· nswers cant necessarily be answered, we will likely answer that the fed court will/will not have juris to hear this particular case
Introduction
· A3 helps to set up a system of checks and balances–allows us to better protect the rights of the individuals
o Vests the judicial power in 1 SC, and those inferior courts as Congress may ordain and establish
· It is up to Congress to decide whether to make the courts at all–this check is a safeguard to the judiciary aggrandizing power to itself
o Judges have lifetime tenure and salary protection, which helps ensure neutral judges, and further allows them to act as a check on the other branches
o A3 limits fed courts to hear only those cases and controversies
· Only can hear cases which:
§ Arising under fed laws, treaties, const
§ Affecting ambassadors
§ Of admiralty and maritime juris
o Controversies include- refers to the status of the parties
§ When US is party
§ Those between 2 or more states
§ When diversity (between citizens of 1 state and citizens of another state)
§ Those between citizens of same state claiming lands under grants of different states
§ Between a state or its citizens and foreign states citizens or subjects
Original and Appellate juris
· SC: Original juris over those affecting ambassadors…, and those that involve the state as a party
§ In all other cases, the SC has appellate power, but this extends to law and fact, which may apply to review on de novo
District Courts: hear trials
Circuit Courts: appeals of right
SC: almost only hear those cases that they agree to hear on certiorari
· Marbury v. Madison: SC established 5 principles:
Fed judiciary has power to review fed exec action
Some types of issues not reviewable by fed courts
· SC notes that fed courts won’t review political questions–issues committed by the Const to other branches of gov
· Generally speaking, the Courts deal only with those with injury to an individual right (standing)
§ This relates to the nature of the judicial power
· Usually, need 2 sides, both which an real, individual stake in the matter, dealing with an adversarial dispute
· Judiciary cant issue advisory opinions
· Judicial branch interprets law, doesn’t make it
· Fed gov has limited powers compares to state police powers
§ When fed says what the Const says, its difficult to change that
§ SC cant overrule its prior decisions very often, without losing legitimacy, which is its own real source of power
· We have an interest in the court using broad interpretations of the Const
A3 creates ceiling on juris and Congress cant extend juris past this
Fed courts can declare fed statutes unconst
The fed courts are the authoritative interpreters of the Const
· This is the basis for many current controversies
· Bernie v. Floris: SC held that Congress lacked power to interpret the Const, which struck down the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was an effort by Congress to enlarge people’s rights beyond the Const
§ They also tried to change the level of scrutiny provided
· Is the state of fed forum best to make this decision, or would the state courts be better suited to hear this case??
Justiciability
· Standing- who can seek relief and what kind of relief can you seek
A3: Only concerns only cases and controversies
· So, standing has a constitutional component
Also encompasses prudent judicial consideration
When possible, its important to distinguish between constitutional limitations and prudential limitations
· Const limitations cant be changed by Congress, and hard for SC to reverse itself
· Prudential limitations can be changed by Congress, or can be found not to apply in the courts
Limitations:
· Quality of Decision-Making Justifications:
§ Judicial branch makes the best decisions, when there is a conflict between 2 sides, each with a stake in the outcome
§ Sep of Powers: our gov works best if the duties are separate, allowing each branch to work as a check on one another, and the duties of each branch play to their respective strengths
§ Limitations preserve judicial resources
§ Promotes fairness, especially to those not before the court in this particular case
3 Elements of STANDING:
· Injury in fact–Has plaintiff personally suffered some actual injury?
§ Cant have an abstract interest in a problem
§ Doesn’t need to be tangible, it can be an injury to a common law, statutory, or const right (or aesthetic injury or institutional injury)
· 2 found not sufficient: racial stigma, and marital happiness
§ Congress cant grant a substantive right to court review, absent another const injury–If congress says any person can sue, then that is not a substantive statutory right that is sufficient for standing
· Must be personal, concrete (sufficient) and imminent (happened or just about to happen)
· Past injury is not enough
· Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife: This must be a concrete and particularized harm to a protected interest where that harm is actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical
· In other words, a plaintiff must establish a personal stake in the outcome–he must show that he has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury
· Causation–Is the injury “fairly traceable” to the challenged action? (This and redressability are often analyzed together)
· Redressability- Will a favorable decision will redress the injury?
