Fed Courts Revised Outline
Brown_FedCourts_Spring_2014
I. Intro
a. Articles of Confederation
i. Weak govt, fed cts could only deal with admiralty stuff
ii. Congress could only ask states to make tribunals dealing with national matters
iii. No supreme court
b. Constitution
i. Congress could make laws that directly affect people
ii. Created Fed Cts
1. Purpose = uniform laws and resolve disputes
iii. Wanted Separation Of Powers
1. Checks and balances to prevent majority rule
c. Federal Courts
i. Differ from other branches
ii. Limits
1. Congress can impeach and limit jurisdiction
iii. Creation of Courts
1. Aside from SCOTUS, lower courts made by statute
iv. Limits on Fed Cts in Constitution
1. Art 3, Sec 2
2. SMJ, Arising, Diversity, Cases and Controversies
d. Course Themes
i. Federalism = distribution of power between Fed and States
1. Model of Federalism
a. Federalist
i. State courts just as good as Fed courts, not biased, do just as good a job as upholding Fed Rights as Fed courts
b. Nationalistic
i. State cts biased, fed cts are not
ii. Fed cts more likely to protect fed interests and fed rights
iii. People have more access to fed cts than state cts
iv. Fed judges are smarter and better
ii. Separation of Powers
1. How to see if branch has power to do what it is doing? Look too….
a. Constitution (vesting clauses)
b. Precedent / history
c. Language from the law empowering
2. Two main theories
a. Formalism
i. Textualism (give text its ordinary meaning)
ii. Plain meaning (look shit up in dictionary)
iii. Strict Construction (narrow reading)
iv. Originalism (look at intent congress had at time when they passed amendment)
b. Functionalism
i. Purposvism = pragmatism
ii. Living constitution = Extrapolate viewpoint behind constitution (natural law)
e. Path of the lawsuit
i. Complaint (does the court have the power to hear the suit?)
1. Standing, mootness, ripeness, political questions
2. Congressional power to control jurisdiction of the federal courts and create non article 3 courts
3. Implied rights of action and 1983
4. Abstention doctrine
5. Habeas jurisdiction
ii. Answer / Motion to dismiss
1. All of the above
2. Official immunities for govt actors
3. State sovereign immunities
iii. Merits (summary judgment or trial)
1. Fed CL
II. Justiciability Doctrines
a. What are they
i. Threshold issues of fed SMJ jurisdiction – which matters can fed cts hear/decide and which must be dismissed on face of the complaint?
ii. Separate from diversity, federal question and supplemental jurisdiction inquiry.
iii. FRCP 12(b)(1)
b. Origin of Doctrines
i. Art 3, Sec 2
1. Establishes Fed SMJ
2. Decides which matters fed cts can decide and which must be dismissed on face of complaint
ii. BLUF
1. Do cts have constitutional authority to hear this case?
c. Criticisms of doctrines
i. Allows courts to avoid taking cases
ii. Restricts citizens access to fed ct
iii. Mask ideological leanings
d. Doctrines
i. Standing
1. Standing is the determination of whether a specific person is the proper party to bring a matter to the court for adjudication. Litigant must have personal stake iot litigate
2. Policies
a. For standing
i. w/o standing, court would be legislating (SOP)
ii. fairness
iii. efficiency (conservation of judicial resources)
iv. better law is made when courts have specific facts to judge
v. if lawsuits too widespread leads government to promulgate bland, noncontroversial rules and take noncontroversial actions
b. Against standing
i. Courts are tolerating harm
ii. Certain parties become unaccountable
iii. Legal issues are left unresolved
iv. Courts get to dictate own power
v. standing requirements favor objects of regulation over beneficiaries
3. Scalia Article
a. Strict believer in standing
i. Only wants case
2. Court will not hear one person’s claim at behest of millions of others
ii. Prohibition on raising third party’s rights
1. Can’t raise claim on behalf of someone else in most cases (Singleton v. Wulff)
2. Exceptions
a. Relation between 3rd party and litigant
i. Pecuniary
ii. Close relationship (P’s right must be tied up with non-parties inability to vindicate that right)
b. Ability of other party to assert their one
c. Over breadth (1A)
iii. Zone of interests test (Administrative Law)
iv. Cases
1. Singleton
a. Facts
i. Docs sued to make state reimburse them for abortions, did they have standing to sue?
b. Holding
i. General rule of prohibiting third-party standing only applies if relationship btwn litigant and party directly affected is such that litigant does not effectively serve as a proponent of affected party and is some impediment to affected party bringing suit himself.
ii. Here, the litigant was deemed to effectively serve as a proponent
5. Other types of Standing
a. Taxpayer Standing (related to prudential)
i. Frothingham = no taxpayer standing b/c no particular or direct injury (generalized grievance)
ii. Flast
1. Nexus Test
a. The expenditure must be an exercise of the taxing and spending power rather than merely an incidental expenditure connected with a regulatory program.
b. The expenditures must be prohibited by some specific constitutional limitation, rather than merely beyond the powers delegated to the federal government.
2. What is an injury?
a. “psychic” injury – expenditure hurt peoples 1A right
b. With regards to 1A injury, not always concrete injury