ConLaw Final

Textual

Arguments that consider the words and language of the text of the Constitution

Structural

Arguments from the organization of the Constitution and the ordering of its provisions; how the Constitution fits together; the words are not in the Constitution but the system of it is there

Historical

Arguments from the legal, political, social, economic, and military history of the nation

Precedential/Doctrinal

Arguments that refer to the precedential implications of the Supreme Court’s decisions.

Prudential

Arguments that balance the costs and benefits of differing interpretations to ascertain their practical or pragmatic consequences

Ethical

Arguments that rely on moral or ethical commitments reflected in the Constitution.

Hayburn’s Case

Congress does not have the authority to order federal courts to undertake tasks outside the types of cases or controversies specifically provided for in the Constitution

Marbury v. Madison

Established judicial review

Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee

SCOTUS can hear appeals from state courts; the framers obviously contemplated that cases within the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction would arise in state courts.

Hans v. Louisiana

A citizen of a state cannot sue her own state in federal court, even under federal-question jurisdiction for a claimed violation of the Constitution.

Ex Parte Young

If a state official enforces an unconstitutional law, he is no longer acting for the state; he’s acting illegally, so he loses immunity and can be sued; technically, you’re not suing the state (CAN ONLY GET INJUNCTION OR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT)

Consent of the state, structural waivers under the “plan of the Convention”, congressional abrogation of state sovereign immunity

Other Exceptions to Sovereign Immunity

Consent of the State

•    A state can choose to let itself be sued

•    Why would a state ever consent?

  • As a term of receiving federal funding

  • Litigation: Suing their own citizens in federal court waives immunity

Structural Waivers Under the “Plan of the Convention”

•    By joining the Constitution in 1787, states already agreed to be sued in certain areas:

  • EX: bankruptcy matters, federal supremacy contexts, interstate disputes

Congressional Abrogation of State Sovereign Immunity

• Through enforcement power of the Civil Rights Amendments

• Congress can take away state immunity if:

  • It clearly says so AND

  • It has constitutional authority

    • Usually the 14^th Amendment: due process and equal protection

• Federal government can enact a law pursuant to its power to enforce your rights under certain Amendments and can make the states waive their sovereign immunity

Justiciability Doctrines

judicially created doctrines that limit the federal judiciary to issues presented in the adversarial context historically viewed as appropriate for the exercise of judicial power; designed to prevent the judiciary from intruding on the spheres of authority entrusted to the other branches of government (every case in federal court has to pass these bars)

Prohibition Against Advisory Opinions

Prevents the federal courts from resolving cases in which there is no concrete controversy between the parties that can be resolved by the judiciary.

1. Actual dispute between adverse litigants

2. Substantial likelihood that if a decision for the claimant will have some effect

To keep from being an advisory opinion, there must be:

Massachusetts v. Mellon

Rule Against Taxpayer Standing: a taxpayer doesn’t have concrete injury with respect to challenging spending programs that are alleged to be unconstitutional

Allen v. Wright

To have standing to bring a lawsuit, plaintiffs must sufficiently allege that they have personally suffered a distinct injury, and the chain of causation linking that injury to the actions of a defendant must not be attenuated.

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife

Under Article III, a party does not have standing to litigate a generalized grievance against the government in federal court if she suffered no personal injury other than the harm suffered by all citizens.

Injury-in-fact, traceability/causation, redressability

Constitutional Requirements for Standing Elements

Injury-in-Fact

Must be:

• Of a sufficient type

  • Concrete (cannot be an ideological injury)

  • Particularized (personally suffered)

• Of a sufficient likelihood

  • Timing: must be actual or at least imminent

  • There must be a substantial likelihood that the plaintiff will be wronged

Traceability/Causation

Ensures that the injury is fairly traceable to the defendant rather than some independent third party not before the Court.

Redressability

Ensures that a judicial remedy against teh defendant will alleviate the plaintiff’s injury

Flast Exception to Taxpayer Standing

-              This exception relates to historical concerns about using federal funds in contradiction with the Establishment Clause

-              Test:

o   Congress is taxing and spending your tax dollars directly

o   Alleged violation of the Establishment Clause

1.        Only this Clause has the relationship to the injury of conscience

Standing to Assert the Rights of 3rd Persons

Two Part Test:

1. There is a close relationship with the third party, and

2. There is some hindrance to the third party’s ability to protect their own interests

Associational Standing

Allows an association to sue if:

• Some of its members have been injured; doesn’t have to be all members, just some

• The suit is germane to the organization’s purpose (ex: wildlife organization pursuing wildlife interests)

• Participation of individual members is not required to maintain the suit or to obtain relief

Ripeness

the notion that the claim is mature enough to authorize the judiciary to resolve the matter

Two Part Test for Ripeness

• Fitness for Judicial Decision

  • We need to make sure we don’t need factual development first; we need to be in a position of undisputed facts

• Hardship to the Parties of Withholding Review

  • Would delay cause serious harm?

  • You want some present impact that is happening to the party who wants to challenge the regulation

Mootness

the doctrine of standing has to keep existing throughout the litigation; the injury that existed at the beginning of the litigation must continue to exist throughout the litigation process; the injury cannot be redressed while the case is pending

1.        Injuries that are capable of repetition, yet evading review

2.        Properly certified class actions

3.        Voluntary cessation of D’s conduct

4.        Collateral Consequences

Exceptions to Mootness

Dred Scott v. Sandford

Held that African American individuals could not be citizens of the U.S. and therefore could not claim rights of national citizenship or sue in federal court; this rule was repudiated by the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause