan" when recording the birthplace of the person born in Jerusalem or on a passport. Foreign Relations Authorization Act sought to override this by allowing citizens born in Jerusalem to have Israel. Mom of kid wanted birthplace to say Jerusalem.

Not a political question problem. A controversy involves a political question where there is a "textually" demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department; or a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it.

We are not deciding to supplant a foreign policy decision of the political branches with the courts' own unmoored determination of what US policy toward Jerusalem should be. Instead, Zivotofsky requests that courts enforce a specific statutory right.

We need to decide if his interpretation is correct and whether the statute is constitutional.

Goldwater

Members of Congress sued President Carter to challenge his authority to terminate a mutual defense treaty with Taiwan. It included a right of termination but did not specify how that right could be exercised.

Complaint dismissed as PQ.

Note: where was the standing here?

Institutional injury analysis. Since Constitution did not speak on question of congressional participation in the termination of treaties, the issue should "be controlled by political standards."

Rucho

Voters and other P's in North Carolina and Maryland challenged their States' congressional districting maps as unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering. NC P said that the districting plan discriminated against Democrats; the Maryland Ps complained their maps discriminated against Republicans. Basic argument: Violated 1st Amendment, Equal Protection clause, Elections clause, and Article I, §2 of the Constitution.

Background issue from Roberts:

● There is no map that the Supreme Court could draw that people would be content with.

○ Can you really expect Federal Courts to do this? Political Question is raised here.

Michigan v. Long

4th Amendment issue, but really a separate issue for independent state grounds. In the case, Michigan state court cited to the state constitution in its opinion. The argument is that Michigan Supreme Court controls Michigan law, citing to its constitution.

Holding: This was based on federal law and interpretation. When, as in this case, a state court decision fairly appears to rest primarily on federal law, or to be interwoven with the federal law, and when the adequacy and independence of any possible state law ground is not clear from the face of the opinion, we will accept that as the most reasonable explanation that the state court decided the case the way that it did. E. If they are relying on federal precedents, as it would with other precedents, then it needs only to make clear in the opinion that it is using the federal cases as guidance and that's it.

Pullman

Pullman conductor racism where they made tickets cheaper if it was a black employee running it over the white one. Discrimination in violation of 14th Amendment.

This definitely touches a constitutional issue (no doubt with the discrimination). But there was this state law issue with the pullman conductors and how to consider it. BECAUSE OF THAT ISSUE, we stay the proceeding via this rule:

State law is unclear.

State law issue can resolve the case (maybe like an independent and adequate state law ground).

Younger

John Harris was indicted in a California state court charged with violating the Criminal Syndicalism Act. He then filed a complaint in federal District Court, asking that the court enjoin the applicant, Younger, the DA from prosecuting him, arguing that the prosecution and the presence of the act inhibited him his rights of free speech and press via the 1st and 14th Amendment.

Fed court will not enjoin pending state criminal proceedings (civil enforcement action) (Samuels - this also applies to declaratory judgments). ○ Exceptions: Bad faith, harassment, irreparable injury that is great and immediate, state statute is patently unconstitutional, and other extraordinary circumstances.

○ Procedure: They dismiss it (The only way this gets back in federal court is state court review or habeas). Why?

We are respecting state's comity. Federal Courts are going to be hesitant in stepping into state proceedings (especially criminal ones) unless there is an absolutely good reason to do so (these exception circumstances great and immediate).

Note, being expensive and costly is nto a good enough reason. Here: we are not going to step in. We will dismiss the federal court case.

Mackell

The policies of Younger also foreclose federal declaratory relief against pending state prosecutions.

Younger applies to federal declaratory judgments as well.

Hicks

Police, pursuant to warrants, seized four copies of the film "Deep Throat" from an adult theater. Criminal charges were brought. Court found the film was obscene and ordered that all the copies be seized. Theater owners went straight to federal court to get a declaration that the obscenity statute was unconstitutional, an injunction, and order returning of the films. They add the theater owners to the criminal charge on the day following the completion of service of the federal complaint.

Where state criminal proceedings are begun against the federal plaintiffs after the federal complaint is filed but before any proceedings of substance on the merits have taken place in the federal court, Younger principles should apply in full.

