Constitutional Law I Outline

Healy Con Law Outline Spring 2014

STANDING (WHO can hear the case)

Article III provides that the federal courts only have jurisdiction where there is an actual case and controversy. Thus, in order to properly assert her claims in federal court, a plaintiff must have standing. Standing looks to see WHO can come into the court and litigate, not what type of case. If there is no standing, that just means the party can’t come to court, but another party can bring the case.

1. The Plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in fact” – an invasion of a legally-protected interest that is:

Concrete and Particularized – cannot be hypothetical or conjectural; cannot be an injury which everyone is suffering. Not abstract. Is this ideological or has the person been harmed?

Actual or Imminent Harm, Not remote or speculative. Now or soon.

2. Causation –connection between the injury and the conduct complained of; the injury must be “fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant, and not the result of an independent third party not before the court.” Must show more than “but for” must be fairly traceable (also proximate)

3. Redressability – it must be likely (as opposed to speculative) that a favorable decision will redress the grievance – what type of judicial relief requested

Prudential Standing Doctrines

Third-Party Standing

Generally, standing is restricted to parties directly injured

Exceptions: Interchangeable Econ Interests

You’re a necessary component in exercising the 3rd party’s rights (Dr/Patient, Associations)

An association may sue on behalf of its members if

(1) members would have standing to sue on their own,

(2) the interests of the litigation are connected to orgs purp, and

(3) the members wouldn’t need to participate in the suit

Generalized Grievances (shared injury with no distinction)

When P is claiming that the gov isn’t complying with the law, it doesn’t affect just you differently from anyone else, so you can’t bring a lawsuit. Has to be some kind of harm

Exceptions: Only when congress allocates money (not property) and not the president, When gov violates the Establishment Clause and supports a religion

Suits Outside the Law’s Zone of Interest may be negated by express action of Congress (no textual roots) Challenging a statute or under-enforcement

If you’re going to argue ZOI you have to be one of the beneficiaries of the law, not just an observer. Standing is most difficult when gov is failing to enforce some law

A taxpayer has standing if (Flast)

(1) the law he seeks to challenge was enacted under Congress’s taxing and spending power, and

(2) he alleges that Congress has exceeded some specific limitation on that power .

Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency Whether Massachusetts has standing to challenge the EPA’s failure to enforce the Clean Air Act and regulate the emissions of greenhouse gases. Claim – losing property. Injury – rising sea level/disappearing coastline. Concrete/Particularized: No, global problem. Actual/Imminent: Maybe, some coastline already disappeared, but rising sea levels is a very slow process. Causation – Complex web, possibility of an independent third party. The requirements for causation are relaxed when, as here, there is a citizen suit requirement in the Act. Redressability – Unsure bc Other countries will continue to pollute. Harms could be reduced but not eliminated. But, cutting US emissions might induce other countries to follow. Holding: Massachusetts has standing.

Craig v Boren -sex discrimination challenged by a seller of beer bc was injured as a distributer by sex discrim

Frothingham v. Mellon Refused taxpayer’s action to enjoin the Secretary of the Treasury from making conditional grants to state programs alleged injury was too “remote” and “speculative.”

U.S. v. Richardson A taxpayer did not have standing to claim that a law keeping CIA expenditures secrete violated the Statement of Account Clause

Flast v. Cohen Taxpayers allowed to challenge a federal statute granting aid to religious schools. Limited exception

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife and Massachusetts v. EPA

standing can have both “jurisdictional” components and “prudential” components. If the plaintiff is not suffering sufficient injury to create an Article III case or controversy, then the absence of standing is “jurisdictional” and the Court has no choice but to dismiss, in some cases, plaintiff may be able to show sufficient injury to establish a case or controversy, but the Court may be disinclined to hear the case because the injury is not sufficiently severe. In cases like this, the Court may choose to dismiss on discretionary or prudential grounds. In such situations, since the jurisdictional prerequisites are satisfied, the Court is free to hear the case if it chooses to do so.

Bennett v. Spear (1997) – zone of interest obstacles negated by a citizen-suit provision. Economic interests are not in the zone of interests of the Endangered species society

Justiciability – can the court hear the case?

