Con Law Outline
Writ of Mandamus-something to compel an official to do their duty
Original Jurisdiction-the first court to hear the case
Appellate Jurisdiction-power to review prior court decisions
Judicial Review-court looks to see if a law is constitutional
2 Ways to change constitution-
1. Judicial Review
2. Under Article 5 people can use “amendment rights” (RARE)
Article III § 2-allows supreme court original jurisdiction with ambassadors, states, consuls, etc.
-Also gives Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction in all other cases.
Exception Clause-with the exception of cases that Congress has said they cannot hear
Justiciable-the kind of case a court can render justice in(appropriateness for judicial decision)
Nonjusticiable-court cannot hear it
-Non-Justiciable if threes a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment conferred upon congress
-“Not right for the court to decide”
Guaranty Clause (art. 4)-States rights clause “the U.S. shall guarantee the states a republican government”
Political Question Doctrine-Separation of Powers Stuff within the federal govt.
Is there text that commits this to a branch of govt.
Lack of judicially discoverable/manageable standards for resolving it
Impossibility of deciding it without an initial policy decision that the court should not make
Court cannot resolve without a lack of respect to other branches
Unusual need to question a predetermine political question
Potential embarrassment of or from another branch due to this
Case or Controversy/Standing
To Show Standing:
Must show direct injury in fact-an invasion in a legally protected interest.
Must show causal connection-fairly traceable between injury and challenged action
Must be likely that it is redressable by court’s decision.
Standing-whether or not the litigant in entitled to have a court hear his case
Congress Can-under article III, enact or repeal laws that give courts jurisdiction.
Ripeness-case isn’t ready for dispute yet; maybe issues will ripen in the future.
Mootness-case has really already been resolved
Congress must demonstrate express and unequivocal intent to abrogate immunity.
Congress must have acted pursuant to a valid exercise of power i.e. a later amendment, etc.
Congress must show that the right that has been violated must have a congruent and proportional remedy.
Test of heightened scrutiny-there must be an exceedingly persuasive justification relating to a fed. Government interest in order to abrogate
Rational Basis Test-if there’s a rational basis the state can do it
-Sovereigns court cannot open suits against the sovereign, cannot sue unless they(the state) has consented to be sued.
-The judicial power shall not extend to suits against a state by citizens of another state.
-This is sovereign immunity in relations to citizens of other states not being allowed to sue other states.