Constitutional Law I Outline

Constitutional Law I Shaw Fall 2012
 
I. JUDICIAL REVIEW
·         Case: Marbury v. Madison
·         The court can void law made by the legislature
·         If there is a conflict between a statute and the Constitution, the Constitution will govern, because the Construction is the Paramount Law of the Land. So, in such circumstances, the statute must be struck down.
·         This idea is not in the supremacy clause (because the supremacy clause is in reference to conflicts between state law and federal law). Here, the power is inherent in the idea of a constitution. It is the paramount law of the land, and the people agree to be bound by it.
·         There is political recourse for the legislature and executive; if we don’t like what they’re doing, we can vote the suckers out. But, such a remedy doesn’t exist for the judicial branch, which is why Shaw finds JR to be, “profoundly anti-democratic.” [But note, the power of the judiciary comes from the people and not Art. III, §2.] ·         But, the judiciary can’t second-guess how a branch does its job.
 
II. JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT
·         Jurisdiction = the power to make a ruling
·         Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction
·         Congress can take jurisdiction away, and has some power to control the boundaries of the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction.
·         Article III, §2 (The Exceptions Clause): “In all cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to Law and as to Fact, with such exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”
·         Ex Parte v. McCardle: If Congress makes no particular regulation granting jurisdiction (aka—Affirmative Grant of Jurisdiction), then the presumption that the court shall have all jurisdiction unless removed no longer stands and we look to the Doctrine of Negative Affirmation, which in essence says that if Congress gives the court appellate jurisdiction in certain areas/subjects, then implicit in that Affirmative Grant of Jurisdiction is the denial of appellate jurisdiction in all other areas/subjects not mentioned.
o   Supreme Court held that Congress does have the power to repeal a decision of jurisdiction of the court, even in the middle of the case, which would mean the case would cease in the middle.
·         The legislature does not have the power to tell the judiciary HOW to decide a case/how to decide a fact
·         Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee: So, Congress CAN give the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction where federal law is involved, but it does NOT have to.
·         Michigan v. Long: “Adequate and Independent State Grounds”— When a state court decision fairly appears to rest primarily on federal law, or to be interwoven with the federal law, and when the adequacy and independence of any possible state law ground is not clear from the face of the opinion, the Supreme Court will assume that the state court decided its case on the basis of federal law.
§  If there are adequate and independent state grounds for disposing of the case, and the state utilized those grounds, then the SC has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal base don adequate and independent state grounds.
§  If there is ambiguity as to whether or not there are adequate or independent stat grounds, the SC can presume jurisdiction (echoed in Murdoch v. Memphis too)
o   Adequate = the state law is sufficient to support the case
o   Independent à the mere fact that a federal question is involved in the case is not sufficient to entitle the supreme Court to review the case, because even if the Supreme Court is entitled to review the case, it will generally only review a federal issue.
·         Questions to Ask:
1.      If the state court decision is based on adequate and independent state grounds, is it sufficient or adequate to dispose of the issue?
2.      Even if the state grounds are adequate to dispose of the issue, were those state grounds truly independent of federal grounds?
3.      If the state jurisprudence tracks the federal law, then the question is, is it independent or reliant on federal law?
·         Pleading Jurisdiction—How things Work:
1.      Plead jurisdiction through a plain statement as to why the court has jurisdiction.
2.      If jurisdiction is contested, the P who wants to get into federal court has the burden of proving jurisdiction.
3.      If P fails to prove jurisdiction, there exists an ambiguity because of a lack of clarify.
4.      If there exists an ambiguity as a result of a lack of clarity as to whether or not jurisdiction exists, the Supreme Court COULD assume jurisdiction, though they are not obligated to.
 
III. JUSTICIABILITY
·         To be suitable for review by a federal court, the case must be presented in an adversarial context, and in a way capable of resolution through the judicial process.
·          A case will NOT be justiciable if:
1.     P doesn’t have standing
2.     The question sought to be adjudicated is moot;
3.     The questions sought to be adjudicated isn’t ripe, and
4.     When the result is that there would only be an advisory opinion issued in the case, as a result of there not having been a case or controversy; and,
5.     When the court is faced with a political question.
·         Standing—
o   Warth v. Seldin
o   3 elements to establishing standing:
1.     Concrete Injury In-Fact
ú  Injury must be actual, imminent, or threatened; and, it must be specific, concrete, and particularized.
ú  Injury can be non-economic
ú  Requirement can be met even if a large # of people are suffering; but, just being in that group of people alone is not enough.
2.     Causation
ú  P must show that the injury is traceable to the challenged fact, and was a result of the D’s actions.
3.     Substantial Likelihood that the Relief Requested will Redress the Injury
o   The Doctrine of Third-Party Standing: when one party tries to assert the rights of another party. As a general rule, this is not allowed to happen; though, sometimes, it will be permitted à Similar to the Doctrine of Jus Tertii (a.k.a., a Third Party Right)
o   Exceptions to the Doctrine of Jus Tertii:
1.     Craig v. Boren: where the rights of the third party are integrally intertwined wit the P’s action and the decision of the P’s action has the possibility for affecting a third-party’s rights; in such an instance, it only makes sent to allow the P to assert the third party rights. (Beer case with men 18-21 v. women 18-21 and the beer vendor.)
2.     Lujan v. Defenders Wildlife: If the injury is going to be characterized by the court as solely a “procedural injury”, even if Congress provides standing, Congress would be exceeding its authority to expand standing in such cases, because with procedural injuries, the P’s have failed to plead a case or controversy.
ú  While Congress can expand its powers with respect to who has s