So even tho they filed the federal one first, it's no good.

Colorado River

Confusing ass case. This case concerns the effect of the amendment on the jurisdiction of the federal district courts under suits over determination of water rights brought by US as trustee for certain Indian tribes as owner of various non-Indian government claims. US Government filed a case in federal court. Other D decided to sue the US in state court for a particular division for water disputes.

While this does not fall into the abstention categories, we are going to dismiss it anyways because of other reasons. What are the other reasons?

Property disputes. Maybe the court has control over property and needs to adjudicate it.

Convenience of federal forum. Maybe it is totally inconvenient (here 100 miles away from everyone)

Piecemeal adjudication (we don't want this generally)

Order of the case; we need one to go first. Procedure: Either dismiss or stay the case.

Rooker

A party who had lost in the Indiana Supreme Court, and failed to obtain review in this Court, filed an action in federal district court challenging the constitutionality of the state-court judgment.

We viewed the action as tantamount to an appeal of the Indiana Supreme Court decisions, over which only this Court had jurisdiction and said that the aggrieved litigant cannot be permitted to do indirectly what he no longer can do directly.

Feldman

P had been refused admission to the DC bar by the District of Columbia Court of appeals and sought review of these decisions in federal district court.

To the extent plaintiffs challenged the Court of Appeals decisions themselves, as opposed to the bar admission rules, their sole avenue of review was with this Court. Bar admission stuff is okay (way out of Rooker-Feldman)

Exxon v. Sabic

Saudi Basic sued Exxon in state court seeking declaratory judgment that certain royalty charges were proper under a joint venture agreement. Two weeks later, Exxon sued Saudi Basic in federal court alleging that it had been overcharged. In due course, it answered the state court complaint and filed counterclaims in state court asserting the same claims on which it had sued in federal court. So it had two sets of claims at once. State court claim wins in Exxon's favor. So Sabic Appealed to State Supreme Court. Then the Federal case goes to Supreme Court.

Not Rooker-Feldman doctrine. That doctrine deals with the losers of a state court decision complaining and then filing in federal court bc of that. Here, we have winners being winners.

Seminole Tribe

Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, provides that an Indian tribe may conduct certain gaming activities only in conformance with a valid compact between the tribe and the state. States need to negotiate in good faith, and authorizes a tribe to bring suit against a state to compel performance of the good faith duty. Seminole Tribe sued the State of Florida and its governor invoking jurisdiction under the statute. They are alleging that the D refused to enter any negotiation. D said sovereign immunity.

Became a matter of interpreting the 11th Amendment and state sovereignty. Three interpretations:

Literal: No suit v. state by out-of-state or foreigner.

Diversity (Dissent): Just modifying diversity jurisdiction and leaving federal question jurisdiction.

Plan of Convention: Sovereign Immunity is presupposed by history. (what we adopt) Actual application of scope:

In state or out of staters.

Foreign governments

Federal question and diversity (doesn't matter)

Native American Tribes Who's left to sue?

Federal government, other states.

Coleman

Family and Medical Leave Act entitles eligible employees to take up to 12 work weeks of unpaid leave per year. The Act creates a private right of action to seek both equitable relief and monetary damages "against any employer in any Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction." P was an employee of Missouri Court of Appeals. He wanted sick leave. He was told he'd be fired if he did not resign. Coleman then sued in federal court for violating FMLA. SO we have a suit against the State entity under FMLA.

Test:

● Clear Statement

● Proper Exercise of §5, 14th Amendment

○ Congruence and proportionality between injury (violation of §1, 14th Amendment)

■ Loooking for a narrow nexus between injury and remedy you want.

○ Means abrogation of state sovereign immunity contexts. To abrogate the States' immunity from suits for damages under §5, Congress must identify a pattern of constitutional violations and tailor a remedy congruent and proportional to the documented violations.

Florida Prepaid

College Savings Bank, in New Jersey, sold savings instruments designed to finance the costs of college education. It claimed patent infringement by the Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board, a state agency.

Holding: State Sovereign Immunity. Patents is an area where we aren't going to find abrogation.

Kimel

ADEA covered private employers and public agencies.

Holding: No abrogation, state sovereign immunity. Since age discrimination generally does not violate the equal protection clause (unless irrational) legislation to prohibit age discrimination could not be justified "as responsive to, or designed to prevent, unconstitutional behavior."

Garrett

Whether employees of the State of Alabama could recover money damages for state's failure to abide by the ADA.

Holding: No abrogation, state sovereign immunity. Disability issue is only rational basis review.

● Bc of this, States are not required to make special accommodations for the disabled as long as their actions toward such individuals are rational.

○ Found the legislative record of the ADA simply fails to show that Congress did in fact identify a pattern of irrational state discrimination in employment against the disabled.

○ YOU NEED A PATTERN When you are in the rational basis world, you need a pattern of state violation, not just a locality doing it once.

Tennessee v. Lane

Title II of the ADA, which concerns public services and programs. Statute says that "no qualified individual with a disability, shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity." P's were paraplegics who complained of state courthouses without elevator facilities. One of them crawled up two flights of stairs to answer criminal charges. He refused to do it again (so was subsequently jailed for it).

Holding: Abrogation, No sovereign immunity. Different from Garrett with fair access to courts and a 6th Amendment Confrontation problem.

Testa

P alleged that the D sold him a car for more than the ceiling price established under the World War II Emergency Price Control Act. Statute provided that suits for treble the overcharge, plus costs and attorney's fee could be brought in any "competent jurisdiction." Further said that federal district courts had jurisdiction "concurrently with state and territorial courts." Rhode Island Supreme Court held that the treble-damages provisions of the Act was "penal" and they were not open to enforce penal laws of a government that was foreign to them.

RHODE ISLAND WRONG. Supremacy Clause says you have to rule on this stuff.

Alden

Group of Maine probation officers filed an action for compensation and liquidated damages in federal court under the FLSA of 1938. They claimed that the State violated FLSA overtime provisions.

We hold that the powers delegated to Congress under Article I of the US Constitution do not include the power to subject nonconsenting states to private suits for damages in state courts. We need to respect states and their immunity, can't just subject them to private suits for damages in state courts.

College Savings

College savings bank chartered in New Jersey, marketed and sold certificates of deposit designed to finance college education. It sued Florida Prepaid under the Trademark Remedy Clarification Act. The TRCA expressly abolished 11th amendment immunities for remedies under the Lanham act against private entities.

Sovereign Immunity Applies.

Constructive Waiver from Parden is not good enough.

Just bc state commits certain conduct (participates in the market here) does not automatically mean it waives sovereign immunity.

Sossamon

Congress passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000. It prohibits a substantial burden on the religious exercise of an institutionalized person, absent a compelling state interest, if "the substantial burden is imposed in a program or activity that receives Federal financial assistance." Provides an express private cause of action "for appropriate relief against a government," if such rights are violated. States are taking money from federal government, so induced waiver for being sued?

Maybe via spending clause Congress can induce waiver, but it has to be specific and unambiguous. Here: Sovereign Immunity applies bc it is too open and ambiguous.

Ex Parte Young

Minnesota enacted legislation fixing railroad rates, shareholders of a railroad company brought a derivative suit in federal Circuit Court to challenge the rates as confiscatory under the 14th Amendment. Federal court issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the railroad from putting new rates into effect and restraining the Attorney General of Minnesota from taking any action to enforce state law. Younger goes to state court to enforce the law, now he is going to be held in contempt.

We have justification for the assertion that individuals, who as officers of the state, are clothed with some duty in regard to the enforcement of the laws of the state, and who threaten and are about to commence proceedings, either of a civil or criminal nature, to enforce against parties affected an unconstitutional act, violating the federal Constitution may be enjoined by a federal court of equity from such action.

Whole Woman's Health

Texas Heartbeat Act, SB8, prohibits abortions after a physician detects a fetal heartbeat. Unusual enforcement scheme: any person other than a government official, to bring suit against anyone who performs or aids or abets a prohibited procedure. They may earn $10k plus costs and fees.

