Constitutional Law Outline
Fall 2016 | Professor Hafetz
CHAPTER 1: THE SUPREME COURT’S AUTHORITY AND ROLE
Judicial Review Powers
SC can review of other branches of government
The Constitution does not explicitly state that the SC may determine the constitutionality of acts of other branches of govt.
Marbury v. Madison establishes the notion of constitutional review of Congress’s actions by the SC
Finds authority in the Constitution for the SC to do this:
Article III sec. 2 authorizes the Supreme Court to decide cases and controversies “arising under” the C
Oath Clause of Article VI sec. 3 where officials swear to uphold the C
Supremacy Clause of Article VI sec. 2 says that the C is the supreme law of the land
SC can review state acts
The Constitution and laws of the United States take precedence over state laws, and state judges must follow federal law and the Constitution when making decisions
SC has final say: Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee – the SC has appellate jx over the highest state courts on issues involving the federal constitution and laws
State courts are bound to SC interpretations: Cooper v. Aaron: state officials cannot nullify decisions of the SC
Congressional limits
Congress can limit SC appellate review jx but not original jx: Ex Parte McCardle: Congress has power to regulate and limit specific avenues of SC appellate jx, but cannot eliminate all avenues for SC review (two statutes gave SC power to grant habeas corpus of federal prisoners, one was repealed by Congress but the other still allowed SC power)
Constitutional and Prudential Limits on Review
Even if a federal court has jx over the subject matter of the case, it still may refuse to hear the case based on the limits below:
Case or controversy
Article III limits judicial power to cases or controversies arising out of the Constitution
Requires those who are challenging govt action to have a particular legal grievance, rather than an abstract/hypothetical policy dispute
Plaintiff must have a personal stake in the outcome, no sham cases bc otherwise parties can make up a lawsuit and pretend they are at odds when actually just looking for advisory opinion from the court
Federal courts will not give advisory opinions on the legality of an executive or congressional action
US v. Windsor: Govt declined to defend the case on appeal, so it appeared like the parties agreed and no case existed, but court allowed House Members to intervene to defend the law so that it was not the court giving an advisory opinion
Standing
Constitutional Standing – provides remedies to particular individuals for concrete harms suffered
Narrow vs. Broad view of standing:
Narrow = only the person harmed can bring suit
Ensures that controversies are based on concrete facts
Ensure vigorous advocacy based on specific interests
Promote judicial restraint
Limit the quantity of litigation
Retrains officious intermeddlers who want to get involved in something to correct wrongs they are not directly a part of
Broad = allows an interested 3rd party to bring the suit
Example: prisoner’s right advocate could bring the suit for the illegality of a new law on prisoner environments bc otherwise would need to bring in the prisoners themselves to do it
Three Parts for a Party to Meet: (Lujan v. Def. of Wildlife)
Injury in fact
Particularized: the party must have a specific injury that is not common to a large group of people
Actual or imminent: cannot be conjectural or hypothetical
Procedural Injury: can be found if the agency procedures were not followed through correctly (if this is found don’t need to meet cause and redress requirements) (Lujan)
Causation
Causal connection between injury and the conduct complained of
Fairly traceable to the action complained of and not the result of a third-party action
Allen v. Wright: court finds that the causation is very indirect and speculative between the challenged conduct by IRS and the desegregation of plaintiff’s schools
Redressability of relief
Likelihood of relief: If the remedy is won, then it must be able to actually fix the harm/problem
Lujan v. Def. of Wildlife – members of environmental group want to get involved in the decision making processes of the Dept. of Interior agency on how endangered species are taken care of in foreign countries. Issue of whether they have standing.
HELD: Need to meet all three parts of Article III standing.
Injury = group says that they visit the countries and won’t be able to see specific endangered animals if the agency ruins their habitat
Majority: takes the narrow view and says that it was not actual or imminent here
Dissent: treat what the people are saying as you would the facts at the pleading/SJ stage to broaden standing and have more people pursuing agency action
Cause = not addressed in this case
Redress = members of the group want the agency to be mindful of the harm to the species and consult the other agencies that deal with foreign countries before action
Majority: The relief would only be a drop in the ocean and not really help the bigger picture much. Also have the wrong party charged for the action they want bc the agency may not be bound to following the court’s order
Special Treatment of States
Massachusetts v. EPA – Enviro group says that they want the EPA to make a rule to fix gas emissions to take CO2 levels into account. Issue is whether the state has standing to pursue this.
HELD: Majority says there is standing (injury, cause, redress) and that states are entitled to special treatment when asserting standing where traditional rules are relaxed bc the state is losing their coastline due to climate change and addressing the CO2 can help the problem
DISSENT: When the harm is so broad that it affects everyone then the harm cannot be considered particularized
Prudential Standing – in addition to the three requirements of C standing, courts have imposed further prudential limits on three types of standing
*These limits may be waived, unlike Constitutional ones, and court may deny standing based on Prudential but cannot deny it when Constitutional requirements are met*
3rd Party Standing
Plaintiff generally cannot assert rights of others, but a third party may establish standing based on an identity of interest with the rights holder
Craig v. Boren: beer seller permitted to challenge a drinking age law that discriminated against male buyers bc his identity of interest is that when male buyers are discriminated against his sales of beer are affected
Generalized Grievances
Courts are typically reluctant to interfere with suits where harm is widespread public significance bc that should be left to the political process
If you have to start with a policy determination that means there is no legal standards to use
Impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of govt
This goes to the idea of separation of powers, checks and balances
An unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made
The potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments in one question
Applies primarily to foreign affairs, government members should speak with uniformity when it comes to foreign affairs
DISSENT: argues that the political question is inseparable from the equal protection claim and that the SC has effectively overturned a century of apportionment jurisprudence. SC has opened up all states districting to judicial oversight
Examples of PQs, so they are not reviewable:
Republican Form of government – Luther v. Bordon – involves determining what constitutes a representative form of government (i.e. not a dictatorship)
Validity of enactments – Coleman v. Miller – definition of a reasonable period of time for ratification by the states of a constitutional amendment proposed by Congress under Article V
Impeachment – Nixon v. US – senate has the sole power to try impeachments and court cannot review the procedures of that
Examples of non-PQ’s, so they are reviewable:
Treaty obligations – Powell v. McCormack – the House excluding a member for reasons of financial impropriety (wrongful diversion of funds) which is unrelated to enumerated requirements of membership (age, citizenship, residence)
**if it was based on the requirements, could argue #1 of six inquiries that it comes from the text of Constitution so would be reviewable**
Statute adherence – Zivotofsky v. Clinton – state dept. failed to follow statute that provided Americans born in Jerusalem may have Israel on passport, court can interpret the statute to see if it unconstitutionally intrudes on President’s power to recognize foreign nations
Number of votes to elect – Bush v. Gore – congress resolves any inconclusive vote in electoral college and how the votes are recounted
CHAPTER 2: FEDERALISM
Sources of Authority
Articles I and II enumerate various powers to the federal government
Article I sec. 8 = increased Congress’s powers over those conferred by the Art of Confed
Article I sec. 10 = bars states from specific acts that could interfere with national interest
i.e. coining money, declaring war, negotiating treaties
10th Amendment = powers not delegated to the US by the Constitution, nor prohibited by the states, and reserved to the states or to the people
