Con Law Wolitz Spring 2017
Nature and Scope of Judicial Review
Invalidation of Federal Laws
Marbury v. Madison (1803) Marshall:
Background: Adams presidency was ending and his federalist party was losing power. To ensure continued influence, before the end of the term, Adams’ administration made many last minute appointments. When he left office, a handful of these appointments had not been delivered by then Secretary of State, Marshall. The new president, Jefferson, ordered his Secretary of State, Madison, not to deliver these appointments. Marbury, who did not receive his appointment letter, filed for a writ of mandamus against Madison. Marbury petitioned SCOTUS as a court of original jurisdiction to compel Madison to deliver the commission.
A writ of mandamus is a court order, usually from a higher court to a lower court, although it can be to an executive.
Questions: 1. Does Marbury have a right to the commission? Yes- he has a vested legal right. 2. Does Marbury have legal recourse? Yes, where there’s a legal right there’s a legal remedy. 3. Does the court have power to issue a writ of mandamus? No.
To make a decision the court looks to the Judiciary Act of 1789. That statute gives the court the authority to give the writ of mandamus. Justice Marshall finds this law to be unconstitutional, as it exceeds the limits of original jurisdiction as laid out in Article 3 of the Constitution. He states that if you’re going to allow congress to enact laws in opposition to the constitution, there might as well not be a constitution. Judicial review is established.
The ANALYSIS/RULING of the Court:
Can the writ be issued from “this court”?
Turning to Judiciary Act à if it places it with this Court, and Court is not authorized to issue writ, then the law is unconstitutional
The writ is filed with the SCOTUS under its ORIGINAL jurisdiction
Article III spells out the Court’s original jurisdiction and appellate jurisdiction
WofM only falls within appellate jurisdiction
BUT Judiciary Act of 1789 purports to give it original jurisdiction à contradictory
Can a law repugnant to the Constitution become the law of the land?
People acted to created Constitution
Both grant power and limits to gov’t à cannot separate
Branches cannot act beyond the power granted by the Constitution
If a statute is contrary to the Constitution, then void.
Court has the power to note this and decline to follow it
Here, not empowered to rule on Marbury’s claim for
Important Issues:
Marbury creates the authority for judicial review of executive actions. How does the Court justify judicial review of executive action and when is such judicial review available and when is it not?
Available – when duty assigned by law and individual rights depends on the performance of that duty so they must be able to seek a remedy in a court of law
Not Available – when the pres. Acts within his political powers or executive branch heads act as his agents when the pres. would have © or legal discretion.
The political process is the only check in this situation.
Marbury establishes that Art. III is the ceiling of federal court jurisdiction. Why does the Court find the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional? – the Court interprets it to authorize the Supreme Court to issue writs of mandamus on original jurisdiction. (This wasn’t necessary and perhaps not the correct interpretation – but the court wanted to get to the issue of judicial review.)
Marbury establishes the authority for judicial review of legislative acts. How does the Court justify judicial review of legislative acts?
The © is the supreme law of the law
If legislative acts contradict it, they are void
So… the court reserves the right to interpret the © and decide whether congressional laws contradict the ©
“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law it. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict w/ each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.”
“The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the ©.”
Looks to Judiciary Act of 1789- purports to say what type of cases supreme court has jurisdiction over.
Marshall says Jud. Act gives supreme ct power to issue writ of man. BUT this violates Article III (which sets out when s ct. has original jurisdiction, and app jurisdiction)
According to Marshall, congress cant expand jurisdiction. Article III is exhaustive.
Judiciary act expanded original jurisdiction- marshall said that violates the constitution and we don't have jurisdiction here, so we cant do what Marbury wants us to do.
When does the court get to decide whether a law is uncon?
Arguments
Statute is law and con is law. Judicial branch determines what the law is.
Cant overlook cons- According to Marshall, Con wins.
What is the whole point of the con? Foundational and paramount law of the land where we lay out and limit the powers of the govt branches.
Its in the nature of a written const., that its provisions count as supreme law such that no other law can trump constitutional law. If there’s any contradiction between const. and another law, other law falls based on nature of const.
Nature of the constitution as paramount law- it sets limits on govt branches.
Province and duty of the court to say what the law is
Oath to uphold constitution.
Cites to Article VI, section 2 (Supremacy clause). The particular phraseology of the constitution strengthens and confirms the principle bc it is mentioned first.
Jefferson gets the win- but he’s a critic of judicial review; he believes it makes it a despotic branch that contravenes the limits set out in the constitution. “judicial tyranny”
Jackson agrees.
Essentially, they are advocates of departmentalism, setting it up in against judicial review.
Before the civil war, only two federal laws were overturned (Marbury and Dred Scott). After the Civil War, that number went up, probably so that the federal government could assert itself during reconstruction.
Authority for Judicial Review of State Judgments – Marbury v. Madison only establish judicial review of FEDERAL executive and congressional actions. These cases below establish judicial review of state government.
Power of Court to tell States what they can do on fed law.
Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee (1816) – Story
Background: This is a title dispute in which there were two claimants for the property. Originally, Lord Fairfax left land in VA to his nephew, Martin, a British subject. Pursuant to state law that allowed VA to confiscate land owned by British subjects, VA granted the land to Hunter, who then brought an action of ejectment agains
e-segregation. In particular, the parents point to the failure of the IRS to deny tax-exempt status to racially-segregated private schools and allege that it caused injury to their children.
Issue: Whether the plaintiffs have standing to bring the suit? No.
Holding: It is always insufficient for standing purposes to simply allege that the government has acted outside of compliance with the law. Hence, the parents do not have standing to sue on the first ground of their complaint because they have not alleged a sufficiently personal injury.
Analysis
Plaintiffs allegations:
1. They are directly harmed by the IRS’s grant of tax exemptions to racially discriminatory schools and that the govt’s actions in that respect are unlawful.
No standing for only an allegation that govt is breaking the law. Not sufficient for conferring jurisdiction on a federal court.
No injury-in-factà Ct says there is no injury here.
Stigmatic claim because their children are being denied an integrated public school.
No injury-in-factà The injury isn’t personal. Ct say this can be an injury, but it’s only a basis for standing for people who are personally denied equal treatment. The parents in the class action here have not been personally injured.
There has to be a personal effect- not that you just don't like this effect. It has to be your kid.
Traceability/causation problemà Court also says there is a traceability problem- there is an indirect causation that results from third party.
Ct says white parents did this- not IRS.
Even if IRS denied the tax exemption status, the parents may still not put their kids in de-segregated schools.
Therefore, you cant say this is the IRS’ fault.
Notes
Constitutional standing requirements:
Injury-in-fact: most often litigated
Injury must be distinct, palpable, personal, and not abstract, conjectural, and hypothetical
Traceability (causation): have to be able to point at the person you are suing and say my injury is because of your action
Redressability: relief must be likely to follow from a favorable decision
Prudential Standing: self-imposed limits on the exercise of federal jurisdiction
No 3rd party claims- assert your own rights, not the rights of others
No general taxpayer standing, i.e., you don't have the right to challenge the govt’s use of funds just because you are a taxpayer.
Complaint has to be within zone of interest that the law the plaintiff is invoking is meant to protect.
The court has adopted these, but is not claiming that Art III protects these limits. It’s just better to not take cases like these. However, court might make an exception to these doctrines- but not to constitutional standing requirements.
