Constitutional Law I Outline

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
WILLIAMS
SPRING 2013
 
 
 
 
1.      Judicial Review:
a.       Art. III §2: “Judicial power shall extend to all Cases”…SC “shall have appellate jurisdiction” in ALL cases, except for those cases within the Court’s original jurisdiction, and “exceptions” made by Congress
b.      Marbury V. Madison: establishes judicial review
                                                              i.      SC can refuse to give legal effect to leg. that is inconsistent with/ C
                                                            ii.      Executive branch has discretionary and non-discretionary powers
                                                          iii.      SC can review Acts of Congress, some executive branch conduct (when C requires some action), and SC may not expand original jurisdiction (Article III §2)
c.       Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee: establishes judicial review over state courts:
                                                              i.      if not allowed to review state court decisions, then judicial power does not extend to ALL CASES, and is limited
d.      Cohen’s v. Virginia: SC has the authority to review jdgmt of state court AND where states are parties
                                                              i.      Extends Hunter’s Lessee to criminal cases where state is a party if federal question arises
                                                            ii.      NOTE: Chisholm v. Georgia led to enactment of 11th amendment which gives some immunity to states in federal court…to be discussed later
2.      Constitutional Interpretation and Theory:
a.       Originalism and Non-Originalism:
                                                              i.      Framers intention should still be followed
                                                            ii.      Originalism: Framers Intent
1.      Textualistàhow words understood by public in that day
2.      DesireàConsistency and constraining justices
3.      Problemsàchained to the past (ratified by public), times have changed
                                                          iii.      Non-originalism
1.      Non-Textualist
2.      Problems: what are you relying on? Natural law? Contemporary morals stds/values? Others?
b.      DC v. Heller:  The SC invalidates the law as violating the C based on interpretation. Interpreted naturally using text and history to interpret.
                                                              i.      Rule: The 2nd Amendment extends a right to all individuals to keep firearms, and although 2nd Amendment is not absolute, a complete ban on a class of weapons, even for a lawful purpose, violates the Const
                                                            ii.      2nd Amendment: “a well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state the right of the people to keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed.”
                                                          iii.      Interpretive Difficulties = sentence structure (prefatory clause vs. operative clause), semantic meaning (“The People”, “Keep and Bear”, “Arms”), Precedent
c.       McCulloch v. Maryland: Textual limitations
                                                              i.      H: 1. Certain federal powers giving Congress the discretion and power to choose and enact the means to perform the duties imposed upon it are to be implied from the Necessary and Proper Clause.
                                                            ii.      2. The Federal Constitution and the laws made pursuant to it are supreme and control the constitutions and the laws of the states.          
                                                          iii.      Rationale: States lack power to impose obstacles on federal activity, pursued within its own sphere that is the very essence of supremacy.
1.      Textual limitations on “implied powers”, extend only to things necessary and proper, however the original public meaning was “useful, essential” (Article 1 §9)
3.      Political Control over SC:
a.       Methods:
                                                              i.       Appointment (Art II §2, cl. 2)
                                                            ii.      Impeachment (Art II §4; Art I §2, cl. 5; Art I §3, cl. 6-7)
                                                          iii.      Constitutional Amendment (Art V)
                                                          iv.      Congressional Control over the Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts (Art I §8, cl. 9; Art III §2, cl. 2)
b.      Congressional Control:
                                                              i.      Art I §8, cl. 9: “The Congress shall have Power…[t]o constitute Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court
                                                            ii.      Art III §1: “The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”
                                                          iii.      Exceptions Clause: Art III §2, cl. 3: In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a Party, the SC shall have original jurisdiction. In all other cases, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact “with such exceptions and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.”
c.       Ex Parte McCardle: Exceptions and Regulations Clause
                                                              i.      Black Letter Law: Although the Supreme Court derives its appellate jurisdiction from the Constitution, the Constitution also gives Congress the express power to make exceptions to that appellate jurisdiction.
                                                            ii.      Article III requires that it is jurisdiction extends to all cases. If they had removed from any federal court then that might not allow judicial power to be vested over all cases.
                                                          iii.      Article II §2: tiers of cases.
1.      Exceptions clause cannot be used to violate other portions of the C.
2.      Note: there might have been other bases for jurisdiction but McCardle only relied on Article III
                                                          iv.      If Congress had completely foreclosed access to SC:
1.      Plenary Power: exceptions clause enables Congress to make exceptions to appellate jurisdiction of SC as it sees fit (Can’t be used to violate the Constitution)
2.      Article III specifies that the judicial power shall extend to “all” cases of a certain type, Congress may not completely deprive the federal courts of jurisdiction  over such cases.
