Judicial Review
Definition: the process by which courts decide whether actions of government officials comply with the constitution.
ORIGIN OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
Marbury v. Madison
Rule: The Supreme Court has the authority to declare unconstitutional and refuse to enforce a congressional statute that is in conflict w/ constitution, because the purpose of the constitution is to be the Supreme Law of the land (Supremacy Clause; Article VI)
Rule: It is the duty of the judicial branch, not the legislature, to say what the law is (court must determine whether an act is in conflict w/ the constitution).
Facts: Federalists appointed Marbury before Jefferson took office. Adams signed appointment and Marshall sealed it but it was not delivered to Marbury before Jefferson took office. Madison, secretary of state, opposed the commission. Marbury sued in Supreme Court for writ of mandamus to make Madison honor the appointment. Marbury relied on the Judiciary Act (congressional statute) that said that Supreme Court would have jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus to U.S. government officials.
Holding: The “Judiciary Act” was in conflict with Article III, §2 which does not grant Supreme Court original jurisdiction.
Marbury= SC, not congress, which has the authority and duty to declare a congressional statute unconstitutional if the Court thinks it violates the Constitution.
Other sources supporting Judicial Review
· Precedent
· Framer’s intentions: Federalist papers, , constitutional conventions
IS JUDICIAL REVIEW BINDING ON STATES?
Cooper v. Aaron
Rule: District federal court decisions are binding upon the states b/c decisions by the Supreme Court are the law of the land and must be followed by everyone in the same way that the constitution must be followed by everyone.
Facts: In Brown v. Board of Education, a lower federal supreme court ruled that racial segregation in schools was unconstitutional. The Governor wanted to delay integration. District court granted it and it was reversed by the federal court. Governor and the legislature of the state felt that they weren’t bound by the Supreme Court’s decision b/c they weren’t a party to the case.
Holding: The 14th amendment and the VI Amendment make Supreme Court decisions binding on the states.
– So decisions of the Supreme Court are not only bound to the states where it arouse, but to all states. It’s like it is actually part of the constitution. Must be followed everywhere. Becomes part of the constitution itself. It is an interpretation of the constitution.
POWER TO REVIEW STATE COURT JUDGMENTS
Judiciary Act 1789- Supreme Courts appellate review of state court judgments limited to the federal question decided by state courts. (Enacted by congress)
– Are the state courts the final deciders of federal issues that come before them, or can the Supreme Court review and overturn their decisions.
– Answered this in the Judiciary Act of 1789- Certain issues may be reviewed by the US Supreme Court. Article III, (xxxvii) doesn’t limit, but extends federal judicial power to state cases which have federal issues which arise. Article VI (xxxix)- Federal Law is supreme. Also says that Judicial officers of both federal and state are bound by oath to support the constitution.
Martin v. Hunter’s Lesee
Rule: The Supreme Court has power under Article III to review the final decisions of the highest state courts on matters of federal law. (Note: this case actually dealt w/ an issue that was purely state law)
Facts: Loyalist had title to a piece of land and transferred it to Martin. The Virginia government seized the land and sold it to Hunter. Hunter brought suit to eject Martin. Martin claimed that the Treaty of Paris forbid Virginia from seizing his land. Virginia Supreme Court disregarded treaties and held that Martin, a nonresident alien, could not inherit Virginia land.
Holding: Supreme Court may review constitutionality of state court decision by state’s highest court
Sovereignty argument (9th amend.): Federal law is the Supreme law of the land, and state courts are not immune from Supreme Court judgments; state courts should apply federal law as superior to state law.
Article III §2: grants power to review all “cases” that involve federal law. It does not specify the cases of only particular courts (so decisions by highest state courts are valid for review).
Need for uniformity in interpreting the constitution
– J Story says that the constitution says that the ‘in all other cases before mentioned the supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction.’ There is nothing to restrain the Supreme Court’s exercise over state tribunals. ‘The judicial power (which includes appellate power) shall extend to ALL cases.’ If that meant that it could not have appellate power over federal claims in state court, then it would have judicial power only over SOME cases.
– The Virginia Supreme Court argued for 1) separate sovereignties and 2) for congress to create federal courts, not allow the supreme court to have influence on state decisions (an argument over how much of a burden Congress must assume).
– Story counters with 1) Article III’s language, 2) The Supremacy Clause, and 3) The need for uniformity. (If found the other wayà’patchwork quilt’ of laws in the states. Pg. 30)
ADEQUATE AND INDEPENDENT STATE GROUNDS DOCTRINE
– So say a court only uses a state constitution. Should the US Supreme court be able to step in and overrule that decision? NO, absolutely not. If purely and issue of state law, federal court has no right to overrule.
– What should happens if the state supreme court opinion isn’t clear which law (state or federal) its using?
– Cruel and Unusual Punishment is ruled unconstitutional in a state court. But are they using their similar state constitution or the similar 8th Amendment? What should the court do? Well, since the state court failed to specify, it’s up to the Supreme Court to decide. If it wishes, it can go ahead and assume that it’s federal law. This is what this next case shows us.
