Constitutional Law Outline
I. Judicial Review: power of the courts to review legislation to determine whether it is consistent with the constitution. (Constitutional concern: Why are courts authorized to exercise this power? The Constitution is seen as having higher status than congressional acts because the people approve the Constitution – there is still controversy as to who is the ultimate “interpreter” of the Constitution)
a. Marbury v. Madison: Congress cannot alter the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction. Because Article III is silent as to the issue but allows for Congressional control of appellate jurisdiction, the intent was to prohibit congressional control over original jurisdiction
b. Facts: at the end of John Adams’ presidency in 1801 he appointed Marbury as a justice of the peace for the District of Columbia – an appointment which (among others) the incoming Jefferson administration chose to disregard. Madison was Jefferson’s secretary of state – he would be the one required to deliver the commission if the court so found.
c. Issues:
i. Does Marbury have a right to the commission?
ii. If yes, does he have a remedy in court?
iii. Is the remedy a writ of mandamus issued from the S. Ct?
d. Holdings:
i. Yes, because the formal commission had been signed and sealed (although not delivered yet) – Marbury has a right to the commission
ii. Yes – civil liberty requires that an individual have redressability in the court if suffering some grievance
iii. No – This is the most important holding in Marbury: Marshall opinion found that the Supreme Court cannot issue the writ of mandamus because it does not have original jurisdiction in the matter. The court found that the Judiciary Act of 1798 altered Supreme Court’s ORIGINAL jurisdiction – which, according to Marbury, is not a power vested in the Congress by the Constitution in Article III, § 2.
iv. Marbury v. Madison: gave the judiciary the power of judicial review, gave the judiciary the ultimate power to interpret the Constitution
v. Marshall could have questioned the court’s jurisdiction to hear the case OR
vi. He could have ruled that the commission was never delivered to Marbury so it was invalid and therefore could not be enforced, BUT
vii. Marshall chose to set up his opinion in order to comment on the Court’s power to review acts of Congress and to include dictum re executive power
1. By leaving touting executive power in dictum, and then holding the Act of Congress unconstitutional while also asserting that the court is the interpreter of the Constitution, Marshall wrote a very important opinion while avoiding confrontation with the executive.
viii. Congressional authority to strip court of jurisdiction: Article III grants the Supreme Court appellate review of cases involving federal questions, “with such exception as Congress shall make”
1. Congress cannot alter the Court’s ORIGINAL jurisdiction (See Marbury v. Madison)
e. The authoritativeness of supreme court decisions:
i. Federalist no. 78 (Alexander Hamilton): Hamilton says that allowing the court to review acts of Congress does not mean that the judiciary is superior, but is positive because it protects the people from any arbitrary passage of contravening laws
1. Courts should use JUDGEMENT rather than WILL
ii. Judicial review and democracy – a problem with judicial review in a democratic society is that unelected judges are making crucial decisions
iii. Lincoln: The court’s judgment is binding on those parties but we have redress through direct defiance via the political process
iv. Jefferson: Co-equal branches
v. Hamilton – judiciary exercise JUDGMENT (not will) to PROTECT the people from arbitrary laws
Cooper v. Aaron (1958) – Are court interpretations the “supreme law of the land?”
I. Facts: Governor Faubus defied desegregation direction after Brown v. Board and called in the National Guard to remove black students and keep them out of Little Rock Central High school.
II. The district court granted relief when the school board sought postponement of the desegregation program because of the chaos
III. The appellate court found, and the Supreme Court affirmed, that the constitutional rights of the students could not be sacrificed because of the violence (reversing the district court’s opinion)
IV. Holding: The rights of i
orden: RI had two governments claiming to be the state government and the Court found that Congress alone had the authority to declare which was official under the guaranty clause. For this, had Baker been a guaranty clause case the issue would be non-justiciable because it would be committed to the legislature and not the judiciary.
iii. However, this case is an equal protection case – there is a judicially manageable standard for handling a 14th amendment claim (no risk of embarrassment etc.)
iv. Dissent: This is actually a guaranty clause issue: the right is to be able to vote and to have your vote counted – those rights have not been violated
1. the complaint is really that the plaintiffs do not have enough representatives – this is a guaranty issue
2. Therefore should be non-justiciable
c. Nixon v. United States (1993): (Nixon, federal judge, impeachment case); challenged the constitutionality of the restructuring of the senate impeachment trial (claiming “try” had a specific definition); court held that the constitution gives the senate the “sole authority to “try” impeachment cases” and that the issue is non-justiciable
i. Textual commitment to coordinate political department– Senate has the “sole” authority- so this issue is non-justiciable
1. Threshold determination: look FIRST at the text (non-prudential – if the text says this is the job of another branch then it’s the job of that branch)
d. Case and controversy requirement: Article III, § 2
i. Advisory opinions: a case or controversy must be before the court in order for it to have jurisdiction, so it will NOT issue advisory opinions
1. Court only decides constitutional questions when it has to (prudential)
2. Advisory opinions would undermine the court’s authority
Standing to litigate:
Standing to litigate: doctrine of standing based on the “cases or controversies” requirement in Article III
