CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OUTLINE
Wolf – Spring 2016
Chapter 1: Federal Judicial Power
Judicial Review
Source & Scope of Judicial Power
Article 3 limits the jurisdiction of the court as limited to cases or controversies:
Arising under the constitution, law, and treaties of the United States.
Affecting foreign countries’ ambassadors, public ministers, and consuls;
Involving admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;
When the united states is a party;
Between two or more states, or between a state and citizens of another state;
Between citizens of different states or between citizens of the same states claiming lands under grants or different states;
Between a state, or its citizens, and foreign states, citizens, or subject.
Marbury v. Madison (p.2)
BF: Federalist and Republican power struggle. Marbury suit to compel
Madison to deliver a commission granting Marbury the position of “Justice of
Peace.” The statute eventually under judicial review: Judiciary Act of 1789’s
provision of Writ of Mandamus which would add original jurisdiction to the US
Court (USSC) not provided by the Constitution.
Establishes the Court’s power of judicial review, Primarily a political decision to keep the federalist in power in at least one of the branches of government.
Only establishes the power of the Court to review federal executive and legislative decisions.
The Court has the last word on what law is.
The United States is in the minority of countries who allow the courts to interpret the highest law (4 unelected people decide what law is).
Why does USSC have last word on Constitutional Interpretation? No strict legal reason. Lots of sleight of hand with this decision.
KP: It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. if two laws conflict with each other the courts must decide on the operation of each.
KP: a law which is repugnant to the constitution is void. it is the Court’s duty and power to make such declarations
Judicial Review of State Actions
Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee (p.10)
BF: Competing claims to land in Virginia. Martin’s title is derived from a British citizen. Treaties protected land rights of British citizens. Virginia granted land to Hunter, who claimed he had taken the land before the treaties were in effect.
Establishes the power of the Court to ultimate review of state court’s interpretation of federal law and the constitution.
Uniformity: Argument of Constitution presuming judicial review of state courts, otherwise US Court would be “powerless” and have only their limited original jurisdiction if Congress, at their discretion, choose not to create lower federal courts.
Court review, including review of state courts, is “essential to ensure uniformity in the interpretation of federal law.”
All questions relating to the constitution are arbitrated by the Court, no state has the power to interpret the constitution or to follow their own views on the supreme law.
State Loyalty: State courts cannot be trusted to adequately protect federal rights.
The Supremacy Clause: The U.S constitution is a supreme legal document (Art. VI cl. 2) and cannot be subordinated to state charters.
The Court has jurisdiction to review state court determinations of federal law, but not to review state court determinations of state law.
KP: The Constitution is based on a recognition that ‘state attachments, state
prejudices, state jealousies, and state interests might sometimes obstruct, or control, or be supposed to obstruct or control the regular administration of justice… Court review is essential to ensure uniformity in the interpretation of federal law.
Cohens v. Virginia (p.10)
BF: Two brothers were convicted in Virginia of selling D.C lottery tickets, they argued that they were under constitutional protection because the tickets were issued by congress.
Reaffirmed Martin v Hunter’s Lessee, the Court has the power to review state court decisions.
Criminal defendants could seek Court review when they claimed their conviction violated the Constitution
KP: “State courts often could not be trusted to protect federal rights because ‘in many States the judges are dependent for office and for salary on the will of the legislature.’”
Interpretive Limits
A self imposed limitation by the Court, where each justice will interpret the constitution a different way. Some interpret the the constitution as a uniform and and static document others as organic and flexible.
Constrain Court interpretation. Protect rights that are only clearly stated in the text or intended by the framers.
: Importance of an evo
l warming as an environmental challenge is recognized. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), has responsibility under the Clean Air Act, to regulate emission of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. Plaintiffs bring suit for failure of EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles. To bring suit, plaintiffs must have Standing.
Ask: “Whether petitioners have such a personal stake in the outcome?”
Sovereign state gets special solicitude.
Specific Injury: Just because risks are widely shared does not minimize plaintiff’s interest in the outcome of this litigation. Petitioners bring claim of specific damage: Loss of coastal lands.
Lujan test is still valid, but has been added to, to protect the interests of states.
: This case is redressable by the court. Redressability does not have to be a complete resolution of the problem. Court’s redress can be small incremental steps to whittle away at the source of a massive problem.
KP: To demonstrate standing, a litigant must show that it has suffered a concrete and particularized injury that is either actual or imminent, that the injury is fairly traceable to the defendant, and that a favorable decision will likely redress that injury. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 560–561. However, a litigant to whom Congress has “accorded a procedural right to protect his concrete interests,” id., at 573, n. 7—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,” ibid. Only one petitioner needs to have standing to authorize review. See Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc., 547 U. S. 47, 52, n. 2. Massachusetts has a special position and interest here. It is a sovereign State and not, as in Lujan, a private individual, and it actually owns a great deal of the territory alleged to be affected.