1. Ban on advisory opinions

2. Standing – WHO

3. Mootness – WHEN

4. Ripeness – WHEN

5. Political Question Doctrine – WHAT

Policy Rationale for justiciability and the case/controversy requirement are 1. Preserve constitutional questions to be resolved in adversary model 2. Respects separation of powers 3. Actual as opposed to hypothetical issue 4. Preserves judicial resources (don’t waste court’s time) 5. Vigorous advocacy by the parties.

MOOTNESS (WHEN can court hear the case)

For proper federal jurisdiction, there must be an actual “live” controversy at every stage of the litigation. Thus if events after the filing of the lawsuit end the plaintiff’s injury, the claim should be dismissed as moot.

(Art. III’s case or controversy requirement)

However, there are exceptions to the mootness doctrine where the wrong is capable of repetition yet evading review, or where the defendant has voluntarily ceased the conduct which caused the plaintiff’s harm.

(1) Capable of repetition yet evading review

(2) Voluntary Cessation – Defendant stopped but could resume at any time

(3) Collateral Consequences – action or event is over, but still have consequences

(4) Brief/fleeting injury – pregnancy cases – technically moot

· An actual controversy must exist at all times, not merely at the time the complaint is filed.

· Case can become moot when there are changed circumstances that are different from the outset of litigation.

· Ex. when the case settles, or when statutes change, or when circumstances change, or when there is voluntary cessation by the defendant as long as there is no reasonable way that the defendant will continue to engage in the same conduct If the defendant can continue the activity, then the case is not moot. This is the same when complying with a court order.

There is an exception to the mootness doctrine. That is for wrongs that are capable of repetition yet evading review. This is when injuries are brief and fleeting. There is only a limited time to bring the case to court, and by the time it is settled, there will no longer be an injury. It must be shown that there is a likelihood that the injury will recur, and that the case will likely always be moot because the injury is of limited duration. Examples of this are pregnancy, 1 year residencies, restraints on speech, elections, and class actions.

a. Roe v. Wade (1973)Roe was no longer pregnant by the time the case had reached the level of the supreme Court; however, the abortion issue was very capable of repetition yet evading review

b. Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Environmental Services

c. Ellis v. Brotherhood of Clerks (1984)

RIPENESS

Courts will not hear a premature case, involving situations where the dispute is insufficiently developed and too remote or speculative to warrant judicial action

A claim is ripe where the plaintiff would suffer harm if review were denied. Pre-enforcement Review –must show hardship (i.e. you will be arrested) if you have to wait and the case is judicially fit for resolution – enough facts before it to be able to properly analyze the issue

There are 3 situations where the court determined that there was enough hardship to warrant anticipatory relief. 1. Choice between forgoing lawful behavior and risking arrest and prosecution. 2. Hardship where enforcement of the law will be certain and inevitable 3. Hardship because of collateral injuries that are not the primary focus to the lawsuit.

Ripeness – Ripeness prevents premature adjudication.

This is the opposite of mootness, in that it involves situations where the dispute is insufficiently developed, and is instead too remote or speculative to warrant judicial action. The case is not ripe when it is brought too soon, where the parties have not yet reached a concrete confrontation.

The main question that the court asks is if the injury occurred yet. They also look to see how substantial the hardship would be if the plaintiff was denied anticipatory relief. If the harm is speculative or uncertain, then the court will likely rule that the case is not ripe.

POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE

President has complete discretion to make political decisions (i.e. appointing officers) that are not up to the court. The only remedy of this is to change in the political process (elect someone else)

1. A textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department, or (Ex. Impeachment) the constitution has to explicitly state

o Translation: The text of the Constitution commits the question to another branch of government.

o Is there some language in the constitution that tells us that a dispute like this is up to another branch to decide? (doesn’t specify which branch)

o Example: The house shall be the judge of the journal of its proceedings and not the judiciary b/c § 5 of the Constitution says so

o Guaranty Clause – Congress- Art4S4 guarantees republican form of government – given to congress but not explicitly – no standard to determine if a state has a republican form of government – political philosophy not law – cant decide without a policy determination

o In Baker there was not – Equal Protection Clause

o “textually demonstrative commitment” – constitution gives power to do – does not mean that branch can question its constitutional authority – don’t resolve questions about their own scope of power, courts decide the scope of other branches’ power

2. A lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it, or (Ex. Guaranty Clause – impossible for courts to determine)