Constitutional Law
Hartnett
Spring 2011
Chapter 1: The Supreme Court’s Authority and Role
1. The Power of Judicial Review
· The Constitution does not explicitly state that the Supreme Court may determine the constitutionality of acts of other branches of government. Marbury v. Madison, however, established judicial review of other branches of federal government. The Constitution is “law” and it is the province and duty of the judiciary to declare what the law is—they are the final interpreters of the document.
MARBURY v. MADISON
Facts: Marbury was named Justice of the Peace by Adams, however, The Jefferson administration refused to deliver the commission to Marbury. Madison was Jefferson’s Secretary of State—the one who is supposed to deliver the commission.
Issues:
(1) Does Marbury have the right to the commission?
a. All of the proper procedures were followed and the seal of the US was placed on the commission. Marbury, therefore, has a right to the commission.
(2) Does the Law Afford Marbury a Remedy?
a. Where a specific duty is assigned by law, and individual rights depend upon the performance of that duty, it seems equally clear, that the individual who considers himself injured, has a right to resort to the laws of his country for a remedy.
b. Marshall says the President, a member of the executive branch, has certain important political powers, in the exercise of which he is to use his own discretion, for POLITICAL ISSUES. Political powers are discretionary, but legal ones are not.
(3) Does the Supreme Court have the power/authority to issue this remedy (Writ of mandamus)?
a. SUB-ISSUES: (1) Does Article III of the Constitution create a “floor” for original jurisdiction, which Congress can add to, or does it create an exhaustive list that Congress cannot modify at all? (2) If Article III’s original jurisdiction is an exhaustive list, but Congress tries to modify it anyway, who wins that conflict, Congress or the Constitution? (3) And, more importantly, who is supposed to decide who wins?
i. HOIHOHOHOLDING(s): Marshall first examined the Judiciary Act of 1789 and determined that the Act purported to give the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over writs of mandamus. He then looked to Article III of the Constitution, which defines the Supreme Court’s original and appellate jurisdictions. Marbury had argued that the Constitution was only intended to set a floor for original jurisdiction that Congress could add to. Marshall disagreed and held that Congress does not have the power to modify the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction. Marshall found that the Constitution and the Judiciary Act conflicted.
ii. HeWith regard to this conflict, the court ruled that the Judiciary Act was unconstitutional (THIS IS THE COURT EXERCISING JUDICIAL REVIEW), which would have allowed such jurisdiction to issue the writ. The Constitution prevails here.
Marshall’s Justifications for Judicial Review
· The Nature of the Constitution—there would be no point in having a written Constitution if the courts could just ignore it. “To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, of these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained.”
· Because it is a Court’s duty to decide cases, and which laws apply to those cases, a court must decide which law applies when two laws conflict with one another. (Structural Argument).
· Judges take oaths to uphold the Constitution—the Supreme law of the land (Supremacy Clause- Article VI).
Additional Notes/Principles on Marbury v Madison
· This case establishes judicial review, meaning that the Constitution empowers the courts to determine what is constitutional and what is not constitutional
· Although the Judiciary Act of 1789 authorized original jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus, this provision was unconstitutional because Congress cannot allow original jurisdiction beyond the situations enumerated in the Constitution.
· There is no review when 1) Questions that are in nature political or 2) which are by the constitution and law submitted to the executive for their discretion.
· Some matters are entirely within the president’s discretion and cannot be judicially reviewed. But where the executive has a legal duty to act or refrain from acting, the federal judiciary can provide a remedy, including a writ of mandamus.
2. Supreme Court Authority to Review State Court Judgments
· Although the Constitution does not explicitly say that the SC may review state court decisions, Section 25 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 provided for Supreme Court review of state court Judgments. This case expands the judicial power of the federal SC to hear issues of state law as well.
· This is vertical judicial review, rather than horizontal judicial review, which is between the branches of the federal government.
MARTIN v. HUNTER’S LESSEE
Facts: Martin and Hunter both stake claims to the same land; Hunter’s claim rests on state law and Martin’s rests on federal treaties. VA Court holds for Hunter (State law). The SCOTUS holds that the federal treaties, however, supersede state law and to remand to VA Court to enter ruling accordingly. The VA Court of Appeals refuses and claims that it has the authority to interpret the Constitution. SCOTUS says section 25 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 gives it the appellate jurisdiction to have the final word.
Structural Reasoning: Justice Story argued that the Constitution creates a Supreme Court and gives Congress discretion whether to create lower federal courts. But if Congress chose not to establish such tribunals, then the SC would be powerless to hear any cases, except for the few fitting within its original jurisdiction, unless it could review state court rulings.
Policy Argument: Story said that although he assumed that “judges of the state courts are, and always will be, of as much learning, integrity, and wisdom as those of the courts of the US,” the Constitution is based on a recognition that “state attachments, state prejudices, state jealousies, and state interests might sometimes obstruct, or control, or be supposed to obstruct or control, the regular administration of justice.
