Constitutional Law
Judicial Review
Judicial Review – the court has the authority to declare an act of any branch of government in violation to the constitution.
– Discretionary actions are not reviewed (e.g. picking a judge), but Ministerial actions are reviewed (e.g. delivering a commission).
– The United States Supreme Court decisions on constitutional issues are binding on all government entities.
– USSC’s decisions can only be overturned by an amendment or if they change their minds.
– Ways of interpreting
– Society’s norms- Only really effective when combined with Constitutional arguments
– Framer’s intent- found by looking at Constitutional structure
– Historical Evidence- principles derived from precedent and sometimes judicial or academic commentary on precedent
– Text (strict interpretation)- Look to meaning of words
– Tradition
District of Columbia v. Heller: EX. COURT’S METHODS OF CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION
Policeman wants the ability to possess a handgun in his home, argues that Second Amendment applies to individual rights to bear arms
Court first determines what operative clause means and then clarifies it with the prefactory clause; considers meaning of words when Constitution was written and uses history to clarify. Court adopts original means, but considers other issues (belt and suspenders analogy)
“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State (prefatory phrase), the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” (operative clause)
Reasons Judicial Branch must enforce Constitution:
– Courts cannot turn a blind eye to materials presented, someone has to be able to make a call (baseball empire analogy)
– Courts have responsibility to protect the “people” and preserve the structure of government
Marbury v. Madison: CASE ESTABLISHES JUDICIAL REVIEW UNDER ART. III, Constitution takes priority over LEGISLATIVE ACTS- 1st TIME COURT DECLARED AN ACT UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Paperwork lost which would have allowed Marbury to become appointed as a judge; files directly w/Supreme Court
3 Issues: 1. Does Marbury have right to commission? YES; 2. Can Marbury ask for writ of mandamus? YES- Establishes Judicial ability to review Executive power; 3. Does court have the jurisdiction to hear this case? NO- Marbury doesn’t cite a statute that allows this court to hear the case, Article 3 only gives SC power to hear things under original jurisdiction
Adequate and Independent State Grounds Doctrine
The Supreme Court will not review a State Court decision if:
1) The decision is based on state law independent from federal law
2) The judgment is adequate to support its decision; and
3) The State Court makes it clear that they are relying on state law.
EX. If a state court says a decision based on the state’s constitution that also violates the federal constitution; if the court relies only on the state constitution, then the Supreme Court will not get involved.
Limits on Judicial Review
· Advisory Opinions – the judicial scope goes over cases and controversies, there must be a dispute between parties; the court will not advise on abstract questions.
· Standing – Assures there is advisary contest, but if the court renders a decision, it will have an effect. The party must be injured by what he is complaining about, and if the court issues a decision that will change it.
· Ripeness – a dispute must b
emissions are related to global warming but far removed
Redressibility- effectiveness of remedy might be delayed, but enormity of consequences make delay irrelevant
Political Question Doctrine
· Baker v. Carr Political Question Factors:
o a textually demonstrable commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department;
o or a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it;
o or the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for non-judicial discretion;
o or the impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of respect due coordinate branches of government;
o or an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made;
o or the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question.
· Last 4 factors rooted in policy of avoiding high costs
Courts do not decide matters that involve politics
Does not apply to political questions involving state and federal government
Non-justiciability of a political question primarily function of separation of powers
i.e. political question doctrine potentially applicable when separation of powers concern between Congress and the executive
