Federal Courts Outline

Federal Courts

Lee

Fall 2014

Justiciability: Advisory Opinions

Article III Section 2

· The Judicial Power extends to 3 types of Cases (subject matter; law and equity, treaties and ambassadors, admiralty and maritime and 6 types of Controversies

o Note: Article III standing requirements DO NOT APPLY TO STATE COURTS, state courts have their own powers that preexisted the creation of the union

Justiciability: refers to a group of rules that restricts what matters an Article III court may handle including; standing, mootness, ripeness, political questions, and advisory opinions

o Note: The U.S. has a canon of judicial restraint while other countries have judiciaries that grab for power. Is this the basis for our American system of government or is a federal government that does not abdicate its powers better because its more able to protect federal rights?

· Advisory Opinions: judgments that can’t affect anything in the real world

o Statements of dicta are not advisory opinions, even though SC justices often accuse colleagues of issue advisory opinions

o P who sues a D who has no assets is not and advisory opinion

o Hayburn’s Case: is an example of an advisory opinion because a federal court may not issue a judgment that is formally subject to revision by another branch of government

o Note: Some states allow for advisory opinions

Muskrat v. United States

· Ps tried to sue gov’t because Congress was going to pass a law that would further divide and encumber property Ps stood to inherit (Cherokee lands)

· Rule: Advisory opinions are prohibited

· Rule: In order for Fed Court to hear the case, you have to have real parties in interest, here the gov’t didn’t seek to lose or gain anything from the property, the mere interest in wanting to defend its law does not give rise to a proper party under the cases and controversies clause of Article III

o Gov’t in its sovereign capacity is not an adverse party because property interests were not involved

· Rule: Feigned or friendly litigants are not allowed

o Rationale: Parties must truly be adverse to insure that claims are litigated to their fullest extent otherwise the precedential effect of a court decision could be compromised

o “The Judge’s decision depends on the strength of the lawyer’s argument.”

Article III Standing

· Threshold inquiry (jurisdictional) that must be decided before deciding on the merits

· Never an issue when P seeks monetary damages, only address this when P seeks declaratory or injunctive relief

· Standing has Constitutional (Article III) and Prudential aspects

o Article III Standing Requirements derive from the “cases and controversies” clause of Article III Section 2; there are 3 requirements:

§ (1) Injury

· Needs to be a judicially cognizable injury

· Need to be an injury in fact not and injury in law

o Ex: can’t sue because you say a law injures your interests

· Must be concrete and particular, can’t be hypothetical or conjectural

· Policy behind this requirement is to insure that P has a personal stake in the outcome and is not just a concerned bystander

§ (2) Causation

· P must allege that the injury is caused by or is fairly traceable to D’s conduct

· Can’t be too speculative

§ (3) Redressability

· P must allege that the relief sought will remedy the alleged injury

Allen v. Wright

· Rule: When the gov’t breaks the law everyone is injured, therefore no one in particular has standing to sue because it is a generalized grievance (ex: gov’t passing illegal tax measure)

o Stigmatic injury is a judicially cognizable injury (Brown v. Board)

· Rule: The diminution of the opportunity to get a desegregated education is a concrete and particularized injury

o But it was held that this injury was not fairly traceable to the IRS’s conduct

· Problems with (1) causation and (2) redressability;

o Couldn’t be said that ending the tax exemptions to discriminatory schools would result in less segregation

o Also it was inappropriate to seek this type of relief because this prayer ask for the judiciary to interfere with an executive agency (IRS), this raises to big of separation of powers problems to survive the standing inquiry to reach the merits of the case

§ Criticism: is it fair to make P prove all of this at such an early stage? Is this more of a political question issue?

Linda R.S. v. R.D. (dead-beat dad case)

· Holding: P’s alleged injury of not receiving her child support was deficient because (1) redressability: she could not show that seeking the court to subpoena the father would result in the remedying her because dead-beat dads often do not pay and (2) judicial federalism: it’s overstepping judicial power to tell the DA who to prosecute (fed courts don’t monitor local law enforcement procedures)

Simon v. Eastern Kentucky

· Holding: P (ideological group) couldn’t survive redressability inquiry because they were challenging a law and this asks the federal court to act outside of its role

Hollingsworth v. Perry

· Holding: Interveners (fundraisers and proponents of Prop 8) did not have standing to sue in lieu of CA AG who refused to appeal decision because they didn’t have a personal stake in the outcome (injury deficiency)

o See also Karcher v. May: Holding that NJ legislators were eligible to defend state law in federal court only as long as they are in office

· Note: Interveners lacked sufficient indicia of agency to defend state law in federal court — e.g., not elected, not answerable to elected officials, not necessarily indemnified by state

· Rule: when plaintiffs sue the state in federal court to challenge state law, only state officials may defend

· Kennedy Dissent: can’t allow elected officials to have a de facto veto against state initiatives because it would undermine democracy

Windsor v. United States

· P sued for refunds

· Holding: The United States had Article III standing to appeal because it was injured by the district court’s order to pay Windsor a refund

o Note: Even if Article III standing exists, the rule of prudential standing could prevent the case from going forward

Standing to Seek Judicial Review of Agency Action

· When you sue an Administrative agencies for doing you wrong and you seek review of the legality of their action (or inaction)

· P must still show injury in fact, causation and redressability

· But congress may relax imminence and redressability requirements, but they can’t relax injury requirement

o Ex: Freedom of Information Act allows anyone to receive judicial review of an agency’s refusal to disclose documents, even if the documents are sought purely out of curiosity

· Ps must prove that they arguably are within the “zone of interests” Congress intended to benefit by the legislatio