· SC may only review issues of federal law; not independent state law issues.
· SC review is essential to ensure uniformity in the interpretation of federal law
· Story does not discount state courts’ right to hear federal claims, only that they are no the final arbiter of federal issues.
COHENS v. VIRGINIA
Facts: Two bros were convicted in VA state court of selling District of Columbia lottery tickets in violation of VA law. The defendants sought review in the SCOTUS because they claimed the Constitution prevented them from being prosecuted for selling tickets authorized by Congress. VA argued that the SC had no authority to review state court decisions in general, and, in particular, review was not allowed in criminal cases and in cases where a state government was a party.
Holding: Reaffirmed the constitutionality of Section 25 of the Judiciary Act and the authority of the SC to review state court judgments.
Reasoning: Criminal defendants could seek SC review when they claimed that their conviction violated the Constitution AND state courts are often dependent on office and vulnerable to majoritarian pressure in constitutional cases.
3. Judicial Exclusivity In Constitutional Interpretation
· Marbury v. Madison has raised questions as to whether the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and whether the courts are the ultimate and exclusive interpreters of the Constitution or whether they share this authority with the other branches of government.
· With a broad reading of Marbury v. Madison and “Judicial Review,” the courts are said to have special competence in interpreting law, including the Constitution, and thus, they are the ultimate supreme interpreters.
COOPER v. AARON
Facts: A federal district court ordered the desegregation of the Little Rock, Arkansas, public schools. The state disobeyed this order, in part, based on a professed concern that compliance would lead to violence, and, in part, based on a claim that it was not bound to comply with judicial desegregation decrees.
Holding: The SC rejected the state’s position. “Article VI of the Constitution makes the Constitution the supreme law of the land. The federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution (Marbury), and that principle has ever since been respected by this Court and the Country as a permanent and indispensible feature of our constitutional system. Every state legislator and executive and judicial officer is solemnly committed by oath “to support this Constitution.”
· Federal courts also have the authority to review the constitutionality of state laws and the actions of state officials.
· When the court states its Constitutional interpretation, it is the interpretation that all branches must follow as well as all of the states.
DICKERSON v. UNITED
It gives the Court a kind of upfront veto.
· Maintaining Checks and Balances Among Branches:
o Declining to comment on Washington’s War Power: Justices rejected invitation to advise on legal issues involving America’s neutrality toward war b/w England and France because of checks and balances of branches.
§ The political Realm gets opinions from Article II, Section II, which gives the President the power from his subordinates
· The refusal to give Advisory Opinions is constitutional as opposed to prudential: The Court says its power is limited to “cases and controversies.”
o There must be live parties litigating actual claims.
RESCUE ARMY v. MUNICIPAL COURT OF LA
· The Court’s refusal to render advisory opinions and other nonjusticiability doctrines ensures that Constitutional issues affecting legislation will not be determined…
o In friendly, non-adversary proceedings;
o In advance of the necessity deciding them;
o In broader terms than are required by the facts to which the ruling is to be applied;
o At the instance of one who fails to show injury by statute;
o If a construction of the statute is possible by which the question may be avoided.
Justifications for Prohibiting Advisory Opinions
· Separation of powers is maintained by keeping courts out of the legislative process – the judicial role is limited to deciding actual disputes, it does not include giving advice to Congress or the president
· Judicial resources are conserved because advisory opinions might be requested in many instances where the law ultimately would not pass the legislature – the federal courts can decide the matter if it turns into an actual dispute, otherwise judicial review is unnecessary and a waste of political and financial capital
· The prohibition against advisory opinions helps ensure that cases will be presented to the Court in terms of specific disputes, not as hypothetical legal questions.
· They want cases where people are adversaries – because those parties will bring forth the best arguments for both sides. Having interests at stake, they will bring up all arguments, leaving the courts with the sole responsibility of determining law (the judges do not have to go find the nuances of the case)
STANDING-JUSTICIABLITY DOCTRINES
· The determination of whether a specific person is the proper party to bring a matter to the court for adjudication—“in essence the question of standing is whether the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues.”
American Standards and Requirements for Standing
· Constitutional: There are minimum requirements under Article III-irreducible
· Prudential: A requirement that the Court has imposed over the Constitution.
o If the court establishes prudential requirements, Congress can override them, but it cannot override Constitutional requirements.
The Constitutional Requirements for Standing
1. Injury In Fact: P must allege that he or she has suffered or imminently will suffer an injury.
a. Must be actual, concrete and particularized
b. An invasion of a legally protected interest.
2. Casual Connection: Between the injury and the conduct complained of—the injury has to be “fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant. Defendants conduct must be “proximate cause”y of the injury.
a. Cannot be the result of the independent action of some third party not before the court.
3. Redressibility: It must be “likely,” as opposed to merely “speculative,” that the injury will be “redressed by a favorable decision.”
a. Partial redress is sufficient
