FEDERAL COURTS • SPRING 2011 • STEIN
I. Justiciability
A. Judicial Review (pages 49-80)
A.
A.Advisory Opinions
A.• Correspondence of the Justices (1793) (purposely and expressly limited to executive departments)
A.• State Courts may still issue Advisory Opinions, through State Constitution and/or Statutorily
A.• Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 316 (1989) (implicitly equating purely prospective with advisory)
A.• Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth 300 U.S. 227 (1937) (Declaratory Judgment Act is Constitutional)
A.
A.Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
A.“[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”
A.
A.Judicial Supremacy: Fed. Judiciary is “supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution”
A.• Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 18 (1958); U.S. v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 616 (2000); U.S. v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 703 (1974)
A.
A.Dispute Resolution Model of the Federal Judiciary
A.• FEC v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11, 23-24 (1998) (Judiciary not “overseer” of other branches)
A. – Lujan v. Def. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 573-574 (1992) (role not to ‘vindicate abstract interests’)
A.• Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (1984) (“Case” requires 1. violation of legal duty, 2. palpable injury)
A. – Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1975)
A.
A.Law Declaration Model
A.• Statutorily Authorized Judicial Review of Administrative Actions: Diffuse Rights, “Public Interest”
A. – FCC v. Sanders Bros. Radio, 309 U.S. 470 (1940); Scripps-Howard Radio v. FCC, 316 U.S. 4 (1942)
A.• Substantive expansion of Constitutional Rights broadened conception of “Legally Cognizable” Interest
A. – Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) (voters challenging malapportioned legislative district)
A. – School Dist. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) (public schools and school prayer)
A.• Shields and Swords of Constitutional Rights – Affirmative Relief for Injury of Constitutional Right
A. – Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (judicially created equitable cause of action: DP violation)
A. – Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) (institutional reform litigation; jud. mgmt.)
A.
A.Constitutional Avoidance & Last Resort
A.• Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 345-48 (1936)*
A. – citing LNY&P Steamship Co. v. Emigration Comm., 113 U.S. 33, 39 (1885) (fact specific)
A. – citing Crowell v. Benson, 285 U.S. 22, 62 (1932) (lesser grounds if adequate)
A.• see, e.g., Dept. of Commmerce v. U.S. House of Representatives, 525 U.S. 316, 343 (1999)
A. – citing Spector Motor Service. v. McLaughlin, 323 U.S. 101, 105 (1944)
A.• DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast B&C Trades Council, 485 U.S. 568, 575 (1988)
A. – U.S. v. Delaware & Hudson Co., 213 U.S. 366, 407-408 (1909)
A.
A.Threshold to Overcome the “Last Resort Rule”
A.• Almendarez-Torres v. U.S., 523 U.S. 224, 238 (1998) (Cannon of Avoidance)
A. – U.S. v. Locke, 471 U.S. 84, 93 (1985) (dual constitutional/statutory claims)
A. – U.S. v. Montasanto, 491 U.S. 600, 611 (cannon is not license to rewrite legislature)
A. – U.S. v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 925-926 (1984) (follows law declaration model)
A. – but see Ullman v. U.S., 350 U.S. 422, 433 (1956) (words may be strained in candid service)
A.
B. Finality, Feigned and Test Cases (pages 80-100)
B.
B.Hayburn’s Case, 2 U.S. 408 (1792) (separation of powers is a “principle important to freedom”)
B.
B.Applications of Hayburn Holding: Personal Stake or Interest
B.• Pasadena City Bd. of Educ. v. Spangler, 427 U.S. 424 (1976) (U.S. intervened, thus not mooted)
B.• Adverse Parties as a Requirement: not always the case that there are “at least two parties”
B. – Tutun v. U.S., 270 U.S. 568 (1926) (rulings on naturalization satisfy req., though no adv. “party”)
B. – Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 41-42 (1942) (defering to longstanding ‘legislative construction’)
B. – The Laura, 114 U.S. 411, 416 (1885) (deep historical pedigree held to ‘fix the construction’)
B. – U.S. v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) (intra-governmental; ‘uniqueness of setting in which conflict arises’)
B.
