Select Page

Constitutional Law II
Valparaiso University School of Law
Levinson, Rosalie Berger

I.            Separation of Fed Powers: LIMITS ON FED’L JUDICIARY POWER
            A.            Justiciability Doctrines (Limits)
                        1.            Overview:
a.            Who: Standing – the determination of whether a specific person is the proper party to bring a matter to the ct for adjudication
                                    b.            When:            Ripeness/Mootness
                                    c.            What:            Political Questions
                        2.            Standing (who can bring a lawsuit?):
                                    a.            3 C’l Standing Requir (under Art III)
                                                i.            P must allege actual or imminent injury
A.            Lyons: Can’t get injunctive relief if you don’t have high probability of being injured again (P couldn’t show Cops would again put him in a choke hold)
B.            Lujan: Injury must have DIRECT, PARTICULARIZED harm (Ps couldn’t get injunctive relief for overseas endangered animals.)
C.            Akins: since fed election law created a rt to info, standing allowed b/c of gov’t made rt.
                                                ii.            P must allege injury is fairly traceable (causation)
to D’s conduct
A.            Duke Pwr: Standing allowed b/c but for the law, Pwr Plant wldn’t be there causing injury.
iii.                  P must allege decision can redress injury
A.            Linad R: no redress b/c going for dad to pay child support won’t guarantee payment à dad cld simply go to jail
B.            Simon: Ct said challenge to IRS law “purely speculative” b/c to change law won’t guarantee relief.
b.                  2 Prud’l Standing Requir
i.                     Prohibition of 3d Pty Standing: Party must assert own rts, not those of 3d Party
A.            Reason: 3d Pty shld raise own rts and ct doesn’t want unnec adjudication of C’l claims
B.            Exceptions to Rule:
i.            Is there a close rltn’p b/w P/D and 3d Pty?
a.            Singleton: If rltnp makes rts intertwined and P will be thus a good proponent of 3d Pty’s rts, then its ok.
b.            Newdow: Pledge of Allegiance. Dad didn’t have standing b/c mom is legal guardian
c.            Boren: Bartender’s rltn’p close enough to customers to have 3d standing
ii.            AND, Are there obstacles for the 3d pty to bring own lawsuit? (more imp)
a.            Boren: Bartender cld bring claim for males b/c most have reached legal age b/4 litigation and can’t bring it themselves.
ii.                   Generalized Grievances: P can’t sue as a taxpayer challenging gov’t spending or as a citizen alleging gov’t non-compliance w/ C (a non-personal rt), UNLESS:
a.       The taxpayer is challenging CONGRESSIONAL spen

s of fed ct proceedings (trial and appellate) to not be moot. If events subsequent to the filing of the case resolve the dispute, it b/cms moot
ii.            EXCEPTIONS to Mootness:
            a.            Collateral Consequences
i.            Crim’l cases: a challenge to a crim’l conviction is not moot, even if D served sentence, if collateral issues remain such as being unable to vote in some states or get occupational licenses.
ii.            Civil cases: a case is not moot, even if P’s primary injury is resolved, so long as the P continues to suffer some harm that a favorable ct decision wld remedy
                                                            b.            Wrongs capable of repetition yet evading review (most imp)
i.            this occurs when an injury occurs and is over so quickly that it will always be moot b/4 the fed ct litigation process is complete (Roe v. Wade: P pregnant at filing, but not when ct adjudicated claim)
ii.            2 Requirments:
1.         the injury must be of a type likely to happen to the P again (there m/b a reasonable chance injury will happen again to the named P)