3.      Congresses ability to make exceptions limited by separation of powers:
4.       “Essential function” limitation: Congress may not use the exceptions power so as to destroy the essential function of the SC in our constitutional order
d.      Klien v. United States: Separation of Powers as Limit on Congress’ Authority
                                                              i.      Rule: Congress cannot prescribe rules of decision (violate separation of powers).
                                                            ii.      Here: violated SofP in two ways:
1.      By usurping a judicial function: try to limit the jurisdiction of court after requiring court to determine which court has jurisdiction (congress tries to prescribe rule of a decision for courts)
2.      By encroaching upon a presidential prerogative—congress impeached presidential parsons which is right of executive branch. Congress can’t reduce the Presidents constitutional authority.
                                                          iii.      *note there is no judicial review of pardons, since this is a discretionary duty of the President (see Marbury v. madison)
e.       Robertson v. Audubon Society: Klien does not apply when Congress adopts new law.
                                                              i.      H: congress changed the law itself and did not direct findings/results under old law. Congress amended rules that were under their authority to amend.
f.       Congressional Control of Lower Federal Courts:
                                                              i.      Sheldon v. Sill: Congress may withhold from any court of its creation jurisdicition of any of the enumerated controversies. Courts created by statute have no jurisdiction unless the statute gives it to them (all CASES in Article III)
4.      Case or Controversy Requirements: Justiciability Limits
a.       Article III limits the judicial power to certain classes of “cases” and “controversies” Judicial power does not extend to and cannot resolve non-case legal disputes.  These non-case disputes are said to be non-justiciable. (note case means the same thing as controversy)
b.      Classes of “non-case” legal disputes that may be presented to the federal courts but cannot be resolved on the merits:
                                                              i.      the prohibition against advisory opinions,
                                                            ii.      Standing (claims by P like standing to sue)
                                                          iii.      Ripeness, (come too early)
                                                          iv.      Mootness, (come to the court after it has been resolved)
                                                            v.      Political question doctrine 
c.       Why limit:
                                                              i.      Separation of Powers:  “limits the business of federal courts to questions presented in an adversarial context and in a form historically viewed as capable of resolution through the judicial process.”  
                                                            ii.      Conserve judicial resources (including political capital)  and promote judicial restraint:
                                                          iii.      Ensure legal disputes are judicially resolved in the context of concrete disputes with “real” consequences, not when abstract or hypothetical issues are presented. 
                                                          iv.      Promote individual autonomy by reducing the circumstances in which mutually advantageous relationships can be disrupted by third parties, sometimes referred to as “officious intermeddlers.”
                                                            v.      Ensure that lawsuits will only be brought if some source of law provides the plaintiff with a cause of action
d.      Constitutional v. Prudential:
                                                              i.      Constitutional: are from Article III limits on judicial powers
                                                            ii.      prudential: (meaning not constitutional restrictions), judicially created doctrines designed to limit the occasions the courts will intervene to resolve legal disputes
                                                          iii.      *court can override prudential limitations but may not extend the jurisdiction of federal courts beyond the limits prescribed by Article III.
e.       Advisory Opinions:
                                                              i.      Characteristics:
1.      No actual dispute between adverse parties (Like in United States v. Johnson: dismissed because brought by P at request of D and financed by D)
2.      No concrete final, binding effect on parties: judicial resolution needs to be binding on parties. Ex: if subject to revision by Congress, President, etc. (Like in Hayburn’s case: veterans pension claims were advisory because the Secretary of War could refuse to follow the courts finding)
                                                            ii.      Plaut v. Spendthrift: giving advice on legal matters is advisory opinion (question of finality)
1.      Article III establishes a judicial department duty to say what the law is
2.      Article III makes SC the highest court and Congress may not declare by retroactive legislation that the law applicable to that case was something other than what the court said it was
3.      New Limitation:  Congress may not require a court to revise final judgments
a.       Distinguishes between legislation that may affect pending cases (okay) and legislation that disturbs final judgments (unconstitutional)
b.      Is the idea here that permitting Congress to direct courts to open prior, final judgments would make those prior judgments only advisory in nature? 
                                                          iii.      Requests for declaratory judgments are not advisory opinions (Piedmont & Northern Ry Co. v. U.S.) They are justiciable so long as they meet requirements for judicial review (Nashvilee C. & St. L. Ry. v. Wallace)
f.       Standing:
                                                              i.      Standing: Doctrinal and Functional Considerations
1.      Idea is to ensure that the parties are truly adverse (some kind of concrete character) and that litigation is the kind of thing that the courts have been called upon to resolve. meant to ensure that those who evoke power have something to gain..
a.       more likely to press issues (be aggressive in advancing those positions that they seek to establish)
b.      likely to have concrete backdrop
c.       might ensure that courts reach better decisions (clear u