Constitutional Structures Outline

 
Loffredo, Stephen; ConStructs; Fall 2013
 
(1) STANDING AND RIPENESS
 
STANDING
A PL has standing to bring a federal suit if he can establish (1) a personal stake sufficient to meet the case and controversy reqs and (2) SCOTUS’s prudential limitations
 
Establishing Standing:
(1)   PL demonstrates personal stake sufficient to meet Const’l Case and Controversy Reqs of ArtIII
(2)   SCOTUS’s prudential limitations (can be overridden by Congress majority legislation)
 
Case and Controversy Reqs:
(1)   injury in fact
a.      concrete (i.e. not abstract)
b.      actual or imminent; not too speculative/hypothetical
                                                              i.      presently continuing adverse effects OR
                                                            ii.      likelihood that PL will be harmed again by the challenged conduct
EXAMPLES:
                                                          iii.      Violations of individual Const’l + Statute-created Rights
                                                           iv.      Common law interests, Property rights, economic interests (K, tort, body)
c.       Past injury can satisfy the case and controversy req if:
                                                              i.      Evidence of continued adverse effects as the result of some clearly authorized, official policy. OR
                                                            ii.      The plaintiff shows reasonable likelihood that the injury would occur again
1.      What constitutes reasonable likelihood:
–          Large # of instances of unlawful conduct (10K sufficient)
(2)   Causation
a.      Injury fairly traceable to DEF’s actions
b.      Multiple links in causal chain weaken claim, but not necessarily fatal
(3)   Redressability
a.      Some relief must be available to alleviate to some degree
Prudential Limitations:
(1)   No generalized grievances
a.      GG = suffered by many or common to all, in roughly equal measure, implicates no personal interest beyond generalized citizens interest in lawful operation of gov’t
b.      Congress can override:
                                                              i.      Make clear what injury it seeks to right
                                                            ii.      Relate the injury to class of persons entitled to bring suit
c.       Can be shared by many if clear violation of Const’l/Statutory Rights
                                                              i.      FLAST: taxpayer status gives standing to challenge Congress’s exercise of taxing/spending power as violative of 1st A Establishment Clause
(2)   No assertions of 3rd Party Rights; FOUR EXCEPTIONS:
a.      Congress overrule by later statute
b.      Enforcement of challenged restriction would result indirectly in violation of 3rd parties’ rights (stopping Drs from distributing contraceptives violates patients’ rights)
c.       Stat/reg would preclude/adversely affect existing relationship between litigant and persons whose rights violated (patient-dr, teacher-student)
d.      Prosecution of suit nec’y to ensure protection of rights asserted bc 3rd parties disabled from asserting rights (Genuine obstacle req’d)
(3)   Zone of interests test
a.      is the PL’s interest arguably protected under the provisions?
 
* a plaintiff must demonstrate standing separately for each form of relief sought.
*State’s stake in protecting quasi-sovereign interests as a state gives is standing re: potential damage to its territory
 
RIPENESS DOCTRINE
A party may not seek a declaratory judgment regarding a statute if no sanctions have been sought under the statute and no occasion for doing so has arisen
 
Bars judicial review of abstract or hypothetical claims involving uncertain/contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated or may not occur at all
–          Claims that are premature because the injury alleged is too remote and speculative and may never occur
TRIGGERED by statutory/regulatory provision that is challenged in advance of its application to plaintiff
ABBOT EXCEPTION: Courts may entertain pre-enforcement challenges if:
1.      Fit for judicial review i.e. the record before the court is sufficiently developed to permit proper adjudication;
a.      Claims raising purely legal questions e.g. facial challenges to reg/stat’s validity likely to be found fit
b.      Claims turning on factual circumstances not fully developed at the time review is sought will likely be unfit
2.      Withholding judicial review will cause hardship to the parties
EXAMPLES:
a.      denying review will put party to the choice of risking significant sanctions in order to challenge the restriction
b.      suffering a deprivation by accepting the sanction
*CSS EXCEPTION TO ABBOT EXCEPTION: benefit-restricting regulations – there can be NO PRE-ENFORCEMENT REVIEW OF REGS LIMITING ACCESS TO/ELIGIBILITY FOR A GOV’T BENEFIT (applicant must first apply and be denied due to the eligibility restriction to challenge the policy)
c.       Must show CONCRETE evidence PL felt effect of denial
d.      BUT: SCOTUS has allowed where PL claims denial of Equal Protection/Equal Treatment
                                                              i.      Show history of applying for the benefit + allege denial of equal treatment
                                                            ii.      Do NOT have to show actually applied for benefit + but-for challenged restriction it would have secured the benefit (BECAUSE INJURY IS DEPRIVATION OF EQUAL TREATMENT, NOT OF THE BENEFIT)
 
 
 
(2) 11TH A IMMUNITY (INCLUDING STATE SOV IMMUNITY)
 
1. Limits power of fed judiciary to hear claims
2. brought by non-state, non-US gov’t plaintiffs
3. against State Defs (states, their agencies, an “arm of the state”) and State officials in their official capacities
 
UNLESS: AWE (ABROGATION, WAIVER, EX PARTE YOUNG)
1.      State has unequivocally waived its 11th A immunity; OR
2.      Congress has unequivocally abrogated that immunity through an exercise of power that authorizes abrogation
a.      Clear statement in statute’s text of Congress’s intent to lift 11th A immunity
b.      Through a valid exercise of power authorizing abrogation (14th A s.5 valid, NOT COMMERCE, prob not art1)
–          COMMERCE CL GIVES NO AUTHORITY to congress to abrogate (also suggests Art1 power)
–          14th A s.5 DOES give authority to abrogate
3.  Ex Pa