Suit could proceed only against certain state licensing officials because they were the only government officials charged with enforcing SB 8. Essentially SB8 was a way to get around ex parte young and be able to sue federal officials without any immunity problems of the officials having to sue (it's private parties).

Edelman

Class action to challenge the practices of certain Illinois officials in administering federal state programs under the Aid to the Aged, Blind or Disabled Act. What did the P's want here? Injunction to do things right going forward. Also, injunction to get us paid for what we are owed in the past.

Retroactive Relief does not work when suing officials here. Having an ancillary effect where the injunction says you now have to pay it properly. THis is okay. BUT paying for past payments, is not okay. There is a difference.

Milliken

Upheld a school desegregation order requiring the expenditure of state funds for educational components of the desegregation decree, including remedial reading programs.

Decree to share future costs is okay. It is prospective enough.

Monroe v. Pape

13 officers broke into petitioner's home in the early morn, routed them from bed, made them stand naked in the living room, and ransacked every room, emptying drawers and ripping mattress covers. Mr. Monroe was taken, detained on open charges, interrogated about a murder, not permitted to call attorneys or family, and subsequently released without criminal charges. Officers had no warrant, but were just acting under the color of the statutes of Illinois and city of Chicago.

Section 1983 suit for 4th Amendment violation. You can sue a state official acting under the color of law, via Section 1983 for Constitutional violations. Frankfurter Dissent: He says it does not apply to individual acts by officers.

Just bring a state tort act if the officer does an individual action against you.

Gonzaga v. Doe

Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), prohibits federal funding of schools that permitted the release of students' records without written consent. Doe alleged that Gonzaga violated FERPA by revealing allegations of sexual misconduct by an employee to state officials involved in teacher certification. Employee sued in state court under § 1983 and the state courts agreed that they acted under color of state law. (FERPA is a statutory violation).

Holding: Not under color of state law. FERPA was about the spending power.

1983 provides a remedy only for the deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.

You need to look at the rights creating language in the statute to see if its enforceable under section 1983.

Here, FERPA does not have the language needed:

It was an aggregate focus, institutional policies, "substantially comply"

Let the Secretary of Education deal with the violations.

City of Palos Verdes

P Abrams sued his locality, claiming that the denial of a zoning permit for a radio antenna on his property violated restrictions imposed on localities by the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

There is a presumption that if there are rights creating language, then there is a remedy under §1983.

But the presumption is rebuttable by showing an alternative private remedy.

Here the Telecommunications Act has one. So it was precluded.

Holding: No 1983.

Talevski

Nursing home resident sought to enforce Federal Nursing Home Reform Act, prohibits nursing homes from using unnecessary physical or chemical restraints and follow certain procedures for discharging.

Fell within our 1983 Test:

● Had the "rights" creating language.

● Statute lacked indicia that congressional intent to preclude 1983 enforcement.

Medina

South Carolina decided to exclude Planned Parenthood from its list of Medicaid providers (bc the organization separately offered abortion services), Planned Parenthood and one of its patients brought suit under § 1983, alleging that the State violated Medicaid Act.

● Legislation enacted under spending power cannot provide the basis for § 1983 unless it has the clear voice and unambiguous intent.

● This text did not have the "rights creating language" needed.

Monell

Class of female employees of Social Services and Board of Education of the City of New York, brought action under § 1983. Alleging the board and department has as a matter of official policy compelled pregnant employees to take unpaid leaves of absence before such leaves were required for medical reasons. Wanted injunctive relief and backpay for periods of unlawful forced leave. D's were department, commissioner, board, chancellor and the city of New York and its mayor.

Therefore, local governing bodies can be sued under § 1983 for monetary, declaratory, or injunctive relief where, as here the action that is alleged to be unconstitutional implements or executes a policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted and promulgated by that body's officers.

● BUT, a municipality cannot be held liable solely because it employed a tortfeasor or basically no respondeat superior theory by itself.

