CONSITUTIONAL LAW
ALEXANDER
SPRING 2013
SCOTUS’ AUTHORITY AND ROLE
I. Legitimacy
A. Constitution does not contain an express grant to SCOTUS to rule on constitutionality of acts of Congress or state statutes, nor power to review decisions of state courts.
B. National supremacy
1. Supremacy Clause – Art. VI, Sec. 2
a. Declares Constitution and those acts of Congress made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land. SCOTUS must determine when such acts are actually made in pursuance of the Constitution.
C. Judiciary
1. Marbury v. Madison (1803) à Judicial review
FACTS: Adams appointees confirmed by Senate on last day in office. Formal commissions signed, not delivered. Jefferson directed Madison to withhold Marbury’s commission. Marbury brought writ of mandamus to SCOTUS.
ISSUE: Is SCOTUS empowered to review acts of Congress (here, Judiciary Act) and void those it finds repugnant to the Constitution?
HOLDING: Yes. SCOTUS has the authority and duty to declare a congressional statute unconstitutional if the Court thinks it violates the Constitution.
a. Narrow reading à judicial review is a byproduct of a court’s duty to decide cases within its jurisdiction in accordance with the law and the Constitution.
b. Broad reading à Courts have a special competence to interpret law, so they are the ultimate interpreters of the Constitution.
c. Without “purse and sword,” judiciary is least powerful branch, but its independence allows it to guard Constitution and rights of individuals from improper actions of other branches.
D. SCOTUS’ Review of State Court Judgments
1. Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee (1816) à SCOTUS may review state decisions on federal law claims.
FACTS: Martin heir to VA estates of Lord Fairfax. VA claimed title in 1777 through confiscation of property of British loyalists and conveyed it to Hunter. Hunter’s lessee brought action of ejectment. Martin defended by virtue of treaties protecting British-owned property. Plaintiff’s claim sustained by VA COA, but reversed by SCOTUS. VA court failed to comply
( under the notion of state sovereignty) ; Martin appealed.
ISSUE: Does SCOTUS have appellate jurisdiction over highest state courts on issues involving the federal Constitution, laws, and treaties?
HOLDING: Yes. State courts must obey rulings of SCOTUS.
a. Review of Section 25 of Judiciary Act of 1789 is constitutional.
b. Constitution grant of power to SCOTUS
i. All cases involving Constitution, laws, and treaties of U.S. are included in judicial power granted by Constitution to SCOTUS.
ii. Appellate jurisdiction given to SCOTUS by Constitution in all cases where it does not have original jurisdiction, subject to congressional regulations.
c. Necessary for uniformity of decisions related to Constitution throughout U.S.
i. Protect against state attachments, prejudices, jealousies, and interests obstructing regular administration of justice.
ii. Fulfills mandate of Supremacy Clause.
Legitimated SC authority to review judgments of the state courts when interpreting federal law.
SC has absolute appellate power under the Constitution ( art. III sec.2 clause 1).
(1) State Courts CAN interpret US Constitution, but SC has final word.
(2) However, When SC reviews what state courts have done, they have to be careful not to tread on state’s rights to interpret their own state constitution
i) Cohens v. Virginia (1821) –Marshall said “that the judicial power extends to all cases arising under the constitution or a law of the US, whoever may be the parties.”
E. Modern Approach to SCOTUS’ Review of State Court Judgments
1. SCOTUS may review state court opinions, but only to extent decision was based on federal law.
A. “Independent and adequate state grounds”
i. SCOTUS may not review if there is an “independent and adequate” state ground for state court’s decision.
(A) Even if state made a different decision on federal question, SCOTUS may not decide case…opinion would be “advisory.”
(1) Hard to tell when this is the case!
(a) After Michigan v. Long, state court decision must indicate clearly and expressly that it is alternatively based on bona fide “separate, adequate, independent grounds” to avoid federal review.
(B) Decision not “independent” if decision is based on different readings of state and federal constitutions.
F. Judicial Exclusivity in Constitutional Interpretation
1. Cooper v. Aaron (1958) à SCOTUS’ interpretation of Constitution is supreme law.
FACTS: Governor of AR ignored holding in Brown and prevented desegregation in public schools. One school board’s integration plan suspended by district court. SCOTUS granted cert.
ISSUE: Are state authorities bound by SCOTUS’ interpretation of the federal Constitution?
HOLDING: Yes.
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.
G. Federal Judicial Power à Art. III, Sec. 2
1. Jurisdiction over:
a. Federal question
b. Admiralty cases
c. Cases between two or more states
d. Cases between citizens of different states (diversity jurisdiction)
e. Cases between a state or citizen and a foreign country or citizen
2. Clause 2
a. Congress has general power to decide what types of cases SCOTUS may hear.
i. Cannot expand SCOTUS’ jurisdiction.
ii. Can also decide what lower federal courts should be and what cases they can hear, but federal courts cannot hear cases not within federal judicial power.
DICKERSON v. UNITED STATES
· Justicial disagreement between Rehnquist and Scalia
o MAJORITY (Rehnquist): Congress, by an Act, may not legislatively supersede SC decisions interpreting and applying the Constitution. Congress does, however, retain ultimate authority to modify or set aside any of the judicially created rules not required in the Constitution.
o MINORITY (SCALIA): If the Court can say that it “announced a constitutional rule” then the Court essentially has the power not only to apply the Constitution but to expand it—which is certainly an antidemocratic power.
§ Suggests that SC decisions should not become Constitutional.
§ Balance of powers issue: Bypassing legislative and political process?
Political Restrains on the Supreme Court
1) Judicial Selection: The Nomination and Confirmation Process
a) “Advice and Consent of the Senate” Requirement
i) President nominates SC Justices, but appointment will not be effective unless the President obtains the “Advice and Consent of the Senate.” Article II, §2, cl. 2.
2) Impeachment
a) Any officer, including judges, may be removed from office “on impeachment for and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Art. II, §4.
3) Court-Packing
a) Congress sets the size of and the budget for the Court (but justices’ salaries cannot be diminished during their continuance in office).
4) Court-Stripping:
a) Article III, §2 gives Congress the power to make “exceptions” to the SC’s appellate jurisdiction—it has the power to strip the SC of power over specific subject matter.
i) EX PARTE MCCARDLE : Although the Court’s authority stems from the Constitution, it “is conferred wit
timately 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)
B. Standing
1. Plaintiff must have significant personal stake in controversy.
a. Personal stake must be distinct and palpable injury that has a causal connection to the challenged conduct. à “injury in fact”
b. Cannot be predicated upon an injury common to all members of the public.
i. Protects against courts becoming general policy makers.
c. “Generalized interest in constitutional behavior” not recognized as sufficient by courts (i.e., interest as taxpayer insufficient for standing).
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” 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
The Prudential Requirements for Standing
1. Third Party Standing: The court generally restricts standing to the parties directly injured rather than allowing third parties, no matter how sympathetic, to assert their claims vicariously.
a. Exceptions: those who may be inhibited to challenge by the law (1st Amendment Over breadth Doctrine) AND close relationships, unavoidable hindrance to right holder’s own assertion of rights. pg.43
2. Generalized Grievances: The Court has long declined to adjudicate constitutional claims at the behest of a plaintiff who is merely one of millions of taxpayers (Frothingham) or citizens interested in resolving constitutional doubts about governmental action.
