Constitutional Law – Wolf Spring 2016
I. Federal Judicial Power
A. Judicial Review
SCOTUS is the only federal court specifically required by the constitution; only one of the “cases & controversies” in Article III §2, the fed court must dismiss the case for want of SMJ
Cases arising under the Const. or Fed Statutes
Cases of Admiralty
Cases between 2 or more states
Cases between citizens of different states
Cases between a state/its citizens and a foreign country/citizen
SCOTUS Jurisdiction Exercised:
Original Jurisdiction: cases may commence in SCOTUS when they affect ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and when a state shall be a party
Article III § 2 provides that in al cases to which fed judicial power extends, SCOTUS shall have appellate jurisdiction
Marbury v. Madison – 1801 (1-9)
Majority: Marshall
Established only the authority for judicial review of the federal executive and legislative actions
Federalist Party (outgoing Adams) tried to put Marbury on SCOTUS before Adams left presidency. Marbury was not commissioned before Republicans (incoming Jefferson) took office so Marbury sought a WRIT OF MANDAMUS (a court order compelling a government officer to perform a duty) from SCOTUS compelling Madison to deliver commission
Did Marbury have a right to the commission? – YES
If the right had been violated, was there a remedy? – YES under Judiciary Act of 1789
Was a writ of mandamus within the Court’s power? – NO, no relief for Marbury
establishes that the Judicial Branch and the Supreme Court have the sole responsibility to weigh the constitutionality of laws
When a law is repugnant to the Constitution the law is VOID
Marbury declares that the judiciary, or more specifically SCOTUS, has the power and duty of judicial review – to declare laws void
Created Authority for Judicial Review of Executive Actions
Established that Article III is the ceiling for federal court jurisdiction
Established the authority for judicial review of legislative acts
Textual Argument: Article III gives judges power; Article VI says that judges have to follow Const.
Structural Argument: why else would the framers have written it down? – WOLF thinks its absurd to think that there are no surpluses in the Constitution
ARTICLE III IS THE CEILING OF FEDEAL COURT JURISDICTION; FED COURTS ARE COURTS OF LIMITED JURISDICTION
Notes:
NOT the first case to have Judicial Review – but the first time SCOTUS struck down a statute
Core problem is that Article III § 2.2 sets forth a limited set of categories in which original jurisdiction of SCOTUS can be found; all other times SCOTUS only has appellate jurisdiction
WOLF’S WHAT: “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is”
WOLF’S WHY: No adequate why – use “The question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land, is a question deeply interesting to the US; but, happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest. It seems only necessary to recognize certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it.”
Wolf Multi Choice Test Answer:
The Court found that a provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional
This c
ase involving mandamus and the Judiciary Act of 1789 pitted Chief Justice Marshall against his Jeffersonian foes
Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee – 1810 (10)
Majority: Story
SCOTUS has the ultimate authority to review state court interpretations of the Constitution
2 conflicting claims to own the land within the state of VA; Martin claimed title based on inheritance from Lord Fairfax, Hunter claimed that VA had taken the property before the treaties came into effect, therefore Martin did not have a valid claim – resolving this issue depended on the interpretation of the treaty – a question of federal constitutional law
Procedural Posture & Results:
VA COA ruled in favor of Hunter – in favor of the state’s authority to have taken the land
SCOTUS reversed – holding the federal treaty controlled and Martin won
VA COA then declared SCOTUS lacked the authority to review state court decisions
SCOTUS then reviewed again and explicitly asserted their power to review state court decisions of federal constitutional questions
UNIFORMITY IS IMPORTANT
Structure of the const. presumes that SCOTUS may review state court decisions, if congress chose not to establish lower federal courts, then SCOTUS would be powerless to hear any cases except the few fitting within its OG jurisdiction, unless it could review state court ruiling
State Loyalty: state courts cannot be trusted to adequately protect federal rights
Supremacy Clause: US Constitution is a supreme legal document (Art. VI § 2) and cannot be subordinated to state charters
: SCOTUS final and exclusive review can ensure uniformity in the interpretation of federal law throughout the nation
WOLF’S Quote: “Justice Story argued that the structure of the Constitution presumes that the SC may review state court decisions. Story argued that the Constitution creates a SC and gives Congress discretion whether to create lower federal courts.”