Pembaur

Investigation of alleged welfare fraud in Dr. Pembaur's medical clinic. A grand jury issued subpoenas for two of Pembaur's employees, both of whom failed to appear. Prosecutor obtained warrants ordering their arrest. When they pulled up to the clinic to execute warrants, Pembaur locked the door, separating the reception area from the rest of clinic and refused to let them in. Ended up barging into the clinic and arrested two people that met their warrant. Before the police officers entered, they asked their supervisor what they should do. They then followed the County Prosecutor's instructions. He was the one who decided they could enter and should enter.

In ordering the Deputy Sheriff's to enter the petitioner's clinic the County Prosecutor was acting as the final decisionmaker for the county, and the county may therefore be liable under § 1983.

Tuttle

Rookie police officer shot and killed Tuttle as he tried to leave the scene of a purported robbery. Really no reason to shoot him, the report was fictitious. Sued under 1983. Her theory was the police had a policy of inadequate training, which was responsible for the precipitate reaction.

NO GOOD. Proof of a single incident would not be enough to hold a municipality liable under Monell "unless proof of the incident includes proof that it was caused by an existing, unconstitutional municipal policy, which policy can be attributed to a municipal policymaker."

● At very least there must be an affirmative link between the policy and the particular constitutional violation alleged.

City of Canton

Harris was arrested by officers of the Canton PD and brought to police station in a patrol wagon. On two occasions she slumped to the floor, but no medical aid was summoned. After an hour, she was released, taken to hospital, hospitalized for a week and needed more treatment. Sued the city for failure to provide medical care. There was a municipal regulation saying that shift commanders were authorized to determine whether a detainee needed medical care. There was evidence they did not receive training to make this determination.

Can be liable for training in limited circumstances.

● Only where the failure to train amounts to deliberate indifference to the rights of persons with whom the police come into contact.

Connick

Thompson was charged with murder and an unrelated armed robbery. He was convicted of the robbery, despite Prosecution making a Brady violation. Later convicted of murder. Brady violation came to light. Armed robbery vacated and retried for murder, but acquitted. He sued the DA claiming that the Brady violation was based on a deliberately indifferent failure to train.

P failed to prove that the DA was "on actual or constructive notice of" and therefore, deliberately indifferent to a need for different Brady training.

● Pattern of similar constitutional violations are "ordinarily necessary"

● These are lawyers, they are competent enough not to make this mistake instead of making it a training thing.

Bivens

Arrest and search carried out on the morning of Nov. 26, 1965. Respondents, agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics acting under claim of federal authority, entered his apartment and arrested him for alleged narcotics violations. Agents manacled petitioner in front of wife and children and threatened to arrest entire family. They searched the whole apartment, he was taken to station, booked, and strip searched. He sued for the arrest and search being without a warrant, unreasonable force taken, also that arrest had no probable cause.

We hold that petitioner is entitled to recover money damages for any injuries he has suffered as a result of agents' violation of the amendment. Before this, what did you do?

Sue in tort with a trespass suit. D would say we are officers so we can. Then P would say 4th amendment. Third, damages may be obtained for injuries consequent upon a violation of the 4th Amendment by federal officials should not seem surprising. Instead the question is whether petitioner, if he can demonstrate an injury consequent upon the violation by federal agents of his Fourth Amendment rights, is entitled to redress his injury through a particular remedial mechanism normally available.

Passman

Gender discrimination claim under equal protection component of 5th Amendment due process. P, who had been discharged bc she was a woman, sued Congressman. Under Bivens.

There was a specific carveout in Title VII for Congress. Good Bivens claim.

Carlson

8th Amendment claim against the director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons for the death of an inmate owing to lack of medical care. Allegations would also have supported a suit against the US via the Federal Tort Claims Act.

Bivens actions were precluded when "Congress has provided an alternative remedy which it declared to be a SUBSTITUTE for recovery directly under the Constitution and viewed it as equally effective." HERE: FTCA did not preclude Bivens, so this suit is okay.

Bush v. Lucas

Federal Employee who claimed that his supervisor had charged him for public criticism of the agency in which he worked.

No Bivens. Had to be content with civil service remedies.

Schweiker

Social Security Remedies. P were individuals whose social security disability benefits had been terminated, in violation of due process. Terminations were reversed and benefits retroactively restored, but P claimed damages for suffering they endured.

