1.1 Judicial Review
Marbury v. Madison
· Federal courts have the power to review the constitutionality of federal legislation and state actions.
· Constitution grants power of judicial review because laws are made in pursuance of the constitution and oaths are sworn to uphold constitution.
o Court must determine when acts are actually made in pursuance of the constitution. Laws passed that go against the constitution are not valid.
o Needed as a check to the power of other branches of other government
o Congress cannot expand the S.C.’s original jurisdiction beyond what is set out in the constitution by statute alone.
§ Thus the judiciary act which expanded the Court’s original jurisdiction to grant writ of Mandamus was invalid and the SC did not have jurisdiction.
1.2 Review of State Court Judgments
Fletcher v. Peck
· said that the SC had authority to review state legislative decisions
· Essentially, S.C. has authority to overturn state laws.
Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee
· Upheld the constitutionality of section 25 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 which empowered the Supreme Court to review certain decisions of the highest state court
o Through Supremacy clause, appellate jurisdiction is given to the SC in all cases where it does not have original jurisdiction (state or foreign ambassador a party)
o Such power is needed for uniformity of laws
o Since states can rule on federal issues which SC has appellate jurisdiction over, SC has to be allowed to have appellate review of state court decisions.
· Summary: S.C. has authority to overturn decisions from the highest state courts.
o Side note: Appeals from State’s highest court go straight to the Federal S.C.
Cohens v. Virginia
· “judicial power extends to all cases arising under the constitution or a law of the US
· Modifies Marshall to a degree. Congress has the authority to take something from original jurisdiction, and also put it in concurrently in appellate jurisdiction.
o But nothing can be added or subtracted from original jurisdiction without modifying the constitution. Congress can add to appellate, and take something from original and also put it in appellate.
o Also, the S.C.’s right to hear state criminal cases for constitutionality is first established in this case.
1.3 Judicial Exclusivity in Constitutional Interpretation
Cooper v. Aaron
· Article VI establishes the constitution as the supreme Law of the land.
· State officials take oath to support the constitution and thus have to follow its laws.
o The law as interpreted in Brown was that schools needed to be integrated so these state leaders could not prevent the integration that was required under the constitution
o S.C. interpretation is binding on state governments
o S.C. is the sole interpreter of the constitution. The only way to overturn a S.C. decision interpreting the constitution is to amend the constitution.
Dickerson v. United States
· congress cannot make statutes to overturn Supreme court decisions
· Only constitutional amendments can overturn SC decisions
Political Restraints on the Supreme Court
· Judicial selection
o Judges must be nominated by the president and approved by the senate who often ask question on where they stand on the issues
· Impeachment
o Article III §4
· Court-Packing
o Congress sets the size and budget for the Court.
· Court-Stripping
o Congress has power to add to and restrict the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction.
Under Art. III, §2, congress has the general power to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Court; however, it may not expand the SC’s jurisdiction beyond the federal judicial power. (Ex-Parte McCardle).
From this case comes the idea that if congress gives a list of powers in a statute expanding the courts appellate jx, anything not listed is prohibited. Today, there must be a statutory grant for any appeal.
· Constitutional Amendment
o Article V permits amendment of almost every provision
1.4 Constitutional and Prudential Limits on Constitutional Adjudication
Article III, §2 cl 1 – Judicial power does not extend to anything but a case or controversy. A case must be concrete and non-hypothetical (no issuance of mere advisory opinions)
5 justiciability rules:
· No advisory opinions
· Cannot decide political questions
· Cannot decide issues that are premature. Not ripe
· Cannot decide issues which are no longer viable. i.e moot
· Plaintiff must have standing
Some of these doctrines are constitutionally based and cannot be overridden legislatively. Others are based on prud
has an actual injury.
o Must be more than a purely ideological injury
· In addition to showing that a member is suffering injury, the association must be able to show two other things:
o that the association seeks to vindicate interests that are related to the organization’s institutional objectives, and
o that the claim being asserted does not necessitate the participation of the member in the suit.
§ There is no requirement that the member (on behalf of whom the suit is brought) must be prepared to join the suit as a party plaintiff.
· Suits outside a law’s zone of interest
o If suit is about something other than what the statute was intended for
· Generalized grievances
o Standing cannot be predicated upon an injury common to all members of the public.
§ P must distinguish themselves from the mass public with a specific and concrete injury (even under taxpayer exception test).
§ See Bal See Baldwin v. G.A.F. Seelig, Inc., 294 U.S. 511 (1935). As a general rule, a taxpayer always has standing to challenge the validity of a tax that he is required to pay. See id.
§
o Environmental suits
§ Not injury to the environment but injury to the plaintiff.
§ Plaintiff must suffer an actual injury
o Taxpayer standing – a taxpayer’s portion of the taxes is too minute to have an interests in federal expenditures (Frothingham). Taxpayers lack standing because they have not suffered a real injury, so as a general rule taxpayers cannot challenge expenditure of a tax. See below for exceptions.
o If everyone is injured in the same way then the individual will not have standing. Chief justice advice is don’t litigate, lobby. Use the political process to get the law overturned through elections. An injury that effects everyone is the type the election system is set up to correct
o See Baldwin v. G.A.F. Seelig, Inc., 294 U.S. 511 (1935). As a general rule, a taxpayer always has standing to challenge the validity of a tax that he is required to pay. See id.