REJECTS Sovereignty Argument: fed const. cut back upon state sovereignty in numerous respects, there was no reason to presume that state judiciaries were immune from these limitations
: “if there were no revising authority to control these jarring and discordant judgments, and harmonize them into uniformity, the laws, the treaties and the constitution of the US would be different in different states”
Cohens v. Virginia – 1821 (10-11)
Majority: Marshall
SCOTUS can fill in the blanks of criminal law cases and SCOTUS can use appellate power to review criminal cases – EXPANDED POWER
AUTHORITY UNDER – JR
2 brothers were convicted for selling lottery tickets in DC in VA; sought review from SCOTUS
Does SCOTUS have authority to review state court decisions? – YES
Does SCOTUS have authority to hear criminal cases and in cases where a state government was a party? – YES
Criminal D’s could seek SCOTUS review when they claimed that their conviction violated the Constitution
Constitutionality of § 25 of the Judiciary Act: criminal Ds can seek SCOTUS review when they claim their conviction violated the Const.
Wolf Quote: The court emphasized that state courts often could not be trusted to adequately protect federal rights because “[i]n many States the judges are dependent for office and for salary on the will of the legislature.” The court thus declared that criminal defendants could seek SCOTUS review when they claimed that they conviction violated the const.
B. Judicial Interpretation
Limits on Federal Judicial Power:
Interpretive Limits: how the Constitution should be interpreted
Originalism: judges should confine themselves to enforcing norms that are state or clearly implied in the written words; if the Const. is silent, the legislature should decide, evolve solely by amendment
Non-Originalsim: courts should go beyond the set of references and enforce the norms that cannot be discovered within the four corners of the document; Const. should evolve to meet the needs of a changing society
Justiciability Limits: refer to a series of judicially created doctrines that limit the types of matters that federal courts can decide
Constitutional Limits: justiciability doctrines that are a result of the Court’s interpretation of Article III §2 defining the federal judicial power in terms of 9 categories of “cases & controversies”
Prudential Limits: justiciability doctrines not derived from the Const. but from prudent judicial administration (instances where wise policy militates against judicial revie
on the parties if the court does not take up the matter of withholding court consideration + (2)the fitness of the issue for judicial decision
Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency – 2007 (45, 53-59)
Majority: Stevens | Dissent: Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alto
A P has standing if it demonstrates a concrete injury that is both fairly traceable to the D and redressable by judicial relief
The EPA refused to enforce the Clean Air Act against motor-vehicle emissions; Mass. And a few other states appealed the EPA’s refusal
Does a P have standing if it demonstrates a concrete injury that is both fairly traceable to the D and redressable by judicial relief? – YES
Results:
YES – Mass. had a concrete injury that is both fairly traceable to the D and redressable by the court
: damage to the state’s coastline that will, and will continue to, occur
: Injury to coastline fairly traceable to EPA’s inaction; even small effects on an injury in fact satisfy the causation requirement
: obvi court can tell EPA to start enforcing
Robert’s Dissent: fundamental importance of justiciability resides in the most basic questions about the kinds of disputes that the courts should and should not hear
WOLF’S QUOTE: To ensure the proper adversarial presentation, Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992) holds that a litigant must demonstrate that is has suffered a concrete and particularized injury that is either actual or imminent, that the injury is fairly traceable to the defendant, and that it is likely that a favorable decision will redress that injury. However, a litigant whom Congress has “accorded a procedural right to protect his concrete interests,” – here, the right to challenge agency action unlawfully withheld, §7607(b)(1) – “can assert that right without meeting all the normal standards for redressability and immediacy.”
EXCEPTION TO STANDING RULE: When a litigant is vested with a procedural right, that litigant has standing if there is some possibility that the requested relief will prompt the injury-causing party to reconsider the decision that allegedly harmed the litigant.
Hollingsworth v. Perry – 2013
Majority: Roberts | Dissent: Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor
AUTHORITY UNDER –
Same-sex couple wanted to sue; Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under EPC
Citizens of California passed Proposition 22, which affirmed a legal understanding that marriage was a union between a man and a woman
Cali SCOTUS invalidated Prop 22 & then Citizens of California passed Prop 8 to amend the FCali Constituion
Sued because violated their EP rights
Original Party was the State but then Citizens Stepped in and the Standing issue came up
Issue:
After the state lost, another group came into replace the state (Cali who created Prop 8) — DO they have STANDING even though they are a private entity substituting themselves for the state
Rule: NO – Petitioners only had a “generalized grievance” & the 3rd party stepped in so you cant defend Prop 8
Wolf talked about how it’s a weird mix on the court – did not want to deal with the issue of gay marriage