No Bivens. When the design of a government program suggests that Congress has provided what it considers adequate remedial mechanisms for constitutional violations that may occur in the course of its administration, we have not created additional Bivens remedies.

Hui v. Castaneda

Bivens actions barred by 42 USC 233(a) (makes the FTCA the remedy exclusive of any other civil action or proceeding)? This was for a personal injury caused by a Public Health Service officer. PHS officials failed to diagnose a cancerous lesion on the skin of Castaneda who was a detained immigrant.

It barred Bivens actions.

Chappell

5 enlisted men on a naval vessel tried to sue their officers for racial discrimination.

No Bivens bc unique military instruction.

Stanley

Army sergeant volunteered to participate in a program to test protective clothing. He was secretly administered LSD, to study the effects of the drug. Led to all sorts of side effects and being violent towards his wife and children.

No Bivens bc military.

Ziglar

Complex litigation arising from the detention of deportable aliens, mostly Arab or Muslims, in the aftermath of September 11. Government adopted the "hold-until-cleared" policy that kept immigration detainees in custody until they were cleared of involvement in terrorist activities. Conditions of confinement were harsh and in many cases lasted a long time. P's sued under Bivens to recover damages for unconstitutional conditions of confinement, including excessive force and racial and religious discrimination. Bunch of federal officials, including wardens were sued.

No Bivens against officials and remanded for wardens. NEW CONTEXT analysis came from this case. If the case is different in a meaningful way from previous Bivens cases decided by this Court, then the context is new. P's detention policy claims here challenge the confinement conditions imposed on illegal aliens pursuant to a high-level executive policy created in the wake of a major terrorist attack. Those claims bear little resemblance to the Bivens claims that we have approved in the past. Then we look for special factors:

● Special factors for executive officers:

○ Damages actions are not the appropriate vehicle for challenging general policy.

○ Habeas corpus was an alternative and superior remedy.

○ Reversed for executive officials.

Hernandez v. Mesa

Mesa, U.S. Border patrol agent shot and killed Hernandez, 15 year old Mexican national while Hernandez was in Mexico. They ran over to one side of the border and then ran back where she was shot. Justice Department concluded that Mesa had not violated policy or training, and decided not to bring charges. Mexico not satisfied and requested that Mesa be extradited to Mexico.

No Bivens remedy. Bc the context is new, Court considered where there were "factors that counsel hesitation," and it concluded that there were:

● One factor: Foreign relations context:

○ Cross-border shooting is an international incident. (we can't arbitrate between Mexico and U.S. on this.)

● Another factor: National Security

○ Another one.

Egbert

US Border patrol agent assaulted a U.S. Citizen during an investigation on the U.S. side of the U.S.-Canada Border. After Boule filed a grievance, Egbert allegedly retaliated by having the IRS conduct an audit of his taxes.

No extension of Bivens. Border security is a "new context" that Congress is better positioned to create remedies, and the Government already has. ○ Stated the national security problem.

Scheuer

Civil disorder on the campus of Kent State University in Ohio during May 1970. Personal reps of the estates of three students who died in that episode seek damages against the governor, the adjutant general, and his assistant, various named and unnamed officers and enlisted members of the Ohio National Guard, and the president of Kent State University. Complaint alleged 1983 cause of actions.

You can sue a government official in their personal capacity for damages. So if you sue the government official in its official capacity for declaratory relief, you can do it. But if you do it for damages, sovereign immunity might come into play. These considerations suggest that qualified immunity is available to officers of the executive branch of government, the variation being dependent upon scope of discretion and responsibilities of the office and all the circumstances.

Imbler

Persons performing legislative or judicial functions are absolutely immune, and certain core prosecutorial functions also trigger immunity.

Specifically, Prosecutor's are absolutely immune from an award of damages for acts "intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process," but only qualified immunity for investigative or administrative activities.

Tenney

Court held that persons engaged in legitimate legislative activities are absolutely immune from civil liability under §1983.

Absolute immunity for legitimate legislative activities.

Forrester

A judge acting in judicial function gets absolute immunity.

But a judge acting in his administrative capacity, enjoys only qualified immunity.

