Select Page

Constitutional Law I
Santa Clara University School of Law
Epperson, Lia

I. JUDICIAL REVIEW & SUPREME COURT AUTHORITY
a. Marbury vs. Madison
i. Act of other two branches can be reviewed to see if is constitutional when affect vested individual rights of others
ii. Ask: Is this a legal or political question?
1. If it is legal, then it is a mandatory duty
iii. Justification for Judicial Review
1. Inference by written Con that should be supreme law of the land and SC is interpreter
2. Written Con show Gov has limited power and Judicial Review necessary to check that
3. Judicial role is to interpret law, so natural interpret Con
4. Relies on Oath Clause as everyone swears oath to Con
iv. SC is supreme law over all branches Gov & has to be followed by everyone, even if not personally in case (Cooper Case)

II. Limits of Judicial Review
a. Political Question/Justiciability Doctrine
i. Jus – Textually Demostrable -Interpret Con and see which branch should decide issue if stated
ii. Is there a set of standards in Con language & if no manageable standards for resolving an issue it is not judiciable
iii. Prudential Strand – If too controversial that could produce enforcement problems or at conflict with other two branches disrespect them or make US look divided in foreign eyes
iv. Pol – Cases with reappointments, guarantee clause, foreign relations (war, treaties, diplomacy, recognize gov), ratifying Ad, challenges to impeachment
1. See if have to make policy decision to solve case
v. Baker v. Carr
1. Man sues because districts not reapportioned since 1901 so the rural areas had much more power & no equal Rep
2. Usually SC not get involved as saw this as Pol and up to congress
3. Look to see if have to make policy decision if solve case
4. Decided that this case not under Guarantee Clause – guarantees a republican form of Gov to every person – which is Con job
5. Held that Equal Protection Clause, one person, one vote
vi. Nixon v. US
1. Argues that in Impeachment Hearing didn’t do the required “trial” in judging the case (required by Con) as only small committee did, said need entire Senate
2. Not justisciable because left up to Senate as “Sole” to decide what “trial” means
a. Court argues that no real standards for “try” & could cause chaos if overturn an impeachment, also separation of powers
vii. Sources of Doctrine: Article 3, Sec 2, Clause I
1. Dispute must fit certain categories to be tried by SC

b. “Case o

congressman would sue when loss bill, official harm only
v. Allen v. Wright (Causation, Redress)
1. Parents sue IRS for not taking away tax-exempt status of segregate private school
a. Causation problem because even if IRS pulled funding doesn’t mean schools would change their ways
b. So not shown IRS was causing the harm
c. No Redressablity because no assurance pattern would change if pulled
d. Mootness
i. Changing circumstances developing after the initiation of the lawsuit have ended the controversy, so that the court no longer confronts a live dispute
1. Requires actual controversy must exist for all stages of review, not just filing
2. Exceptions
a. Continuing harm to Π
b. Likelihood of future recurrence of past harm (to Π or group represented)
c. Cases arising in future will evade judicial review (Capable of repetition, yet evading review)
e. Non-Ripeness
Cases must rest on “specific present objective harm” or “threat of specific future harm”