Marbury v. Madison
Supreme ct has the final say in what the constitution and what aspects of federal law mean. Power of the court through cases to hold conduct by executive branch of gov’t unconstitutional. The difference bw political acts of members of the executive branch of gov’t and the political acts of gov’t.
The role of the SC is the stabilizing branch.
Ex. Parte McCardle
Relationship bw congress and the supremem ct—division of the constitution that gives congress the power to control the jurisdiction of the supreme court.
Exceptions and regulations clause—congress has make exceptions and regulations to the power of the supreme ct.
Creates the impression that congress can strip the supreme ct of jurisdiction, but the problem with that is that the repealing Act did not remove the power the court already had to hear repeals regarding writs of habeas corpus.
Bottom line: power of congress to channel the procedural mechanism to exercise its appellate jurisdiction—not strip the court from its appellate jurisdiction.
Klein
What was happening was that congress directed the court to make a finding of facts. If there is a pardon of the pres. That should be conclusive proof –stepped over the power line because telling the court how to rule.
Martin v Hunter’s lessee
SC and the courts of the states—extend of which the court can overturn decisions of the highest court of the state in matters of federal law. They did have that power—uniforminty of fed law from state to state, and constitution did not require the lower courts to be established. Had congress not set up fed courts, all these cases would have orifinated in state courts…SC was intended to have appellate jurisdiction over highest state court cases involved fed law.
Michigan v. Long
Adequate and state ground decision—federal court when they are deciding a case and what’s going on appeal to the SC, the court will look to see if the same decision would occur in state and federal law reasonable decision. If adequate and state grounds for decision—
Can’t tell if lower court or state court. If relying on state court decision or federal law decision.
Plain statement rule, when it is unclear if they are relying upon federal law, when the presumption favors jurisdiction, but it is devoided if the lower court includes a plain statement that it is relying on state law.
Justiciability Issues:
Concepts flow from the restriction of the federal courts to cases or controversies.
It means that the role of the courts is to decide those things that are in their nature the framers thought would go to court, and things where there is true adversity.
The reason why advisory opinions because it doesn’t involve and adversarial issue. One barrier of justifiability is that the court does not have the power to render an advisory opinion.
Standing, Ripeness, Mootness, Political Question Doctrines
Standing—has three compenents—injury, causation, and redressability
The person suing has personally suffered actual injury or faces immediately or threatened real injury.
Injury must be CAUSED by the governmental action you are challenging.
Redressability—person suing must have person stake in the outcome, would receive a benefit.
Local zoning boards were not giving variances—decision based on discrimination and race—Warth v. Seldin—individuals couldn’t show that they didn’t have acsess to units because they were never built. Some ppl still made to much money and others didn’t make enough money, and because they couldn’t show injury or redressibility the case was dismissed. Dissent: The court is palying games bc some of the pls did make out that they DID have inj. And red. But didn’t want to deal with racial discrimination.
Arlington Heights: They had an individual who would have been eligible to move in if the building had been built.
No stake in the outcome—just if the guy gets prosecuted doesn’t mean he’s gonna pay. No redressibility.
Sierra Club—public interest organization for the protection of the environment which was not personal injury.
US V SCRAP—claimed that the law students liked to walk in the parks and didn’t want to walk over crap in the park. They had an individualized ascetic interest, that being the pollution of the environment
gov’t action (abortion statute) and there is redressibility, the person wins, the doctor can provide services. At trial the dr is not saying he has the right to do abortions, but that the other person has the right to have the abortion. The individual’s rights but be watered down, and there must be a relationship between the parties relating to the lawsuit.
Barrier against two types of standing—Tax payer standing, and citizen standing
Limited area where you can have federal tax payer standing and sue in federal court. Citizens do not have standing—I have a right to have my gov’t run the way I want it.
In the tax payer area—the tax payer sued and concluded that the interest of the fed tax payer in federal spending is so minute and fluctuating and indeterminate that it does not provide standing in federal court. Not saying there is no constitutional barrier—but the barrier is a PRUDENTIAL barrier. It’s not prudent—sensible. Because all the tax payers could sue, and it would flood the courts.
If it is constitutional, than there is standing. There is the exception—violations of the First Amendment religion clauses—the establishment of religion. If gov’t establishes religion, it’s hard to find someone who was hurt by that. It is clearly inconsistent with the drafting of the constitution—Flast v. Cohen—still good law.
Must show—exercise of power by congress under the taxing and spending clause, that violates the establishment of religion clause, and a person nominally claiming to be a tax payer.
Narrowly construed—property being given to churches is more a concern than money given to churches. Valley Forge Case—brought a lawsuit claiming it violated the establishment clause—if you don’t have
