Con. Law I
Chapter 1: The Federal Judicial Power
1.) Relevant Part of the Constitution
a. Articles I, II, and III create the structure of the Fed. Gov’t (legislature, Executive, Judiciary)
i. Article I – Outlines structure and powers of the legislative branch
ii. Article II – Outlines structure and powers of the executive branch
iii. Article III – Outlines structure and powers of the judicial branch
iv. Article IV – Divides power between federal government and the states
b. Provided for a Federalist System; Fed & state gov’ts both with jurisdiction over the same territory
i. Fed. Gov’t was viewed as a needed evil
1. National currency, national regulation of commerce needs
2. Federal gov’t was intended to only get those “enumerated powers” (including Art. I, Sec. 8)
3. Supremacy clause gives constitution supremacy
4. Created 3 co-equal branches to balance the power of the Fed. Gov’t
a. No single branch can act by itself effectively (need at least 2 branches go get something done)
i. Makes positive action slower
c. Individual Rights – The few granted are in the Amendments. 3 theories of why so few individual rights are in the Constitution. 1) Founders thought it was unnecessary. 2) Undesirable because listing some would omit others. 3) Individual rights are natural rights, which is supreme to the Constitution.
i. State gov’ts
1. 10th Amendment kept all powers for the states except as limited by the constitution
a. Because the Constitution was an instrument that gave up some of the citizens right, any right not specifically given up was thought to stay with the people (in the states)
d. Why a constitution?
i. The other way would have been a statute
ii. Congress could have simply repeal a statute, a Constitution has greater staying power
iii. Don’t want short run feelings to dominate
The Authority for Judicial Review
1.) Questions to ask when deciding if a “case” exists
a. Is there a “cause of action”, or is there a legal right?
b. Does a remedy exist?
i. If act was political, no remedy. But if act was one done in capacity as an officer of the law, there would be a remedy
c. What court should be used?
Marbury v. Madison (1803; pg 2) (USSC judicial review over federal statutes)
1.) Marbury had been appointed to a judgeship by outgoing President Adams, but the letter of commission had failed to be delivered. Marbury brought suit to the USSC asking new that the new Secretary of State (Madison) be forced to deliver the commission.
2.) RULE: The judiciary is charged with the power of judicial review, which includes analyzing actions taken by the Executive and Legislative branches to determine if these actions are congruent with the Constitution.
a. In this case, the Judiciary Act of 1789 granted the USSC original jurisdiction to grant mandamus.
i. U.S.Con = Art III, §2[2] = enumerated 3 situations when the USSC can have original jurisdiction (over ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and cases when a State is a Party) and then stated that in all other situations the USSC shall have appellant jurisdiction
ii. Court found that the granting of original J. over actions of mandamus, via the Judiciary Act of 1789, was unconstitutional.
1. U.S. Con. Is the supreme law of the land, and all other statutes, treaties, ect. An act can’t be repugnant to the Constitution.
iii. Court interpret the jurisdictions given to each court by the Constitution as the ceiling rather than the floor when relating to any possible future jurisdictional changes by Congress.
3.) Why Judicial Review is important
a. The Constitution is supreme law of the land, and only people able to really enforce this is the USSC.
b. All 3 branches have taken oaths to uphold the Constitution, judicial review is the USSC’s method of fulfilling this oath.
c. 3 main function of JR
i. Interpreting
1. Many times the language of the constitution isn’t self explaining & requires interpretation
2. Congress & the President often must also interpret the constitution, but the court writes & publishes opinions
ii. Checking (limits)
1. The constitution purports to limit Fed. Power, and judicial review limits the powers of Congress & the President
iii. Legitimating
1. USSC can legitimize the action of a branch of gov’t when it hears a case on an action taken.
2. If the court allows the action to be taken, the court has legitimized the action
d. Limits to JR from Art. III
i. There must be a case in controversy before a court will give its opinion on the constitutionality of an issue
ii. USSC controls its own docket, so it can control exactly what cases it hears.
iii. Not all executive action is subject to judicial review
1. Duty assigned by law can be evaluated
2. Can’t review discretionary or political issues (no judicial review of: appointment power, pardon power, power as commander in chief/military, ect)
Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee (1816; pg 9)
1.) Virginia SC had ruled that it did not need to adhere to a U.S. Foreign Treaty, the case was appealed to the USSC.
2.) RULE: the USSC has the authority to judicial review over the state courts
a. USSC review is essential to ensure uniformity in the interpretation of federal law
Cohens v. Virgina (1821; pg 10)
1.) Appeal from a criminal case, tried in state court
2.) RULE: USSC has the authority to review criminal cases when they violate the Constitution. (those cases when a state gov’t is a party)
a. Concern that state judges couldn’t be trusted to adequately protect federal rights
i. many state judges are dependent for office and for salary on the will of the legislature
Limits on the Federal Judicial Power
1.) 3 types of limits; (1) interpretive, (2) congressional, (3) justiciability
Interpretive Limits
1.) Asks the correct way to interpret the Constitution
a. Narrowly circumscribed = should implement Congress’s value choices, not make their own
i. Originalism
1. The Court is justified in protecting constitutional rights only if they are clearly stated in the text or intended by the framers
a. Constitution should evolve only by amendment
i. If the constitution is silent on an issue, it is for the legislature, unconstrained by the courts, to decide the law
b. prevents unelected judges from making constitutional decisions
c. History is important in interpreting the wording
i. Thoma
ant jurisdiction
b. Not a problem that Congress removed the jurisdiction while the case was at bar, since they did so before the court had ruled
—–Separation of Powrs as a limit on Congress’s Authority – Can Congress control he USSC?
United S. v. Klein (1871; pg 27)
1.) D had received a pardon from the president for his role in the Civil War. USSC precedent said that a pardon from the President was proof enough that the person hadn’t aided the enemy. Fed. Statute said anyone who could prove they hadn’t aided the enemy could get their land back after the war.
a. Congress quickly passed a statute making a “pardon” inadmissible evidence, and further anyone who received a pardon was automatically admitting guilt
2.) RULE: Congress can’t remove/restrict appellant jurisdiction simply as a means to an end, trying to forces the court to rule in a way Congress dictates when settled law already dictates a contrary ruling.
a. Congress can’t use its “exceptions power” in a manner that violates the separation of powers.
b. Congress can change the legal standards under which a pending case is to be judged, but Congress can’t manipulate the Court’s jurisdiction in order to achieve a particular result in a pending case.
Justiciability Limits
1.) Limits the court has developed from the constitutions requirement of a “case or controversy.”
2.) intended to (1) improve judicial decision making, (2) provide the federal courts with concrete controversies best suited for judicial resolution, (3) preserve separation of powers, (4) promote fairness
3.) Justiciability doctrines also conserve judicial resources
4.) Court imposed rules to ensure that the Court won’t reach Constitutional questions when unnecessary Ashwander v. Tennessee valley Authority (1936)
a. The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of legislation in a friendly nonadversary, proceeding.
b. The Court will not anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it.
c. The Court will not formulate a rule of constitutional law braoder than is required by the precise facts to which it is to be applied
d. The court will not pass upon a constitutional question although properly presented by the record, if there is also present some other ground upon which the case may be disposed of.
e. The Court will not pass upon the validity of a statute upon complaint of on who fails to show that he is injured by its operation
f. The Court will not pas upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits
