Federal Courts
Fletcher
Fall 2015
– Basics –
● Separation of powers course: art III cts vs. other branches of gov / fed cts vs. state cts
● Art. III judges nominated by pres + confirmed by senate (<1000); non art. III judges = ALJs, bkrcy, magistrate
● federal cts are of specific and defined jx–not cts of general jx; find the head of subject matter jx in art III.
○ 3 primary heads of fed ct (art 3) jx = fed question, diversity, admiralty
● legal process school: figure out what each branch is good at, send it those tasks in form thatll limit personal bias.
○ old school idea of law as an exact science (ha!) v. new school: law as a practical, evolving profession (legal realists: what matters is what judge had for breakfast)– not scientific, objective, or predictable. real world politics practiced by judges in the ct room.
○ if taken to the full extent, legal realism is bad news. if political background is all that matters, no fairness. but good to recognize that it’s not an exact science. so how to limit legal realism’s corrosive effect?
○ enter legal process school: acknowledges that law + judging isn’t an exact science; personal views + politics bear on judge’s decision-making → channel to judiciary the kinds of Qs that judiciary is good at; to which they can provide reliable answers. present those Qs to judiciary in form that will limit bias
● Federalism
○ Complicated. exists only because of political compromises made at the founding
○ Enumerated powers: just as congress has enumerated powers in art. 1, fed courts have enumerated powers in art. 3 (look headings), so long as congress has implemented it via statute
○ Concurrent jx: where fed cts are authorized to hear a case, parties can still choose to bring case in fed or state ct. nothing in art. 3 says state cts can’t also decide federal Q cases (1331 jx) → many cases can go either place. really stupid system! leads to costly, time-consuming fighting over where case will be
■ when a fed ct is presented w/ state law question:
● don’t publish: e.g., parties in fed ct on a 1332 (diversity) jx y hay n important state law Q. what to do? then, publish or not? fed ct opinions not binding on state cts, even if published. → fed cts don’t publish opinions on state law.
● if state law question is really hard/important, fed ct can certify the question to state supreme ct. all states now have certification statutes enabling fed cts to do this. fed cts try not to abuse it; use it sparingly.
■ converse problem: when a state ct decides a federal question
● a veces litigants want to file in state ct, even tho they have jx’ly sufficient fed Q (e.g. fed court is really far away!); D can remove to fed court so long as hay un fed question.
● when a state ct decides a fed question incorrectly? nothing much a fed ct can do, except sometimes a habeas. wait for scotus to fix it via formal opinion? Very unlikely! impractical for scotus to do routine supervision of state cts on Qs of fed law. theoretical possibility that scotus will correct a state ct error on fed Q, but rarely every happens.
Justiciability consids = case/controversy reqt (advisory opinion/collusive suit), standing, mootness, ripeness, political Q
– CASE or CONTROVERSY REQ’T (advisory opinions, collusion/adversariness) –
● Case or controversy req’t from Art. 3, § 2: Fed cts must decide cases or controversies before them → hard to say that art. 3, sec 2 necessarily prohibits advisory opinions.
○ note: art. 3, sec 2 language changes mid way. first 3 heads of jx refer to cases, and rest refers to controversies. Also, “cases” is always written as “all cases” whereas “controversies” isn’t (no all). diff between case and controversy (at time of const’n’s writing):
■ cases = civil and crim cases / controversies = only civil cases (didn’t include crim)
○ “all” [cases] might mean congress has the obligation to confer all available power to art. 3 judges in those matters
● Correspondence to the Justices (p. 50): general jefferson sends 29 Qs to scotus. scotus refuses to answer. practical reasons (stretched thin; also, parties aren’t presenting Qs so not briefed!) + philosophical (…..?)
○ briefs are important. judges don’t carry the law around in their head, so briefs start judge off
○ legal process school critique: they’re a lot of Qs stated in broad, vague way; no parties to identify issues, no advocates, no briefs. doesn’t play to strengths of a court
○ [effectively overruled by Buckley v. Valeo in 1976]
○ [Massachusetts state law: state legis to certify questions to state supreme ct, but statute specifically says ct isn’t bound by their advisory opinion if/when a real case comes before them raising the same issue.]
Buckley v. Valeo (1976) [effectively overruled Correspondence of the Justices; long advisory opinion]
congress passed campaign finance bill to reign in cash floating around under Nixon admin: limited amt of $ that could be contributed to a candidate or spent indirectly in support of one. Senator challenged it on 1st am. grounds after he put clause in statute saying anyone qualified to vote could challenge law on any grounds on accelerated basis.
→ scotus agrees to hear case and issues long opinion; answered nearly all 22 Qs. ct said in footnote that Buckley had standing; Correspondence of Justices not mentioned.
● Fletch: led to evil Citzs United! 1st am. doesn’t protect indls’ (or corp’s!) right to unlimited campaign contribs
Marbury v. Madison (1803) [estab’d judicial review by scotus of constitutionality of laws; other branches must abide]
Outgoing Adams admin will soon be replaced by Jefferson admin. Adams admin gets judges bill creating genuine ct of appeal that would spare scotus justices the hassle of riding circuit. bill also approved a bunch of other judges, all the way down to justices of the peace (Marbury was to be one). Marbury was appt’d but never rcvd his (physical) commission! Adams left, Jefferson wouldn’t give it to him. Marbury sued for delivery of the commission in SCOTUS.
Held: P is entitled to his commission, and mandamus is an appropriate remedy. We could grant if it were coming up on appeal, but this isn’t on appeal, it’s original jx. → must dismiss b/c section 13 purports statutorily to give us original jx but constit’n doesn’t allow us to exercise original jx over this case (only appellate), so law is unconst’l. genius! Tells Jefferson he wins (doesn’t have to deliver the commission) but a la vez establishes judicial review of laws.
● broad: judicial review estab’! → other 2 branches must abide by scotus’s constit’l holdings re: legitimacy of laws. this interp has won out.
● narrow view: scotus can’t be forced to enforce laws it views as unconstit’l. but nothing to do w/whether the other branches of gov can keep on using those laws. (what would happen if 1 branch refuses to enforce a law, while other 2 branches go on legislating + enforcing it? bad news.)
Hayburn’s Case (1792) [congress can’t assign duties to cts that aren’t judicial/can be reviewed by congress/exec]
Invalid Pensions Act of 1792 charged fed circuit cts w/ determining vets’ disability pension petitions. ct was to submit vet’s name + recommend payment to secretary of war (exec), who was in turn to report suspected mistakes to congress. SC AG made motion of mandamus ex officio (not driven by Hayburn) to put Hayburn on invalid pensioners list (vets injured in rev. war), attempting to compel circ ct to execute law. Ct denied, said couldn’t do it ex officio (w/o client), so AG changed his stance + said it was o/b/o Hayburn, argued merits of that case. Court held the case, went on break, and never decided it b/c congress
legislature wants to do something but is afraid of political backlash, so waits for a ct to order them to do it? would rather send money to prisons on ct order then on a vote. Brown v. Platt (CA was happy to have liberal judge presiding over case against it b/c knew he’d order CA to pay up)
Muskrat v. US (1911) [before fed cts issued declaratory judgments, suit for dec. relief was not real case/controversy]
US gov passes a law: certain group of native amers are entitled to big plot of land. Later, congress enlarges pool of people entitled to land w/o increasing plot size. For 1st group, seems like a gov taking so congress explicitly authorized via statute a law suit by members of 1st group
Held: not a real case or controversy, not b/c it’s not a case or controversy, but b/c remedy sought is a declaratory judgment (which at the time weren’t available remedy in art. 3 ct…only coercive remedies like money judgment, injunction, etc counted as legit remedies.)
● 1934: congress passed Federal Declaratory Judgment Act (state cts had long allowed declaratory judgments)
● 1937: scotus upholds const’lity of Fed declaratory judgment act in Aetna life insurance v. Hayworth
Windsor [exec continues to enforce, but refuses to defend const’lity of act; group steps in to defend → real case/controv]
Challenge to DOMA. Obama doesn’t like DOMA so decided not to defend it, but wanted judicial decision so continued to enforce it (refused to give tax refund to P). BLAG (congressional group in favor of DOMA) intervened and argued constitutionality.
Held: real case-or-controversy for article III jxd b/c P had real injury (Obama wouldn’t give refund back), and BLAG provided sufficient argument. not the ideal way to run the judicial system, but doesn’t defeat art. 3 jx.
STANDING
Standing – basic definition:
1. Need injury in fact (concrete and personal)
a. 2 questions: whether you’re injured (yes, it sucks you don’t have bike), and whether legal system protects you against that injury (but our family’s EP clause doesn’t extend to that kind of injury)*
b. almost always value laden! normative judgments abound.
2. injury must be caused by the conduct complained of
3. remedy sought must redress the injury caused by the behavior.
→ based on Qs related to the parties–to the nature and efficiency of the litigant’s concern w/ the subject matter of litig– rather than to the fitness for adjudication of the legal issues at hand.
*Notice the instinct to deny the fact of the injury rather than to admit that there’s a kind of injury, but that it’s not the kind of injury that gov (or parent) wants to recognize → really, any case where (an honest) P complains of an injury in fact, hay un injury in fact. Q = whether ct wants to recognize that kind of injury. (asi, the req’t is inescapably normative)
Standing under Art. 3 vs. under Statute:
● If no article 3 standing, Ps have a real problem b/c no cure but to amend the constitution. If a P has no standing under a given statute, then congress can change the statute (curable).