§ If injury is caused by D telling having D stop this, the injury will be redressed
· An injury can be redressable by the prospective relief even if the injury was not caused by that Ds actions (this is like the Dissent in the Mass v. EPA)
§ Mass v. EPA: EPA limiting cars might slow down the climate change
§ Example: LA police injure P who asked for a pony–this will likely not redress for the harm that the P suffered
§ Causation and redressability will likely be found where D actions facilitate or allow 3rd party to injure P, or where relief from D is sought to encourage 3rd party to redress the harm
§ **Where the cause of the injury or the relief depends on the actions of a 3rd party, causation and redressability is much less likely to be found
· Critique: courts must find facts, at the MTD stage, before the P is able to state the facts
§ Also, it is very result oriented–courts can manipulate causation and redressability based on its view of the merits
Prudential Standing (only talked about the prohibition of generalized grievances)
· 3rd party standing- usually, you cant assert the rights of 3rd parties
· Taxpayer or citizen standing–injury cant be a widespread interest
· Zone of Interest–must bring a claim within the zone of interests protected by the statute in question
§ Only talked about the Generalized Grievance Limitation–P cant suffer an injury that is too widespread or too abstract, at the same time, so that normally there cant be no citizen standing to challenge how the gov operates and no taxpayer standing to challenge how fed money is spent
§ Flast v. Cohen: 2 wrinkles to taxpayer standing:
· First, the taxpayer must establish a logical link between that status and the type of legislative enactment attacked. Thus, a taxpayer will be a proper party to allege the unconstitutionality only of exercises of congressional power under the taxing and spending clause of the Const.
· Secondly, the taxpayer must establish a nexus between that status and the precise nature of the constitutional infringement alleged. Under this requirement, the taxpayer must show that the challenged enactment exceeds specific constitutional limitations imposed upon the exercise of the congressional taxing and spending power and not simply that the enactment is generally beyond the powers delegated to Congress by the Const.
§ Have standing to impose tax
§ Or how money is spent when that spending violates the Establishment clause
§ **Generalized grievance doesn’t depend on how many people share it, but more on whether the person making the claim has suffered a concrete injury, even if that injury is widely shared
· Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission: While an organizatio
again–It is not enough that someone, somewhere might suffer this injury
· Injury has to be of a kind that is of inherently limited duration–pregnancy, short-term injunctions, or detention pending arraignment
· Isn’t enough that the injury lasts a short time, it must be the kind of injury that always lasts a short time
§ Voluntary Cessation By D: If D voluntarily ceases actions, but can get involved in them again, then this doesn’t apply when the injury is imposed by statute, and the legislating body repeals or amends the statute, unless it can be restored when the case is dismissed
· If a court order stops injurious conduct, then the order will make the case moot only if there is no possibility that the behavior will start again when the order is expired or lifted
Defunis v. Odegard: The case was found to be moot because by the time it got to the SC, the P was already in his last semester in law school, so it wasn’t worth hearing the case
· Political Question: Court doesn’t decide matter, even though it has juris and there are no other justiciable problems with the case
Baker v. Caar:
· When an issue will be a political question?
§ Textually demonstrable commitment of the issue to exec or legislative branches
§ When case lacks judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it
§ When case is impossible to decide without making an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for non-judicial discretion
§ Where court cant decide case w/o expressing lack of respect to coordinate branch of gov
§ Where there is unusual need for unquestioning adherence to political decision already made
§ Where potential of embarrassment by different answers by different departments, to the same question
Justifications (same as for any prudential consideration):
· Fed courts have limited political capital and limited legitimacy, so they must be careful how they exercise their power
· Other branches have greater institutional competence to decide particular issues
· Courts should avoid managing other branches
Critics:
· The courts won’t act as a check if they let the political branches decide the meaning of the Const
· Some think that the political capital is limited
· Some suggest that the courts can defer to other branches without totally abdicating the issues as political questions
Common areas where political questions are found:
· A4 S4 of the Const, the guarantee that each state should have a republic form of gov, has been held to be a non-judicial justiciable question
· Foreign policy also is another area which the Courts find presents a political question
· Congressional self-governance
· Process for ratifying fed Const amendments
· Excessive interference among other branches, especially when that branch has the power to exercise discretion
· Challenges to the impeachment process is usually found to be a non-justiciable political questions
· The SC has applied the political question doctrine and dismissed cases concerning the following: republican form of gov, power to conduct foreign affairs, impeachment trial procedures, political party regulation, state ratification procedures for amending the Const, power to declare cessation of war, and National Guard training and weaponry
