CON LAW I
St. Thomas University School of Law
Professor Ronner
Fall 2011
Chapter 1 – The Federal Judicial Power
A. The Authority for Judicial Review
Art III Sec 2(2) – gives the SC original jurisdiction in cases with Ambassadors, Ministry, Consuls, and when the State is a party in the case. In any other case is appellate jurisdiction for the SC.
Marbury v. Madison – 1800 election between Jefferson, Adams, and Burr in which Jefferson wins. Adams starts the Midnight Judges. The Organic Act authorized the Midnight Judges of the Peace. Adams appointed Marbury with the other Midnight Judges except Marbury’s commission did not get delivered until after Jefferson took office which Jefferson blocked the commission from being sent. Marbury, appointed by previous President Adams, is seeking writ of mandamus to deliver the commission citing the Judiciary Act of 1789 authorizes the SC to issue a writ for an issue filed directly to the SC.
(1) Is Marbury entitled to the Commission?
àYes, President Adams signed the commission thus he has the right because the appoint is made and that commission is complete when the seal of the US President is put on the paper.
(2) Does Marbury have a remedy?
àYes, because the commission was complete, he should receive the commission.
àJudiciary Act gives the SC original jurisdiction over the matter in which the court rules this Act unconstitutional because Congress cannot give more power to the SC through jurisdiction. The constitution is a limit of power that does not allow this.
àThis ruling established Judicial Review allowing the SC to determine whether laws are constitutional.
Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee – A descendent of a person who had his land taken during the Revolutionary War is suing to get his land back based on the treaty between the U.S. and Britain allowing property to go back to original owners. Does the SC have jurisdiction here?
àYES
àThe SC has appellate jurisdiction in this case giving it the ability to review the lower courts decision.
Cohens v. Virginia – two brothers were arrested for selling lotto tickets in Washington, DC. Whether the SC can hear their appeal of the validity of the lotto laws?
àCourt has appellate jurisdiction over cases arising under the laws or Constitution of the US.
B. Limits on the Federal Judicial Power
1. Interpretive Limits
There are three primary limits: interpretive limits; congressional limits; and justiciability limits.
Interpretive limits raise the question of how the Cons should be interpreted.
àCongressional limits refer to the ability of Congress to restrict federal court jurisdiction.
àJusticiability limits refer to a series of judicially created doctrines that limit the types of matters that federal courts can decide.
Interpretive Limits –
Originalism – is the view that judges deciding const issues should confine themselves to enforcing norms that are stated or clearly implicit in the written Const. Court should find a right to exist in the Const only if it is expressly stated in the text or was clearly intended by its framers. If the Const is silent, originalists say it is for the legislature, unconstrained by the courts, to decide the law. Const should evolve solely by amendment.
Non-Originalist –argue that it is important that the Const evolve by interpretation and not only by amendment. A view that the courts should go beyond that set of references and enforce norms that cannot be discovered within the four corners of the document. Const’s meaning can evolve by amendment and by interpretation.
DC v. Heller – Heller, a special police officer, applied for gun license and was rejected. He sued under 2nd Amend seeking state be enjoined to grant his license and to circumvent the special gun lock rule. SC ruled 2nd Amend is limited to prohibit militia from possessing firearms. 2nd Amend is about protecting right for militias to have firearms.
SC rules DC violates the 2nd Amend.
Scalia basically states the clause means we have right to self-defense thru bearing arms. The prefatory clause as the purpose of the rule which is for a militia which is all able bodied men.
Stevens dissents that militia is referring to army.
Breyer wants to be deferential since the lower courts know about the crime rate in the local area (gangs). Scalia typically says we should obey legislation in the area. Breyer asks we shouldn’t review this case.
When there is a statute before the court there are 3 ways the court can deal with it –
1. Rational basis review (minimal – all it has to be is rationally related to legitimate state purpose).
2. Intermediate scrutiny (court will look at regulation closely to uphold law if it is substantially related to an important government purpose – the government must show purpose – the means chosen must also be reasonable – common laws).
3. Strict Scrutiny – law is upheld if it is necessary to achieve a compelling government purpose (Government must prove compelling purpose) – this is applied to racial discrimination cases or rights to vote, travel, and freedom of speech.
Scalia declines to give standard. He states more that rational basis should apply.
Breyer states there is no standard given in the Heller case.
Heller case seems to be originalist views on both majority and dissent.
2. Congressional Limits
Jurisdiction Strippers – its ok to limit the SC jurisdiction (Ex – a state law prohibiting SC to rule on abortion).
Non-Strippers – you can only limit SC’s ability to hear issues of fact but can’t prevent them from hearing issues of law.
Ex parte McCardle – stripper case. McCardle, a writer that criticized the Reconstruction of south who was arrested under Act of 1867. He filed write of habeas corpus because of violation of 1st, 5th, and 6th Amendments.
Writ of Habeas Corpus – is that I am illegally detained and will tell my story.
Act of 1867 – allowed writ of habeas corpus if federally detained.
US v. Klein – Klein, a confederate, sued the government under Abandon property Collection for the return of his property that was taken during the Civil War. SC allowed the Presidential Pardon to be admissible in court when determining whether to give back confederate land. President Wilson Pardoned Klein. Court awarded Klein 125K. Congress then enacted a law terminating SC jurisdiction on cases regarding Civil War Claims. Congress appealed the ruling in favor of Klein. Whether Congress passed its Constitutional authority when it enacted a law dismissing federal court jurisdiction on claims against the government supported by the pardon?
