BEST ConLaw Federal Judiciary Power

how to focus on bigger picture while reading cases

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

why did framers want to make constitution difficult to change

to prevent tyrranical governments

marbury v madison takeaway

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

marbury v madison 3 part ruling

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

The court declared that it lacked jurisdiction to grant mandamus on its original jurisdiction

Court held that statute which gave it original jurisdiction unconstitutional

when may court review executive conduct under marbury v madison

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

judicial review (3)

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

political questions that are not for judicial review

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

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

supreme court appellate jurisdiction

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

federal courts and state courts relationship (2)

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

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

congressional limits SCOTUS jurisdiction and review(2)

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

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

United States v. Klein (1871).

interpretive methods (6)

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

interpretive-originalism

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

modified originalism

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

original meaning originalism

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

tradition

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

process-based theory

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

pragmitism

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

jusiticability

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

rationale for justiciability (6)

separation of powers

conserve judicial resources:

judicial decision making fairness

how does justiciability promote fairness

only parties before court can assert their rights

how does justiciability improve judicial decision making

by providing the federal courts with concrete controversies best suited for judicial resolution.

how do jusiticability doctrines conserve judicial review

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

why is justiciability tied to separation of powers

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

criteria to avoid advisory opinion (3)

Must be an actual dispute between adverse litigants

Parties cannot have conspired to bring case to court - A statute giving courts approval to issue advisory opinion on the dispute doesnt make it adverse

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

declaratory judgments (3)

authorized in a "case or actual controversy within its jurisdiction."

under the guidelines "so long as the case retains the essentials of an adversary proceeding, involving a real, not a hypothetical, controversy." Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. v. Wallace (1933).

what does declaratory judgment jurisprudence emphasize

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

standing three constitutional requirements

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

injury (4)

Must have personally or will imminently suffer an injury

Particularized

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

Injury happened or is fairly certain to happen soon

causation

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

redressability (2)

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

Would a favorable ruling eliminate or lessen the harm?

prudential requirements (3)

Not required by the constitution, but implied by the court

So they can change them

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

allen v wright (2)

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

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

mass v epa takeaway

Takeaway

This is an expansive view of standing

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

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

Good case to bring up in essay to argue for standing

policies and values served by standing (3 values)

Separation of powers.

Judicial efficiency

Judicial decision making

Fairness

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

how does standing promote separation of powers

Restricts availability of judicial review

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

how does stnading promote judicial decision making

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

how does standing promote judiical efficiency

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

how does standing promote fairness

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

sufficiency of the injury (3)

Injuries to rights recognized at common law are generally sufficient

Injuries to constitutional rights are generally sufficient

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

statutory rights violation (2)

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

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

ripeness (4)

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

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

Courts look at

The fitness of the issues for judicial decision, and

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

ripeness justifications (3)

Advances separation of powers

Enhances judicial economy

Quality of judicial decision making

how does ripeness enhance the quality of judicial decision making

→ ensuring that there is an adequate record to permit review

how does ripeness enhance judicial economy

• limits the occasion for federal court j/d and the expenditure of judicial time and resources

how does ripeness promote separation of powers

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

factors considered in ripeness (3)

Possible Unnecessary Compliance versusProsecution

Certain enforcement

Collateral injuries

Collateral Injuries

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

Certain Enforcement

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

Possible Unnecessary Compliance versus Prosecution

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

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

mootness

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

circumstances that moot a case (4)

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

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

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

A case is moot if a challenged law is repealed or expires.

justifications for mootness (3)

The doctrine is derived from Article III's prohibition against advisory opinions.

The doctrine avoids unnecessary federal court decisions, limiting the role of the judiciary and saving the courts' institutional capital for cases truly requiring decisions.

Still, the Supreme Court has been less strict in its application of the "flexible" mootness doctrine.

collateral consequences exception (4)

The court may hear a case where the main injury is resolved, but secondary or collateral consequences remain

When the defendant continues to face adverse criminal consequences, the challenges to their conviction are not moot

But challenges to a completed criminal SENTENCE ARE moot

A case is not moot, even if the plaintiff's primary injury is resolved, as long as the plaintiff continues to suffer some harm that a favorable court decision could remedy.

Capable of repetition, yet evading review

Federal courts may consider claims where injuries are likely to recur yet evade review because of the short duration of the injury and often lengthy federal court proceedings to resolve the dispute. See Roe v. Wade (1973).

Capable of repetition, yet evading review criteria

Two criteria for a wrong capable of repetition yet evading review:

There must be a reasonable chance that the plaintiff's injury will happen to the plaintiff again. See DeFunis v. Odegaard (1974).

It must be a type of injury of inherently limited duration so that it is likely to always become moot before federal court litigation is completed.

Court orders imposing prior restraints on First Amendment rights, free speech and press, to be capable of repetition yet evading review.

Courts have substantial discretion in deciding what is sufficient likelihood of future injury or a sufficiently short time span for the injury to justify this exception.

voluntary cessation exception (2)

A case should not be dismissed as moot if the defendant voluntarily ceases the allegedly improper behavior but is free to return to it at any time.

A defendant bears a heavy burden to show that it is absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur. Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw (2000).

voluntary cessation examples

A statutory change may render a case moot, even though a legislative body can reinstate the allegedly invalid law after the suit is dismissed.

The repeal of a challenged law may render moot a case, particularly one for declaratory and injunctive relief based on the repealed law. See New York Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. City of New York, New York (2020).

However, the repeal of a challenged law does not render a case moot if there is a reasonable possibility that the government would reenact the law if the proceedings were dismissed. See City of Mesquite v. Aladdin's Castle, Inc. (1982).

Compliance with a court order renders a case moot only if there is no possibility that the allegedly offending behavior will resume once the order expires or is lifted.

class action exception (3)

A class action suit may continue even if the named plaintiff's claims are rendered moot because the class of unnamed persons acquire a legal status post-certification that is separate from the interest asserted by the plaintiff. Sosna v. Iowa (1975).

Prior to class certification, however, the mooting of plaintiff's claims requires the dismissal of the class action.

A plaintiff may continue to appeal the denial of class certification even after his or her particular substantive claim is mooted, U.S. Parole Commission v. Gearghty (1980) or settled, Deposit Guaranty Nat'l Bank v. Roper (1980) because he or she retains a personal stake in obtaining class certification

political questions goal

preserve separation of powers - the case is otherwise justiciable, but SCOTUS's decision will infringe on the responsibilities of other branches, so it should be left to them. It's a way for the court to avoid deciding a case that they think would be inappropriate for them to decide on

political questions jusiticability (4)

Is the court reaching into another branch's responsibilities?

Is this an issue the courts can decide? Or does it belong to another branch?

If a case is a political question → NOT justiciable

Subject matter SCOTUS deems to be inappropriate for judicial review

baker criteria: two questions to ask

Ask: is this issue between branches appropriate for review? Does it fit into one of these factors? If it fits into ONE, then its a political question

Six factors court uses to decide whether a question is political:

political questions contested justifications (4)

Limits the judiciary's role in democracy

Leaves decisionmaking to expertise of political branches

Judiciary's self-interest disqualifies it from ruling on certain matters

Separation of powers

recognized political questions

SCREAM

Seating of delegates at a national political convention

Challenges to impeachmetn and removal procedures

Republican form of government clause issues

The Election and qualifications of Congress

Procedures to Amend the constitution

Military or foreign affairs decisions by the president