Constitutional Law I Outline

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

INTRODUCTION

· Power/Restraint and its Allocation.
· Separation of powers: executive, legislative & judicial.
· Checks & Balances:
· Federalism (limited federal government): The idea of state sovereignty limited by the supremacy clause.
· Bill of Rights: Individual rights cannot be infringed by either state or federal government.
· 1620 – 1775
· Existence of colonies with resentment towards the British Crown.
· Taxation without representation.
· Troops quartered in private homes.
· Trade restrictions.
· No representative branch (legislature).
· Denial of rights (i.e. trial by jury).
· Mock trials.
· Bill of Attainder (bill directing the death penalty without a trial).
· 1776
· Continental Congress created to bargain with the British Crown.
· Instead, the Declaration of Independence was adopted.
· Each state remained sovereign under the Articles of Incorporation.
· The Articles were adopted in 1781 (it only established a Legislature and army).
· Under the Articles of Confederation the following problems arose.
1. Unable to lay and collect taxes.
2. Currency
3. Trade (no power over commerce).
4. No judiciary.
5. No executive.
· Under the Articles, laws could only be enacted by a vote of 9 to 13 and a unanimous vote was required to ratify/amend the Articles.
· By 1787, the Continental Congress attempted to amend the Articles of Confederation. However, the United States Constitution was created.

I. JUDICIAL REVIEW

A. Judicial Review in a Democratic Society.

· Marbury v. Madison: Federal courts have the power to declare acts of Congress void if these acts are repugnant to the constitution. Marbury sued Madison (Secretary of State) for his commission in the Supreme Court under its original jurisdiction (§13 of the 1789 Judiciary Act – power of mandamus). The court held that Article III limits the Court’s original jurisdiction and Congress did not have the power to enlarge or diminish that jurisdiction. Therefore, §13 was unconstitutional.
· Hunter v. Martin’s Lessee: The federal courts have the power to review state court rulings. There is no distinction between a federal court and a state court. However, what grants a federal court appellate jurisdiction over a state court is the case (federal question). The federal courts have power of appellate review over judgments of state courts, but only of they deal with questions of federal law.

B. Limitations on Judicial Review

· Limitations to judicial review include:

Case or Controversy requirement (Art. III §2).
Standing Limitations.
Mootness & Ripeness
Political Question Doctrine.

· Case or Controversy Requirement = adverse parties and direct injury.
· Muskrat v. United States: Judicial power extends only to cases or controversies (Art. III §2). The Constitution prohibits advisory opinions. Here, Congress gave Muskrat power to go to the courts under the 1907 act to challenge the 1904 and 1906 acts dealing with Indian lands. The Court refused to address the merits of Muskrats claim absent a case or controversy – Muskrat’s rights had not been violated (there was just a possibility). Muskrat had to wait for a violation.
· Standing Limitations = jurisdiction (federal court have no jurisdiction over actions that lack a case or controversy).
· Frothingham v. Mellon: Federal taxpayers/states have no standing to sue the federal government over federal spending appropriations. The taxpayers interest is minute, indirect and indistinguishable from taxpayers in general. The state cannot sue the federal government over federal spending appropriations. Under the Taxing & Spending Clause (Art I §8), no taxpayer has standing to sue the federal government.
· This ruling does not affect state taxpayers suing states.
· Flast v. Cohen: Federal government spending money to support education in religious schools. Challenge to determine the constitutionality of federal spending appropriations. While under Frothingham, there is no standing to challenge federal appropriations, the court will recognize standing in order to preserve a constitutional right (separation of state and church).
· Art I §8 poses no limitations on Congress’ power to tax and spend. The only limitations are those which violate the constitution.
· Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation: Congress gave away federal land to a religious school. The court held that the federal action was based on the property clause and not the tax and spending clause, therefore, no standing. Also there was no injury in fact.
· Art III Standing Requirements:
1. Must show injury in fact – the injury must be concrete, actual or imminent as opposed to speculative or conjectural.
2. There must be a casual link between the injury and the government action.
3. The injury must be addressable- the court must be able to provide a remedy.
· Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife: Whether an environmental group had standing to sue the government with regard to interpretation of how to apply the EPA rules in foreign nations. The court held that there was no standing because there was no direct injury, as well as a lack of redressability (court’s rule could not apply to non-parties).
· Allen v. Wright: Whether parents have standing to sue the IRS for its failure to deny tax-exempt status to racially discriminatory private schools. The court held that there was no standing because there was no direct injury (no direct discrimination) and no causation (injury was not fairly traceable to the unlawful conduct and the tax exemptions did not hamper school desegregation).
· Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw: The court held that plaintiff had standing to sue because injury was established by affidavits showing that the polluted area could no longer be used. The fact that the defendant ceased operations did not make the issue moot because defendant could pollute again.
· In order to have standing to sue, the plaintiff must show (constitutional minimum):

Injury in Fact
Casual Connection
Redressability .

· Other non-constitutional requirements of standing (prudential considerations which can be modified by Congress) include:

Zone of Interest: alleged injury must be within the zone of interest protected by the statute or constitutional provision invoked.
No General Greivances.
Direct Injury: a third-party cannot litigate the interests of another person.

