Constitutional Law I Outline

I. Judicial Review
a. Federal on federal review
b. SCOTUS has original jurisdiction for: cases (1) affecting ambassadors and (2) in which a state is a party. Usually used for the latter.
c. Appellate jurisdiction:
i. Supreme Ct can review any cases coming out of federal courts, whether or not there is a constitutional question
ii. Supreme Ct can hear cases coming out of the highest state courts only if there is a federal question (involves either US Constitution or federal statute).
iii. Congress has the power to decide what types of appellate cases the Court may hear so long as it does not expand the Court’s jurisdiction beyond the federal judicial power of Art III, §2 (Congressional decision must be neutral and not dictate the outcome of the case)
d. Marbury v. Madison (Marshall)
i. The Supreme Court has the implied power from the Constitution to review acts of Congress and to declare them void if they are found to be repugnant to the Constitution.
ii. Holding- Because a written constitution emanating from the people is superior law, the legislature cannot alter it by statute, and courts must treat statutes that do so as null and void.
– Judiciary has obligation to render an answer in that specific case and if in doing so must interpret constitution, then their power to resolve cases has to include the power to interpret the law governing those cases
– Marshal defines Constitution as a legal document, and it is within the courts power to decide cases related to it
-Writs of mandamus not within ct original jurisdiction
– No jurisdiction to hear Marbury’s claim, and judicial act was unconstitutional because it sought to expand courts original jurisdiction

e. When the Ct interprets the Const, that interpretation becomes law, which trumps state law under the supremacy clause

I. Judicial Review of State Court Decisions
a. Supreme Court may overrule a state court if the state court violates someone’s Constitutional right OR if a state court decides a Constitutional issue by invalidating or construing a federal statute.
b. Relevant Constitutional Sections:
i. Art. III, Sec. 2, “Cases or Controversies” “Arising Under”
ii. Art. VI., cl. 2 Supremacy Clause
c. Constitution is the supreme law of the land and in cases having to do with federal or constitutional law, the federal law governs. Federal law trumps state law if the state law is in conflict.
d. Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee – The United States Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over issues of federal law in state courts. The Supreme Court has the authority to review the constitutionality of a decision by a state’s highest court (Art. III – “all cases arising under Constitution”)
i. Ensures uniformity
e. Cohens – The SCOTUS may review state CRIMINAL cases
f. Cooper v. Aaron – Arkansas refused to integrate after Brown. When the supreme court issues an order, state officials are bound to enforce the order because of Article VI, section 2 (the supremacy clause)

II. Justiciability: doctrines that define what is a “case” or “controversy” from Art. 3, sect. 2
a. Can’t be an advisory opinion.
i. Preserves separation of powers
ii. Conserves judicial resources
iii. Ensures ct only deals with factual disputes, not hypotheticals
1. Must have adverse parties, court wants to apply law to real facts.
b. Need to have Standing: 3 elements
i. Injuryin fact (this is an irreducible minimum)
1. Plaintiff must show that they have suffered a concrete and particular injury or that one will imminently occur
2. Lujan- Because the plaintiffs were not actually injured (they only used land that was in vicinity of affected land) by the new EPA rule, they did not have standing.
ii. Causation
1. The injury occurred or will occur as a result of defendant’s actions
a. Must be fairly traceable
iii. Redressability
1. Will federal court decision make a difference? y/n
a. Will prospective relief remove harm? y/n
2. Mass. v. EPA-
a. General rule: agency inaction is grounds for suit as long as you have particularized grievance
b. Because Mass. is a state and state has special sovereign status and interests independent of the state, they could sue the EPA and meet all three standing elements
i. The injury in fact was that rising sea levels are destroying MA global land.
ii. The greenhouse gases are causing the injury.
iii. Redressability is met because the EPA regulation will at least partially reduce the injury to the climate
iv. Once one party has standing, every party will have standing (Mass. v EPA)

c. “Prudential” standing Limitations
i. Self-imposed restraints distinct from Art 3, sect. 2
ii. Protects judicial branch from getting involved where they need not be
iii. No third party standing (no jus tertii)
1. You may not bring case if you are asserting someone else’s rights
2. Cannot rest claim to relief on the legal rights or interests of others
a. Exception: Congress can create standing by statute
iv. No generalized grievances
1. Abstract questions of wide public significance
a. Ex: taxpayer cannot sue treasury for how they are spending taxpayer money
b. Partial exception: lawsuits against Congressional appropriations that may violate Establishment Clause
i. Flast v. Cohen – Flast argued that federal funding for secular textbooks in religious schools violated establishment clause
1. Court held to prove a “requisite personal stake” in such cases, taxpayers had to
1) establish a logical link between their status as taxpayers and the type of legislative enactment attacked, and
2) show the challenged enactment exceeded specific constitutional limitations imposed upon the exercise of Congressional taxing and spending power.
The Court held that Flast had met both parts of the test.
ii. Freedom From Religion – okay to bring standing
iii. Establishment Clause lawsuits under other Clauses do not allow taxpayer standing
v. No suits outside law’s “zone of interest”
1. Complaint must fall within the zone of interest to be regulated by the statute or constitutional guarantee in question
d. Mootness & Ripeness
i. Mootness
1. The controversy involved in the case must exist at all stages of litigation, not just at time of filing.
a. If subsequent events make it absolutely clear that the alleged wrongful behavior could not reasonably occur, then the point is MOOT, the court will not hear the case
2. Voluntary cessation by the defendant does not render the case moot.
3. Even if part of the case is moot (injunctive relief is granted early on), the dispute is not moot if any part of case is still alive.
4. Exception: Not applicable to cases that are capable of repetition but evading of review. (Roe v. Wade)
1) injury must be type likely to happen again
2) injury is type that it is likely to always become moot before litigation is complete
ii. Ripeness
1. Must be some kind of actual injury or is almost certain to occur, in order for the case to be heard. You cannot bring a lawsuit because you might theoretically be injured.
a. Seeks to separate matters that are premature for review because injury is speculative and may never occur
b. Court looks at
i. Hardship of parties due to withholding decision
1. did they exhaust other remedies? y/n
ii. Fitness of issue for judicial decision
1. does it depend more on law, and less on fact?
2.
e. Political Questions:covers matters, arising under the Constitution or under the various state constitutions, for which final authority may belong to one of the political branches of government rather than the courts.
1. Textually demonstrable commitment to another b