Cleavinger

Supreme Court considered the status of corrections officers who sat as members of a disciplinary committee to hear charges that inmates had violated prison rules.

Only qualified immunity. Court found that the officers were not fulfilling a "classic adjudicatory function."

Prison employees temporarily diverted from their usual duties to resolve a suit in favor of their fellow employee.

Van de Kamp

After securing his release from prison under federal habeas corpus, Goldstein sued former LA County District Attorney and his chief deputy, asserting liable for failure to train and supervise subordinates, who had failed to disclose impeachment material to the accused.

Absolute Immunity. Here, individual prosecutor's error on the impeachment is an essential element of the p's claim.

● It is the particularity and discretion of the lawyer's here.

● Prosecutor's failings get absolute immunity.

Burns

Cathy Burns charged with shooting her two sons while under the influence of multiple personality, but the charges were dropped after the trial court suppressed incriminating statements obtained under hypnosis. She sued the prosecutor, claiming constitutional violations. Specifically, the claim was about the prosecutor approving the hypnosis and in a probable cause hearing, using her statements without mentioning the hypnosis.

For the first wrong (approving the hypnosis), only qualified immunity.

For the second claim (using the statements in hearing), absolute because it was intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.

Stump

Divided court upheld the immunity of a state judge who ordered a tubal ligation of a 15 year old girl who was told she was having an appendectomy.

Obviously the effect of absolute immunity is to vindicate fully the public's interest in unintimidated decision-making by its officials.

Mitchell

AG John Mitchell was sued by a person whose telephone calls were intercepted in a "national security" wiretap. Mitchell claimed qualified immunity based on the uncertain legality of such wiretaps at the time of the authorization.

It is appealable. Qualified immunity doctrine in such a way as to "permit the resolution of many insubstantial claims on summary judgment" and to avoid "subjecting government officials either to the costs of trial or to the burdens of broad-reaching discovery" in cases where legal norms the officials are alleged to have violated were not clearly established.

Nixon v. Fitzgerald

Nixon being sued for some of his stunts.

President should have absolute immunity for all acts within the "outer perimeter" of presidential responsibility. President occupies a unique position in the constitutional scheme" and is "entrusted with supervisory and policy responsibilities of utmost discretion and sensitivity" on a wide range of matters.

Clinton v. Jones

Jones sued Clinton for wrongs from before he took office. In response, Clinton claimed immunity saying that he could be sued for any pre-presidential wrongdoing only after his term of office ended.

Supreme Court rejected that claim. Rather than recognize any legal immunity for unofficial acts, the Court relied on the sound discretion of district judges to protect sitting presidents from harassment and frivolous litigation.

You can sue a president for acts they did before their presidency.

Trump v. Vance

As part of a state criminal investigation, NY's DA office served subpoena duces tecum on President Trump's accounting firm. President intervened to argue that a sitting president enjoys absolute immunity from state criminal process.

Disagreed. President can be subpoenaed by state/local courts.

Trump v. U.S.

Effort by Special Counsel to prosecute Donald Trump for various actions relating to his alleged effort to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. 5 types of actions from Trump: Election fraud; Organized fraudulent electors; Attempted to use the Justice Department to conduct sham election crime investigations; Trump and his co-conspirators attempted to persuade the Vice President to use his ceremonial role at the Jan. 6 certification proceeding to fraudulently alter election results; Exploited the disruption on capitol hill.

1.First, held that presidents are entitled to absolute immunity for exercises of their "core constitutional powers," which the Court described as "conduct within the President's exclusive sphere of constitutional authority." 2. This is to safeguard the independence and effective functioning of Executive Branch, and to enable the President to carry out his duties without undue caution. 3 Not entitled to immunity from prosecution for their unofficial acts, citing Clinton v. Jones.

Wood

Two teenage girls sued school board members who expelled them for spiking the punch at a high school event. After pressure from the teacher, the girls confessed. School board met and decided to expel the girls.

We hold that a school board member is not immune under §1983 if he knew or reasonably should have known that the action he took within his sphere of official responsibility would violate the constitutional rights of the student affected, or if he took the action with the malicious intention to cause a deprivation of constitutional rights or other injury to the students.