· A court may not hear a case unless the constitutional minimums of standing are met. However, if these minimums are met, Congress may expand standing under a citizen suit provision. The court will allow a citizen suit provision under the prudential considerations. Congress can overcome only the prudential considerations – however, in doing so, Congress must identify the interests that are at stake.
· Exceptions to the direct injury requirement include:

Third-Party Standing: the interests are so closely related and there must be an actual obstruction to the ability of the injured party to bring suit (NAACP filed suit to prevent disclosure of its members).
Association Standing: an organization can bring suit on behalf of its members if certain requirements are met:

a. Interests at stake are related to the organization’s purpose.
b. Members would have standing as individuals.
c. The individuals members are not required for the lawsuit to proceed (i.e. no individual damages).
· Mootness
· Mootness applies when the case or controversy that gave rise to the litigation is no longer in dispute. However, there are two exceptions that even if the case or controversy is no longer in dispute, the court will still address the lawsuit:

Voluntary Cessation Doctrine: when there is a voluntary cessation of the injury causing conduct, the court’s will retain jurisdiction to prevent the defendant from returning to his prior conduct (unless the defendant can show impossibility of re-occurrence).
The complaint alleged is capable of repetition, yet evading review.

· Defunis v. Odegaard: Under the case or controversy requirement of Art III the case was moot because plaintiff would be allowed to complete the last quarter in lawschool.
· Roe v. Wade: Exception to mootness doctrine under the theory that the complaint alleged was capable of repetition, yet evading review.
· Ripeness
· Ripeness applies when the case is pre-mature. The challenged conduct has not yet affected the rights or interests of the litigating parties. A case is moot if judicial resolution will have no effect on the parties.
· United Public Workers v. Mitchell: Federal act that prohibited federal employees from participating in election campaigns. The court held that the case was not ripe because the plaintiff had not engaged in the activity prohibited by the federal law. Plaintiff needed to violate the law in order to challenge it.
· Socialist Labor Party v. Gilligan: The court held that, although there was a case, the parties did not plead with sufficient particularity – the pleadings were too abstract. The SLP failed to allege an injury.
· Today, the court recognizes statutes that are:
1. Self Executing: the mere existence of the statute affects rights and interests; this will usually arise when there is a penalty for non-compliance. These statutes can be challenged without a violation.
2. Non-Self Executing: were a statute does not immediately affect rights and interests, an intervening event must occur before the act can be challenged.
· The Political Question Doctrine.
· Political Question Doctrine: There are certain classes of cases which, although give rise to a case or controversy and there is judicial power to hear the case, the court will not address it because it is better resolved by another branch of government. Generally, cases the courts will not hear due to the political question doctrine include:

Foreign relations.
Dates of duration of hostilities.
Validity of constitutional amendments.

· Baker v. Carr (apportionment): Plaintiff challenged state procedure of apportioning representative districts without reference to any logical formula (maintain the status quo) in violation of the Guaranty Clause (Art. IV, §4 – the U.S. will guarantee a republican form of government). The Supreme Court held that there was standing because the case presented a federal question, there was the existence of a case or controversy and there was an authorizing statute (28 USC 1343) providing jurisdiction. The court will address issues arising under the Guaranty Clause.
· Goldwater v. Carter (foreign relations): Whether the president can terminate a treaty without congressional approval. The Supreme Court dismissed the suit because there was a dispute between co-equal branches of government, which involved foreign affairs. Also, the case was not ripe because Congress did not take any direct action in opposition to the President – the case was brought by only a few senators.
· Nixon v. United States (interbranch disputes): Judge was impeached by a Senate committee, rather than the full Senate. The court held that issue presented was a non-justiciable political question. Moreover, the court could not review an impeachment by the Senate.
· Bush v. Gore (presidential elections): The political question doctrine did not apply because the issue presented a constitutional question that needed to be resolved and the court was in the best position to resolve it – rather than the Florida court and/or legislature.
· Six indicia of a political question:

***Textually demonstratable commitment to one co-equal branch of government to decide the issue. Question related to war or political question.
Lack of judicially discoverable standards.
Need for initial political policy determination.
Lack of respect for coordinate branch.
Need for unquestionable adherence to political decision already made.
Need for uniform voice.

· If any of the indicia is present, the court can invoke the political question doctrine and refuse to hear the case. This doctrine does not apply to state actions. The last four indicia are invoked when there is a compelling need for deference to a co-equal branch. The first two indicia are invoked when there is an issue as to the nature of judicial power (is the question properly addressed by the court). The political question doctrine is not constitutional required but is invoked by the court to maintain separation of powers.
· Discretionary Avoidance of Constitutional Issues.
· Rescue Army v. Municipal Court: Even though courts have jurisdiction over a case, they may choose not to get involved based on prudential concerns such as the political question doctrine, standing doctrine and discretionary issues. The discretionary issues (as indicated in Rescue Army) include:

Friendly, non-adversarial proceedings.
Case is presented in advance of necessity of deciding (ripeness).
Won’t address issues presented in broader terms than necessary. Instead, the courts will limit the issues in order to avoid advisory opinions.
Other grounds upon which the case can be disposed of – if there are adequate and independent state grounds for a state court decision, then the federal courts will not review federal questions, even if the state courts decided the fed