àYES.
àCongress cannot create exceptions to the SC’s appellate jurisdiction.
àSC has appellate authority over the matter until the President pardons and then the SC must dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction.
àSC says a pardon is enough to establish loyalty.
Robertson v. Seattle Audubon Society – conservationist sued stating guidelines adopted by state service was overly lenient restricting tree harvesting in protecting spotted owl. Conservationists got an injunction to stop guidelines not subject to judicial review. Injunction was dissolved so congress demands judicial dismissal. Congress just changed the law which Congress can do and they are not stepping on anyone’s toes. (no SoP issue here).
1. Congress’s legislation that pardon is inadmissible is a SoP problem because it renders executive pardon ineffective.
2. Congress also can’t command SC to dismiss a case because of whatever reason.
3. This could also be a takings problem as well. (without compensation).
3. Justiciability Limits
Five Major Justiciability Doctrines: the prohibition against advisory opinions, standing, ripeness, mootness, and the political question doctrine. (All must be met for any federal court to hear a case).
1. The court will not pass upon the constitutionality of legislation in a friendly, nonadversary, proceeding, declining because to decide such questions is legitimate only in the last resort, and as a necessity in the determination of real, earnest, and vital controversy between individuals. It never was the thought that by means of a friendly suit, a party beaten in the legislature could transfer to the courts an inquiry as to the const of the legislative act.
2. The court will not anticipate a question of const law in advance of the necessity of deciding it. It is not the habit of the court to decide questions of a const nature unless absolutely necessary to a decision of the case.
3. The court will not formulate a rule of const law broader than is required by the precise facts to which it is to be applied.
4. The court will not pass upon a const question although properly presented by the record if there is also present some other ground upon which the case may be disposed of. This rule has found most varied application. Thus if a case can be decided on either of two ground, involving a const question, or the question of statutory construction or general law, the court will decide only the latter. Appeals from the highest court of a state challenging its decision of a question under the Federal Const are frequently dismissed because the judgment can be sustained on an independent ground.
5. The court will not pass upon the validity of a statute upon complaint
to the Defendant’s conduct, and (3) the Plaintiff must allege that a favorable federal court decision is likely to redress the injury.
2 Prudential Standing Principles – a party general may assert only his own rights and cannot raise the claims of third parties not before the court. A Plaintiff may not sue as a taxpayer who shares a grievance in common with all other tax payers.
i. Constitutional Standing Requirements
Allen v. Wright – federal money being given to racist schools creates a stigma that the fed approves of the private schools actions. Psychic pain injury to claimants regarding the stigma. Black parents sue IRS over the exemption tax exemptions to private schools that is going to racially segregated schools. Many private racist schools were receiving tax exemptions.
àCourt says the injury is not judicially cognizable and the injury is not fairly traceable to unlawful conduct.
àThis would lead to a slippery slope if blacks could sue for tax breaks.
àCourt rules this is an abstract injury and this illegality done by IRS does not give standing.
àInjury can be fairly traceable to subsidy for standing.
Mass v. Environmental Protection Agency – EPA enacted the Clean Air Act which petitioners claim the act failed to regulate the emissions of four greenhouse gases. Petitioners ask the court to answer whether the EPA has statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and if so whether its reasons for refusing to do so are consistent with the statute.
àThe SC first looks to see whether the petitioners have standing.
àPetitioners must show they suffered a concrete and particularized injury that is either actual or imminent, that the injury is fairly traceable to the Defendant, and that it is likely that a favorable decision will redress the injury.
àSC found Mass had standing because this is a sovereign state in which Mass cannot negotiate or invade RI to force emission reduction. SC notes this is also an adversarial proceeding which is the most demanding standard. Mass’s risk of harm is both actual and imminent and there is a substantial likelihood that judicial relief will prompt EPA to reduce risk.
àInjury – retreat of mountain glaciers, reduction in snow covers which Mass believes if sea level continues to rise that coastal property will be permanently lost.
àCausation – EPA does not dispute existence of connect between man-made greenhouse gases and global warming. But EPA argues the emissions from cars is too insignificant to be brought into fed court. Court rules that vehicles make a meaningful contribution to greenhouse gases and hence to global warming.
àSC found that the EPA can regulate car emissions and holds EPA’s reasons for not regulating cars insignificant.
àThere is statutory authority giving Mass the ability to take action.
Dissent – states the injury is mere speculation and we don’t know if global warming exists.
Injury Cases –
City of LA v. Lyons – Lyons filed a complaint for damages, injunction, and declaratory relief against LA and its 4 police officers that put him in a chokehold rendering him unconscious during a traffic stop where there was no resistance or threat. The court then must determine whether Lyons has standing on this issue.
àCourt holds Lyons failed to demonstrate a case or controversy with the City that would justify relief. Court states Lyons would have to assert that all police officers in LA always choke citizens for the purposes of arrest or questioning or that the city ordered or authorized police officers to do this. Absent a sufficient likelihood that he will be wronged in a similar way Lyons is no more entitled to an injunction than any other citizen.
àInjunctive relief causes issue because he can’t show substantial likelihood he will be choked again.
