Constitutional Law I Outline

Constitutional Law Gowder Spring 2017
 
Judicial Review
 
Judicial Review: Legal powers of the judicial to declare an act of another branch as contrary to constitution and forbid its enforcement. Federal courts are courts of limited and enumerated powers.
 
Why do we need the judiciary?
Stability argument – stable source of people who understand law and integrity of independence and not subject to swaying times.
Institutional incentive
Constitution is law, the highest law (supreme law of the land)
 
Limits on Judicial Power:
Advisory opinions – judicial power is limited to cases and controversies, not opinions about the constitutionality of pending legislative or on constitutional questions referred to them by other branches of government.
 
 
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Established the authority for the judiciary to review the constitutionality of executive and legislative acts.
Court lacks jurisdiction. Legislature conferred additional areas of jurisdiction in Judiciary Act of 1789. Court’s reasoning is that they are a court of limited and enumerated powers and Congress cannot confer original jurisdiction outside of those enumerated. Yes, Marbury is entitled to the appointment but court doesn’t have jurisdiction because law giving them jurisdiction over case isn’t constitutional.
 
Rule of Law: The Supreme Court has the power, implied from Article VI §2 to review acts of Congress and if they are found repugnant to the Constitution to declare them void.
 
Theoretically, the three branches should be strong enough to check and balance the others. To limit the judiciary to the passive task of interpretation would be to limit its strength in the tripartite structure.
 
The Constitution is the supreme law. It is the inherent role of the judicial role to decide the constitutionality of the laws.  C.J. Marshall – “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”
 
Martin v. Hunter Lessee (1816)
Court of Appeals stated the constitution did not authorize the federal court to act upon them and reverse their rulings.
The U.S.S.C. held the federal treaty was controlling in the land dispute. Reversed the C.o.A.’s ruling on who owns the land.
Justice Story – articulated the Court’s authority to review state court judgments. Persuasive argument that the Constitution presumed the USSC could review state court decisions. There is a decider and that is the USSC and it is their duty to interpret the Constitution.
Emphasized the importance to review state decision
State prejudices to favor their own citizens
Ensure uniformity in the interpretation of federal law
Rule of Law: Federal Courts may hear appeals brought from state court decisions. Article III of the Constitution grants appellate jurisdiction to the USSC where it does not have original jurisdiction except in those instances where Congress has limited federal appellate jurisdiction. Federal appellate power over state cases is a necessity for uniformity because of the possibility of different state courts interpreting the same statute or treaty differently.
 
Cooper v. Aaron (1958)
Arkansas stated they don’t have to follow the orders of the USSC because they are not a named party in the suit declaring desegregation. Judicial precedent is only binding for the named parties.
USSC – not just interpretation, but creating legal rules that are binding as such. Those utterances are law.
Article VI makes the Constitution “the supreme law of the land” (Article VI §2 – The Supremacy Clause – requires the federal court decisions based on SC’s interpretations of constitutional language govern the states’ legislative, judicial, and executive branches.)
Rule of Law: State officials may not refuse to obey federal orders resting on constitutional grounds. The Constitution is the “supreme law of the land” and the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution. A federal official, legislator, executive, or judicial officer cannot disobey a federal court order without violating their duty to support the Constitution.
 
Standing
 
Standing doctrine promotes separation of powers. By restricting who may sue in the federal courts, standing limits hat matters the judiciary will address and minimizes judicial review of the actions of the other branches of government. Standing focuses the attention directly on the question of what is the proper place of the judiciary in the American system of gov’t.
 
Judicial efficiency by preventing a flood of lawsuits by those who have only an ideological stake in the outcome. Also conserves the Court’s political capital.
 
Improves judicial decision making by ensuring that there is a specific controversy before utilizing the court’s time, attention, and resources. Also, that there is an advocate with a sufficient personal concern to effectively litigate the matter.
“such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation for issues upon which the court so largely depends on illumination of difficult constitutional questions” – Baker v. Carr
 
Serve a value of fairness by ensuring that people will raise only their own rights and concerns and that people cannot be intermeddlers trying to protect others who do not wat protection.
 
Requirements for Standing
Injury in fact – those who allege that they personally have suffered or imminently will suffer an injury. Threatened injury must be “certainly impending” to constitute injury in fact. Allegations of possible future injury are not sufficient.
Legally protected interest
Concrete, not hypothetical
Particularized, not generalized
Actual and Imminent
Person being sued must have caused/be causing the injury
A favorable federal court decision is likely to redress the injury
 
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992)
Federal gov’t policy lessening the environmental protection of certain federal lands. Within in Congressional act, they created a “citizen suit”, Defenders of Wildlife filed suit citing “someday” future intentions to observe animals.
If plaintiff had a legally protected interest, their interest wasn’t individualized and invasion of their legal interest that everyone else in the world didn’t also have.
Injury alleged was too general to establish a particular injury
Rule of Law: To establish standing, a plaintiff must show injury-in-fact, causation, and redressability, and Congress may not create a right of standing based on a generalized grievance against the government.
 
Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (2007)
Fed’s failure/refusal to enforce the federal Clean Air Act against motor vehicle emissions.
A plaintiff has standing if it demonstrates a concrete injury that is both fairly traceable to the defendant and redressability by judicial relief. Only one petitioner needs to show standing in order to permit the Court to consider petition for review.
Injury in fact – damage to coastal lines that has and will continue to occur (individualized invasion of legal interest)
Causation – fairly traceable to the EPA’s failure to enforce CAA, even small effects on an injury satisfy the causation requirement.
Redressability – Injury can be redressed judicially
Dissent – R