CONSTITUTIONAL LAW RISTROPH FALL 2016
JUDICIAL REVIEW AND METHODS OF INTERPRETATION
Limits to Federal Judicial Power
Congressional Limits
Ways in which Article III can limit the jurisdiction of Federal Courts
Art. III Sec. 2: “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;–to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;–to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;–to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;–to Controversies between two or more States;– between a State and Citizens of another State,–between Citizens of different States,–between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects”
Boumediene v. Bush – One of several aliens captured and held at GITMO. Held that D was entitled to review before federal court.
Issue: Do aliens who are enemy combatants have right to habeas corpus under the Constitution?
Court held: Yes. Alternative procedures substituted by Congress (Combatant Status Review Tribunals) were not sufficient. Basic tenet of liberty to enjoy freedom from unlawful restraint, and habeas corpus meant to make this freedom secure. Suspension Clause (Art. I, Sec. 9, cl. 2) protects this as well provided that it may be suspended only in cases of a threat to public safety. In order to determine whether the individual is covered under the clause, consider:
The citizenship and status of the detainee, and whether the determination of that status was through a valid and sufficient process.
Type of place where first apprehension and later detention occurred
Practical hindrances in determining whether prisoner has a right to the writ.
Justiciability Doctrines
Case or controversy Requirement (no advisory opinions allowed by SC)
Must be:
An actual dispute between adverse litigants
A substantial likelihood that a federal court decision in favor of a claimant will bring about some change or have some effect
Standing: Injury, Causation, Redressability
Constitutional Minimum for standing: (1) Plaintiff must have suffered an injury (2) causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, (3) likely as opposed to merely speculative, that the injured will be redressed by a favorable decision.
Constitutional elements of standing:
Injury must be concrete, imminent, and particularized
Must be personally suffered
If seeking injunctive or declaratory relief, plaintiff must be fairly traceable to the defendant’s conduct.
Likelihood of redressability: Plaintiff must be able to show that a decision in her favor would be likely to redress the injury
Prudential Elements
No Third Party Standing: A Party may generally assert his or her own rights and may not raise the claims of third parties not before the court.
Four Exceptions:
If 3rd party is unlikely to be able to sue
If there’s a close relationship between the plaintiff and the third party.
Advocate must be party of the third party’s exercise of the protected right.
Third party must suffer some form of injury due to the law being enforced on someone they have a relationship with.
Overbreadth; permits a person to challenge a statute on the grounds that it violates the first amendment rights of third parties not before the court, even though the law is unconstitutional as applied to that defendant
Standing for Associations: An Association may sue based on injuries to its members.
No Generalized Grievances: Injuries you share with everyone else, like an interest in having the government follow the laws. If you have a injury that injures other, but you have a concrete injury and controversy it is not a generalized grievance.
Ex: Taxpayer can’t sue because he doesn’t like how his money is being spent.
Unless it’s alleged to have violated the Establishment Clause.
Nothing outside the law’s “zone of interest”: If a statute is intended to protect the rights of a certain group, only those within that group may bring suit to have the statute enforced, even when the constitutional requirements are met. (i.e. pollution law in large city, which is not being enforced, and the law is intended to protect those within the city. If you are not a resident of the city you cannot bring a suit for failure to enforce [outside the zone of interest])
Prudential requirements can be overridden by Congress; although, the three constitutional requirements cannot be overridden.
Ripeness/mootness à is review appropriate under the circumstances? About when, not who. May the court grant pre-enforcement review?
Ripeness:
Prohibits pre-enforcement review of a potentially unconstitutional statute
Look for declaratory judgments – these are the types of cases where ripeness is often at issue
Mootness:
Examples:
If a criminal defendant dies
Parties settle
Challenged law is changed
Exceptions:
Wrongs capable of repetition: likelihood of future recurrence of past h
t least one must be present.
Three approaches to the Supreme Court as authoritative interpreter of the Constitution
All branches have a duty to interpret the Constitution, with each branch giving deference to the other branch’s interpretation. How much deference should be given to each branch as overlap occurs, is unknown.
Certain parts of the Constitution should be interpreted by different branches.
Supreme Court is authoritative interpreter of questions of law, esp. questions that conflict with the Constitution; thus, its decision are binding on other branches with respect to these types of cases may be limited to interpreting Art. III only;
The Political Question Doctrine places political questions outside of the scope of the Supreme Court’s Authority and should be resolved by the other branches.
The Supreme Court is the authoritative interpreter of the Constitution and its decisions are binding on all other branches and courts, unless a constitutional amendment is passed by the legislature. Otherwise, Supreme Court interpretation is binding on all.
Marbury v. Madison – “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”
Possible narrow and broad readings of Marbury do not dispositively resolve the issue of supreme interpreter (i.e. judicial supremacy as to final decision), but give two basic understandings of the Court’s power to interpret the laws.
The NARROW reading does not give the court any special role as supreme arbiter, and limits the court’s ability to decide constitutional issues to those cases where it is absolutely necessary to do so; Court must defer to the other branches’ interpretations where there is no constitutional conflict’ decisions by the Supreme Court may still be disregarded;
A narrow reading of Marbury, would NOT give the court exclusive, sole power to interpret the Constitution
The Court could only decide Constitutional issues if there was no other alternative to deciding the case;
Supreme Court would have to defer to Congressional Act
Other branches would not be able to determine constitutionality