B.Executive Revision: Hayburn establishes that ‘Congress cannot vest Art III Review in Executives’
B.• Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, 514 U.S. 211, 218 (1995) (executive review would be ‘fatal to jud. rev.’)
B.• U.S. v. Ferreira, 54 U.S. 40 (1851) (dist. judge acting in ‘administrative capacity’; appeal dismissed)
B.• C&S Airlines v. Waterman Corp., 333 U.S. 103 (1948) (pres. order not reviewable; ‘political discretion’)
B.• In the Context of Extradition Proceedings (upon probable cause, judge certifies to Sec. of State)
B. – SC yet to rule; inferiors reject Hayburn argument; judges in context are ‘extradition officers’
B. – Lopez-Smith v. Hood, 121 F.3d 1322 (9th Cir. 1997); U.S. v. Kin-Hong, 110 F.3d 103 (1st Cir. 1997)
B.
B.Legislative Revision: Can the Legislature Amend or Revise Acts to Overcome the Judiciary?
B.• U.S. v. Klein, 80 U.S. 128 (1871) (invalidated statute ordering courts to dismiss pending litigation)
B.• U.S. v. Schooner Peggy, 5 U.S. 103 (1801) (general rule that courts obligated to apply law as is)
B. – Carpenter v. Wabash Ry., 309 U.S. 23 (1940); Vanderbark v. OIG, 311 U.S. 538 (1941); Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66 (1975)
B.• Robertson v. Seattle Audobon, 503 U.S. 429 (1992) (stat. specifically noted pending cases; unconst.)
B.• LPLP&P v. Gilbertson, 501 U.S. 350, 364 (1991) (new SOL didn’t effect prior, final judgment)
B.• Changes in Law and Ongoing/Prospective Relief: Distinguishing Plaut and Hayburn
B. – Miller v. French, 530 U.S. 327 (2000) (Congress may validly alter law causing prospective to lapse)
B.
B.Claims against the U.S. – Requisite “Appropriation”, and thus, Review of Court of Claims Judgment
B.• Gordon v. U.S., 69 U.S. 561 (1865) (exec. revision of judg. against U.S. okay; app. review barred)
B.• Then Congress amended statute to remove the “objectionable section” from the statute
B.• U.S. v. Jones, 119 U.S. 477 (1886) (upheld its own appellate jurisdiction over COC judgment)
B.• Glidden Co. v. Xdanok, 370 U.S. 530 (1962) (COC can constitutionally exercise Art. III power)
B.• Blanchette v. CGIC, 419 U.S. 102 (1974) (post-filing amend. to b’ruptcy statutes couldn’t obviate remedy)
B.• Waiver of judg. against U.S. upheld: Cherokee v. U.S., 270 U.S. 476 (1926); U.S. v. Sioux, 448 U.S. 371 (1980)
B.
B.Judicial Revision: Res Judicata of “Final” Art. III Judgments; Avoidance of Advisory Opinions
B.• Patent and Trademark: review of final judgments in Intellectual Property matters
B. – Postum Cereal Co. v. California Fig Nut Co., 272 U.S. 693 (1927) (lacking jurisdiction)
B. – Errosion since Postum: limited preclusive effect of administrative/legislative not compelling
B. – In Glidden: nature of court “alone is insufficient to make [that court’s] decision nonjudicial”
B.
B.U.S. v. Johnson 319 U.S. 302 (1943) (“collusive because it is not in any real sense adversary”)
B.
B.Collusive Cases
B.• C> Ry. v. Wellman, 143 U.S. 339, 345 (indispensable safeguard of requisite antagonistic assertion of rights
B.• Cases decided despite evidence of collusive litigation, prior to Johnson:
B. – Hylton v. U.S., 3 U.S. 171 (1796); Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. 87 (1810)
B.
