Select Page

Constitutional Law I
University of Connecticut School of Law
Macgill, Hugh C.

FEDERAL JUDICIAL POWER: ARTICLE III
v Article III Judicial System: SC original jurisdiction over ambassadors, public ministers, but in all other appellate jurisdiction. Congress given power to create inferior courts. Federal courts have limited jurisdiction: standing, ripeness, mootness, and political question doctrine.
 
Marbury V. Madison (1803): John Marshall                              *ultimately established judicial review
Pres John Adams in attempt to fill with federalists appointed Marbury as a federal justice of peace but Jefferson took over as Pres before appt. was officially given. Requested issue writ of mandamus. Judiciary Act 1978 passed by Congress, permitted USSC to issue such a writ.
Hold: SC could not hear case as a matter of original jurisdiction, and ruled Judiciary Act unconstitutional. In saying no to the power of mandamus cases, Marshall ensured even more power by establishing judicial review. 
Opinion: Marshall works in reverse order, addressing the court’s jurisdiction last
Issue 1: does Marbury have a right to the commission? Yes. Appointment is made when seal is affixed by Secretary of State. Delivery is merely a custom, and not essential
Issue 2: if so, does the laws give him a remedy? Yes. Essence of civil liberty is a right to claim protection of the laws when you receive an injury. US is a government of laws and not of men (pres is not above the law.) Distinguishes bw political question which confer no remedy, and legal questions (this is legal in nature) to specific person
Issue 3: if so, does the court have jurisdiction to issue such a remedy?
Act grants the court original jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus, the Constitution does not, Congress cannot enlarge
C is the Supreme law of the land (art IV) so C is superior (textual argument)
SC can declare laws unconstitutional: limits to C meaningless without judicial enforcement, interpretation inherent to the judiciary (province of judiciary), judges take oath to uphold C if no power to deem un/c then wouldn’t be breaking vows
 
Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857):
 the second time that court exercised judicial review was when SC infamously held that African Americans were not US citizens and thus lacked the privilege to sue in federal court. Ddeclared act of Congress prohibiting slavery in Louisiana Territory unconstitutional bc C explicitly guaranteed “the right of property in a slave”
 
Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee (1816): Story
legitimated SC authority to review judgments of the state courts
essential to ensure uniformity in interpretation of federal law à uniformity principle argument
appellate review of state court decisions guaranteed uniformity of laws, avoided state jealousies and biased interests, & entitled a D with the power of removal, which assured Ds equality in asserting their constitutional rights.
has appellate jurisdiction over the state appellate court in the original action bc case concerned a national treaty.
 
Cohens v. Virginia (1821): Marshall
reaffirmed constitutionality of section 25 of Judiciary Act, and the authority of DC to review state court judgments. State judges dependent for office and for salary. Thus criminal Ds can seek SC review when conviction violated C.
 
Cooper v. Aaron (1958)
reaffirmed that federal court have the authority to review the constitutionality of state laws & the actions of state officials
Governor & Legislature of AK openly resisted SC’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education. Held bound by federal court orders.
SC’s interpretation of the 14th A in Brown was the supreme law of the land and that it had a “binding effect” on the states.
LIMITS ON CONSTITUTIONAL ADJUDICATION: THE CASE & CONTROVERSARY
Constraints of Judicial Power: Source of Limitation
1.    Congress determines appellate jurisdiction
2.    Article III §2 “cases and controversies” gives idea of justiciability
3.    11th A: state sovereign immunity. Prevents fed court relief against state govs w/out their consent.
4.    Impeachment
5.    Political branches perseverance
 
Advisory Opinion:
court’s refuses to issue opinions on the legality of executive or legislative action bc:
there must be an actual dispute, there must be a substantial likelihood that decision in favor of claimant will bring about some change or have some effect (advisory opinion does not)
 
Standing:
determines whether a specific person is the proper party to bring a matter to the court
promotes separation of powers by restriction availability of judicial review, promotes efficiency by preventing flood of lawsuits, improves judicial decision making, serves value of fairness
constitutional required elements:
1. personal injury (injury in fact)
2. causation (connection bw injury and conduct complained)
3. redressability (focuses on remedies)
Prudential standing doctrines: in addition to the 3 constitutional requirements
1.    third party standing (limits standing to parties directly injured rather than third)
2.    generalized grievances
3.    suits outside a law’s zone of interest
Must have Article III AND prudential standing, however Congress can override Court’s prudential standing concerns through statute
CASES
Lujan v. Defenders Of Wildlife (1992)
P wildlife filed suit challenging federal go policy lessening the environmental protection of certain federal lands. Seeking relief that the interpretation of statute be earlier one (ordering executive branch to do something)
Court found no standing as allegation too general to establish a particular injury, could not show a sufficient likelihood of injury in the future, fails redressability
 
