FEDERAL COURTS – Prof. Wells (UGA Fall 2009)
INTRODUCTION
I. The principles of Federalism & Separation of Powers determine when a pty gets access to fed cts
a. Marbury v. Madison
i. There was a shift in power after Federalist pty lost. Madison was one of appointed judges in Fed’s attempt to retain power over judiciary. New pty in power undid Fed’s efforts in creating new judge positions.
ii. Issue: whether ct had to require Madison to give writ of mandamus
1. When Constitution differs from statute, apply Constitution. SC didn’t have power to give Marbury remedy sought.
iii. Established authority of FC to engage in judicial review. FC has duty to say what the law is ONLY when also has appropriate jx. This prerogative of judicial review enables FC to craft substantive rules of con law ie. hold laws unconstitutional, strike down legislation, review legality of executive branch action.
iv. FC’s purpose/role: 2 views
1. Case Deciding View: role of SC & FCs is to declare what the written Constitution says (narrow, SC has less opportunity to exercise power of judicial review)
2. Law Declaring View: role of SC & FCs is to declare what the Constitution means (broad, SC has more opportunity to exercise power of judicial review)
v. Congress canNOT expand powers of FC beyond that provided in Art. III.
CONSTITUTIONAL REMEDIES: § 1983 & RELATED DOCTRINES
I. Basic Features of the Law of Constitutional Remedies
a. A model of constitutional remedies è How to enforce constitutional ®s
b. Defensive Remedies: when person is the target of a state proceeding, he can raise his const ® as a defense
i. ex: in an enforcement proceeding against A for selling an alleged “obscene” book, A can raise a 1st Amd defense
ii. if enforcement is under st law, gen available in SCt
c. Offensive Remedies: const ® can be used as a sword where pty claiming the ® becomes the π
i. 2 kinds of relief requested
1. Prospective relief
a. to get, must show const violation is ongoing or that there is a good chance it will happen soon (threatened in the future)
b. 2 kinds
i. Injunction: ct orders official to stop acting in a certain way/to act in a certain way/not to act in certain way in future
1. if order violated, official can be held in contempt/jailed
ii. Declaratory Judgment (milder): simply declares ®s & obligations of ptys to lawsuit, not an order but if violated can result in an injunction
2. Retrospective Relief (for past injury) ie. damages
a. ex: Monroe v. Pape – const violation happened in past so no pt to telling not to do but also can’t say will happen again
ii. typically avail in FCs
b. Before Monroe v. Pape
i. Home Telephone
1. Home arg = 4th Amd violation for deprivation of property b/c City put ceiling on rates.
2. City’s arg = any asserted const violation wouldn’t exist b4 DP è Home has to sue in SCt 1st b4 can argue there has been a violation.
a. SC rejects è violation complete when City sets the rates, no req to go to SCt to complete violation
3. Importance: if decided differently, would’ve channeled defensive const claims into SCt
ii. Ex Parte Young (pg 31): Est principle of access to FC to seek remedy for const violation; prospective relief available in FC
1. Economic DP case: MN set rates RR can charge, RR thought too low, violation had criminal penalties. RR filed in FC claiming enforcement of rates by state officers would be unconstitutional. Sought prospective relief – injunction.
2. Importance: SC allowed case to go forward w/o using § 1983 (b/c was in obscurity). Meant that there was this remedy not tied to any statute, just there è implied cause of action (available in FC). Allowed way to bring prospective relief case in FC è persons seeking this remedy could bring suit in FC by citing Young
c. Monro
f st law è amenable to § 1983 suit
c. Provides an avenue (ie. creates a coa) to enforce const ®s, DOES NOT create FC Jx. Π’s coa must have separate SMJ basis for FC Jx.
d. Can be heard in either SCt/FC but removal may still put case in FC.
e. Liability under § 1983 expanded under Monell which authorized suits against municipal gov’t based on “official policy/custom” (not vicarious liability)
i. State gov’t & arms of the st (ie. st univ./agencies) still can’t be sued under § 1983
III. Official Immunity
a. Absolute Immunity: immunity regardless of law & the act in violation of it
i. Ie. officer can’t be sued even for knowing violations of const ®. Even if π wrongfully termination, ∆ shielded from liability.
ii. Forrester — probation officer fired by Judge alleges racial discrimination. Judge invokes judicial immunity.
1. SC used functional approach (tendency when evaluating AI). è Judge not entitled to Absolute Immunity
a. Judges get Absolute Immunity for judicial functions. Employment decision is an administrative, not judicial function.
b. Ex:
i. Selection jurors not a judicial function b/c can be done by anyone but VA just chooses to have judge do it
ii. Ordering sterilization of 14 year old was a judicial function
iii. Manhandling in ct room, if for maintaining order then judicial