B.Test Cases: Planned by Parties to a Real “Controversy” – Permissible
B.• Evers v. Dwyer, 358 U.S. 202 (1958) (boarded bus once, got off; case was justiciable, despite evidence)
B. – see also Bankamerica v. U.S., 462 U.S. 122, 124 (1983); Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U.S. 60 (1917)
B.
B.Test Cases: Planned by Congress, Seeking “Judicial Declaration” – Unclear
B.• Muskrat v. U.S., 219 U.S. 346 (1911) (court refused; US was party with no actual adverse interest)
B. – ‘attempt to obtain judicial declaration of validity … in not presented in a case or controversy’
B. – cited by Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811, 819 (1997); Steel Co. v. CBE, 523 U.S. 83, 101 (1998)
B.• BUT, there are many cases in which Court has accepted jurisdiction over Cong. backed test cases:
B. – La Abra Silver v. U.S., 175 U.S. 42
egislators
• Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939) (act overridden by legislature; unconstitutionally ratified)
• Raines v. Burd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997) (act specifically authorizing, against generalized grievance)
Causation and Redressability
• Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614 (1973) (challenge of criminal statute not sufficient nexus)
• Regents of UC v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978) (injury could simply be “chance” to compete)
• NE Fla. Chapter of AGCA v. Jacksonville, 508 U.S. 656 (1993) (similar reasoning to Bakke)
• Friends of Earth v. Laidlaw Env., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (standing required for each form of relief)
Bearing on State Law – Problems with Enlargement or Diminution of Federal Standing
• Tileston v. Ullman, 318 U.S. 44 (1943) (CT court had enlarged standing and judged on merits)
• Doremus v. Board, 342 U.S. 429 (1952) (lack of standing, state judgment on the merits)
• Fidelity v. Swope, 274 U.S. 123 (1927) (state case not within Art. III jurisdiction not res judicata)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (stat. “citizen-suits” still req. standing)
“Irreducible constitutional minimum of standing contains three elements.”
• Injury in fact: invasion that is ‘concrete and particularized’ (Allen); ‘actual or imminent’ (Lyons)
• Causal connection: ‘fairly traceable to … defendant,’ not an independent third party (Simon)
• Redressable: ‘likely … [not] merely speculative’ that favorable decision will redress injury (Id.)
• Kennedy Dissent: “Buy a plane ticket” to satisfy the “ecosystem nexus” and “actual injury”
Jud. Process Invoked only if Necessary; Generalized Grievances Vindicated through Pol. Process
• Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 357 (1996) (“standing not dispensed in gross”)
• Lucas v. SC Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992) (distinguishing R.12(b)(6) and R.56)
– Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997) (standard applied for dismissal or rejection)
Congressional Power to Confer Standing
• Muskrat v. U.S., 219 U.S. 346 (1911) (cryptic; not allowing Congress to confer standing)
– McClure v. Reagan, 454 U.S. 1025 (1981) (affirming Muskrat)
– see also Warth v. Seldin at 500, Sierra Club v. Morton at 732, Flast v. Cohen at 120
• TN Elec. Power Co. v. TN Valley Auth., 306 U.S. 118, 137-138 (1939) (competitor-utilites)
– Alabama Power Co. v. Ickes, 302. U.S. 464 (1938)
• FCC v. Sanders Bros. Radio, 309 U.S. 470 (1940) (shifting to “public interest” justification)
– Scripps-Howard Radio v. FCC, 316 U.S. 4, 14 (1942) (private litigants representing pub. int.)
• Trafficante v. Metropolitan Life Ins., 409 U.S. 205 (1972) (civil rights act confers standing)
– Havens Realty v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363, 372 (1982) (“tester” had standing to sue; civil rights)
• Mass. v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) (statutory/cognizable interest, no mention of standing)
• Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 460 (1939) (historical perspective on standing doctrine)