– This provides the state courts the opportunity to proclaim clearly and expressly that they only relied on state law in their opinion, to prevent the matter from going to the US supreme court. MUST BE VERY CLEAR they are interpreting their own constitution.
Definition: The decision may not go to the federal court if it can be made adequately and independently on state grounds.
Process: First determine whether the state law or practice is valid under the state’s constitution then. Federal court may only adjudicate matter if it couldn’t have been decided by adequate and independent state grounds.
How doctrine works:
Must be justiciable controversy: may not render an advisory opinion;may not render a decision where the person challenging the validity of the state law would have lost anyway under that law.
Determine whether state court can adequately decide case on own law: if state court can make the decision w/o relying on federal cases or law then no need for federal court to adjudicate the matter.
Determine whether the state law is independent: state procedural issues may decide case w/o ever getting to the federal question, and in that case state law would be independent but not adequate.
Michigan v. Long
Rule: State courts have the final say on issue of state law, and fed on fed law. State courts should be allowed to interpret issue of state law w/o interference with federal courts. However, if there issue of federal law decided by state court, the Supreme Court has the power of review. State courts should make it clear whether it is state or federal law they are relying on. If it isn’t clear then the US Supreme court can assume it is federal law.
Relevant words: Supreme Court will not review the decision if the state court decision indicates clearly and expressly that it is based on separate, adequate, and independent grounds p.37
Facts: This was a suit brought on the claim of unreasonable search and seizure which violates the 4th amendment and the Michigan Constitution’s analogous provision. Michigan Supreme court found in favor of Lang.
Holding: court decided that they could adjudicate the matter b/c the state court relied on federal precedent in deciding the case.
– If it is invalid under state constitution, not necessary to also decide at a federal level.
– A state constitution may protect MORE liberties, but may not deny more liberties.
Bush v. Gore
Effect:
Facts: Election came down to vote in Florida. Florida Supreme Court ordered a state-wide recount of all votes that weren’t read by the machine. Fla. Supreme Court extended the deadline by 12 days. The U.S. Supreme court blocked the continuation of this recount, determining that no constitutionally acceptable recount could be completed in the time available.
Issue: Did the Supreme Court have the power to hear the case?
Holding: There was federal question based on federal statute that they may not ch
onvention
***There is no implicit limit on the substance of amendments
– Political Restraints
– 27 times the constitution has been amended.
– Process for amending the constitution. (xxxviii- Article 5)
1) Both houses of congress give a 2/3 vote which will then submit it to the state legislatures. If 3/4 of the state legislatures vote to add this to the constitution, it is added. (So need agreement from 3/4th states)
2) Constitutional Convention called by congress.
– 4 times it was to override a previous amendment. So this OVERRULED a supreme court decision. This is a method to limit their power.
Appointment: method that the president may use to affect decisions of the Supreme Courts
– How is the justice appointed? (xxxvi, Article II, Section 2)
– Nominated by the president, then voted on by the senate.
– Can nominate justices who they think will vote to overrule certain judgments.
Impeachment: Article II (4); House starts impeachment procedures. Senate holds the trial. There is a required ¾ vote to remove from office. (Note: constitution does not define the meaning of “high crimes” within Article II (4).
– xxxii, Article I, Sections 6 and 7 also. “High Crimes and Misdemeanors (difficult standard to meet)
Doctrines Limiting Judicial Review
CONGRESSIONAL POWER OVER JURISDICTION OF FEDERAL COURTS:
Power to Establish Federal Courts
Rule: Article III
· Power for congress to establish and abolish federal courts (§1)
· Judicial power of U.S. assigned to one supreme court
· Appellate Jurisdiction: Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over all cases w/in federal judicial power
– Article III, Section II, Clause 2- See Pg. 57 for highlighted areas. Very important.
– Article III, Section II sets out the federal judicial power. Includes among other things:
(a) cases arising under the Constitution or the laws of the U.S. (Federal Question
(b) cases of admiralty
(c) cases between two or more states
(d) cases between citizens of different states
(e) cases between a foreign country or foreign citizen.
Regulation of Supreme Court Appellate Jurisdiction
Ex parte McCardle
Example of rough statutes during war time.
Basically: Congress has the general power to decide what types of cases the Supreme Court may here, so long as it does NOT EXPAND the SC’s jurisdiction.
Rule: Supreme Court confirmed in this case that congress does have power to control the boundaries of the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction (Article III).
Facts: McCardle was imprisoned by a military government imposed by Congress. McCardle brought habeus corpus action straight to federal court claiming that the Reconstruction Act under which he was imprisoned was unconstitutional. When circuit court rejected his claim he appealed under 1867 Congressional statute authorizing appeal to the Supreme Court in such cases. Congress passed a law repealing the portion of the 1867 act which allowed appeal to the Supreme Court, before the court handed down its decision (b/c congress was afraid that court would rule Reconstruction Acts unconstitutional).
Issue: Can appellate jurisdiction be taken away after case has been argued?
Holding: Court cited Article III that says that appellate jurisdiction is conferred “with such exceptions and under such regulations as Congress shall make”. Court said that this qualified as an exception, and the court upheld congress’s restriction of appellate jurisdiction.