SCRAP: found standing of a group of students seeking to increase freight rates, concluding that aesthetic * environ. Injuries are sufficient for standing so long as P claims to suffer the harm personally
 
Sierra Club v. Morton: members sought to prevent construction of a ski resort in valley. But court found no standing as there was no allegation that members ever had used the valley. à complaint did not allege personal sufferance of an injury like in SCRAP
 
Sufficient injuries: rights recognized at common law (property, Ks, torts), constitutional rights, violation of rights created by statute
 
MA v. EPA (07): Stevens. EPA cannot decline to issue emission standards based on policy consideration not listed in Clean Air Act. Act gives EPA authority to regulate gases. MA had standing to challenge EPA’s denial of their rulemaking petition since properly asserted a concrete injury from the potential further loss of its coastal land, much of which was owned by the state, from rising sea levels caused by climate change
Rule: a P has standing if it demonstrates a concrete injury that is both fairly traceable to the D and resdressable by judicial relief
Dissent: Roberts says failed to meet standing, as speculation & conjecture
Prudential Standing Doctrine:
1.    third party standing
§ exceptions: when third party is unlikely to be able to sue, close relationship bw P ad 3rd party, overbreadth doctrine (permits challenge of statute violating 1st A rights of 3rd parties not before court even tho constitutional applied to D), association or org can sue based on injuries to itself or based on injuries to its members
§ Craig v. Boren: law permitted woman to buy beer at 18, but men at 21. Beer makers have a stake in this since losing money. Thus court allowed vendors to assert the rights of their customers
2.    general grievance
§ Frothingham v. Mellon: P sued as taxpayer not wanting tax spent on hospital to lower maternal & infant mortality rates bc she opposed politically. Relief not possible. Injury claimed is shared with all citizen, P not unique
§ US v. Richardson: P brought suit seeking CIA accountable for its expenditures as C says must hold accountable. General grievance, not an alleged violation of personal c right, only claimed injury as citizen & taxpayer
3.    Legislator standing: P be within one of the interests protected by the statute
§ Applies when a person is challenging an administrative agency regulation that does not directly control the person’s acti

citizen or as a taxpayer interest in government to follow the law
–          Ex. Secrecy of cia violates article III, but only injury is as a citizen/taxpayer so no standing
–          Taxpayer standing only permitted in government expenditures of money violating establishment clause (flask)
 
Ripeness
may the federal government grant preenforcement review of a statute or a regulation
sometimes ppl don’t want to violate before go up, declaratory judgments.
On exam if see declaratory judgment = then ripeness issue
Looks at two criteria:
–          A. hardship that P suffered without preenforcement review. The greater the hardship w/out preenforcement, more likely to allow
–          B. fitness of the issues in the record for judicial review: does the federal court have all that it needs to effectively decide the issue (does it need to wait for actual prosecution)
 
Mootness
if events after the filing of lawsuit and P’s injury case will be moot
P must present a live controversy throughout the proceedings
Exceptions:
–          A. wrongs capable of repetition
–          B. voluntary cessation
 
Political question doctrine:
courts will not adjudicate, should be left to the political branches to interpret
four major areas dismissed:
–          1. cases under the republican form of gov clause
–          2. challenges to the presidents conduct of foreign policy
–          3. challenges to impeachment and removal process
–          4. challenges to partisan gerrymandering
 
FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE POWER: ARTICLE I
Doctrine of Limited Federal Legislative Authority
Article I §1 “All legislative powers herein granted…” à the language implies that the legislative powers are strictly limited to what it outlined within the text itself.
§8 lists the enumerated powers: lay & collect taxes, spending power, borrow money, commerce clause, etc. ending with the “necessary and proper” clause
this suggests that congress can do more than what enumerated. The necessary and proper clause is then one of the powers “herein granted” so it still fits into the idea that the powers were limited. 
§9 gives expressed limits on legislative action.
 
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819): Marshall
Defined the scope of congressional powers & the relationship of federal & state govs
Note: Marshall relies on the idea of a written C as a living document. Power can be expanded as long as there is a checking function on the power.
Issue of whether Maryland could tax bank of the US when it set a tax law that was in state banks’ best interest
1. has Congress power to incorporate a bank? Yes, bc the C is not a strict legal code, there are implied powers that flow from the nature of a C itself. Doctrine of implied powers rests on the necessary & proper clause that is enumerated (textual argument)
Maryland argues not written in C and thus congress does not have power
Marshall construes necessary & proper clause broadly
McCulloch test of “reasonableness”: Congress can seek an objective that is within the enumerated powers as long as it is rationally related to the objective and not forbidden by C
First, focus on the end/purpose; it must be legitimate and within scope
Second, focus on the means; it must be appropriate