CONLAW 2014—CANTU
The role of the judiciary in the constitutional system
A. Marbury v. Madison
a. Established the authority for the judiciary to review the constitutionality of executive and legislative acts, although the constitution is silent as to whether federal courts have this authority, the power has existed ever since Marbury.
b. Constitution is silent on judicial review, Marbury v. Madison gave the courts the power of judicial review.
c. Quite possibly the most important decision in history.
B. Martin v. Hunter's lessee
a. Established the Supreme Courts authority to review state court decisions.
Justiciability Limits
A. In general:
a. Justiciability doctrines determine which matters federal courts can hear and which matters must be dismissed,
b. Justiciability doctrines are all judicially created limits on the matters than can be heard in federal courts.
c. 2 different sources…
i. prudential?
ii. Constitutional?
d. 5 major Justiciability Doctrines:
i. The prohibition of Advisory opinions
ii. The standing requirement
iii. The ripeness requirement
iv. Mootness
v. the political question doctrine
Prohibition of advisory Opinions
A. Advisory opinions:
a. Advisory opinion- Basically an opinion about the constitutionality of pending legislation or constitutional questions referred to the court by other branches of government in which they seek to get the courts opinion on.
b. In many states state courts are authorized to provide advisory opinions, but federal courts, including the Supreme Court, are prohibited from issuing advisory opinions.
i. Because the constitution limits federal court jurisdiction to “cases and controversies”
B. Justifications for Prohibiting Advisory opinions
a. The prohibition of Advisory opinions helps maintain “separation of powers” by keeping the courts out of the legislative process.
b. Judicial resources are preserved
c. Prohibition of advisory opinions ensures that cases are presented to the court in terms of specific disputes not as hypothetical legal questions.
C. Criteria to not be an advisory opinion
a. 1. Must be an actual dispute (opinion of the justices p. 42)
b. 2. Must be a substantial likelihood that a federal court decision in favor of claimant will bring about some change, or have some effect. ( Hayburn’s Case p. 42)
D. Are Declaratory Judgments Impermissible Advisory Opinions?
a. In Nashville Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway v. Wallace the court said declaratory judgments are justiciable so long as they meet the requirements for judicial review.
E. Cases:
a. Opinions of the justices
i. Secretary of state, Thomas Jefferson, asked the supreme court for its opinion on questions concerning Americas conduct as a neutral party in the conflict between France and England.
1. For example, Jefferson wanted to know if the U.S would be doing wrong by selling ships to both countries.
ii. Justices wrote back and declined to answer the questions asked.
1. The basically said they couldn’t answer because if they did it would impede on the “separation of powers”
b. Hayburn’s Case
i. “Congress adopted a law permitting Revolutionary war veterans to file pension claims in the United States circuit courts. The judges of these courts were to inform the secretary of state of the claimants disability and the amount to be paid” The secretary of state could decide whether or not to follow the courts recommendations on amounts to be paid.
ii. The court said making recommendations regarding pensions was “not of a judicial nature” therefore it would violate separation of powers.
c. Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. v. Wallace
i. “a company sought a declaratory judgment that a tax was an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce.”
ii. Supreme court held that because matter would have been justiciable as an injunction the suit for the declaratory judgment was capable of federal court ajudification.
1. The case was justiciable “so long as the case retains the essentials of an adversary proceeding, involving a real, not a hypothetical controversy.”
Standing
Ø In general:
o When we say that a litigant must have “standing” to assert his claim, we mean that he must have a significant stake in the controversy to merit his being the one to litigate it.
o Standing Means more than just caring about the outcome
o Constitutional standing requirements:
§ 1. Plaintiff must have suffered or will imminently suffer an injury that is personal and concrete
§ 2. Plaintiff must allege that the injury is fairly traceable to the defendants conduct.
§ 3. Plaintiff must allege that a favorable federal court decision is likely to redress the injury.
o Standing is still very much evolving/changing.
o Standing cases often contradict each other because “standing” is still evolving.
o A standing argument is a great argument because even if you/ your client are totally wrong, if the other party doesn’t have standing they cant bring the claim and you automatically win.
o Standing is generally argued during the pleading phase, but it is not always determined in the pleading phase. Sometimes standing is det
ow income housing from being built in Penfield. Also, an association of homebuilders that wanted to construct such housing joined as plaintiffs in the suit.
· Holding:
o No standing because the plaintiffs couldn’t allege redressability/causation
· Reasoning:
o Plaintiffs didn’t demonstrate that appropriate housing would in fact be built if the exclusionary zoning ordinances weren’t in place.
o The low-income residents seeking to live in Penfield might not be able to live there even if the towns zoning ordinances were invalidated.
§ Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Organization
· Facts:
o A federal law required that hospitals provide free care to indigents in order to receive tax-exempt status. The plaintiffs were individuals who claimed that they requested and were denied needed medical care by tax-exempt hospitals and thus were injured. The plaintiffs challenged an IRS revision of a Revenue Ruling limiting the amount of free medical care that hospitals receiving tax-exempt status were required to provide.
· Holding:
o Court denied standing concluding that causation and redressability were lacking.
· Reasoning:
o The court said that it was “purely speculative” whether the new Revenue Ruling was responsible for the denial of medical services to the plaintiff. (No causation)
o The court said “ the complaint suggests no substantial likelihood that victory in this suit would result in the respondents receiving the hospital treatment they desire” (no Redressability)
Prudential standing
Ø In general:
o Prudential standing is driven by policy
o Congress can overrule prudential standing requirements
Ø The prohibition of third-party standing
o * Generally, a plaintiff can assert only injuries that he or she has suffered; a plaintiff cannot present the claims of third parties who are not part of the lawsuit.
§ Policy reasons:
· Improves quality of litigation and judicial decision making because “third parties themselves usually will be the best proponents of their own rights” Singleton v. Wulff
o Exceptions to the prohibition against third party standing
§ 1. Where the third party is Unlikely to be able to sue
· Policy reasons for this exception:
o want to make sure the rights of the third party are protected and to make sure that the issue would be attacked in the same zealous manner as it would be if the third party was present in front of the court
