Constitutional Law Final Exam Outline – Barron – Spring 2011

FEDERAL JUDICIAL POWER  Judicial Review

  1. Judicial Review
  2. Doctrine stating that the courts have the power to invalidate governmental action which is repugnant to the Constitution because “it is emphatically the province and the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is”
  3. General Information on Judicial Review
  4. Constitution  Silent on Judicial Review
  5. State and Federal courts have explicit power to review and invalidate actions of both the executive and legislative branches (Marbury, Cooper)
  6. Judicial Review applies to Executive Action
  7. Courts may call executive officers to answer for their actions and review those actions as to their constitutionality (Marbury, US v. Nixon)
  8. ***NOTE***
  9. Judicial discretion is precluded when the Executive possesses legal or constitutional discretion, but not when suit involves non-discretionary duties
  10. SCOTUS also has appellate jurisdiction to oversee constitutional issues decided by state court because there is a need for uniformity (Martin v. Hunter Lessee)
  11. MARBURY v. MADISON (1803)
  12. Facts
  13. Jefferson took over the presidency from John Adams but in a last ditch effort Adam’s presidency sought to appoint Federalist members to Justice of the Peace and Government Positions.
  14. Some of those appointments were not delivered including Marbury’s and he passed suit against Madison (Jefferson’s Secretary of State) for the commission.
  15. Marshall J. Opinion
  16. Marbury has a right to the commission because Congress passed a law creating the office, gave him a term, it’s not revocable, it was signed by the President, and sealed by the Secretary of State
  17. It would be improper to withhold the commission
  18. Granting Marbury relief would be a violation of the Constitution because it would require the Court to exercise original jurisdiction in an area not granted
  19. SCOTUS has power over non-discretionary decisions (duties imposed by Congress), but not over matters that require executive discretion (political matters).
  20. Only judges can determine constitutionality (Found in 3 Provisions)
  21. Article III § 2
  22. Extends judicial power to all cases in law and equity arising under the Constitution
  23. Supremacy Clause
  24. Supreme Law shall be the law of the Constitution and that is superior to the laws of the Federal Government
  25. Oath Clause
  26. Decision establishes Congress’ power to limit jurisdiction, but it also establishes the power of the Court to invalidate laws that they find unconstitutional
  27. Creation of the Doctrine of Judicial Review
  28. It is the responsibility of the SCOTUS and the Federal Courts to set aside actions of government that do NOT conform to the language of the Constitution
  29. Paradox of Marbury
  30. Marshall says that there must be authority for legislation in the text of the Constitution, but there is NO textual authority for judicial review in the Constitution
  31. MARTIN v. HUNTER’S LESSEE (1816)
  32. Facts
  33. U.S. confiscated English land in America while the American Revolution took place and Hunter (US) got land of Martin (English)
  34. After a peace treaty was signed America agreed to return lands they had taken
  35. Martin tried to take back his land, but Hunter refused
  36. Virginia Court of Appeals
  37. The land belongs to Hunter who had title to the land
  38. Supreme Court
  39. Treaty took precedent and the land should be passed over to Martin
  40. Virginia Court of Appeals
  41. Refusal to recognize Supreme Court decision because Article III only gave SCOTUS jurisdiction over the lower Federal Courts (District Level) and thus the Court of Appeals did not fall under SCOTUS’ jurisdiction
  42. Judiciary Act of 1789
  43. Provision giving SCOTUS appellate jurisdiction over decisions from District Courts
  44. Compact Theory of the Constitution
  45. States created the Constitution, hence they are superior to it and only have to abide to it if they consent
  46. Holding
  47. SCOTUS has appellate jurisdiction over the state appellate courts as well as Federal Appellate Courts
  48. Story J. Opinion
  49. Article VI, Cl. 2“The Constitution shall be the Supreme Law of the land, and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby” (Lower court judges bound by the constitution)
  50. Article III, § 2 “The judicial power shall extend to ALL cases in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the U.S. and Treatises made, or which shall be made, under their Authority”
  51. SCOTUS includes all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution
  52. If VA was to say SCOTUS did not have jurisdiction over them, then they could not hear any Federal Question arguments
  53. It is the case and not the court that gives the jurisdiction
  54. The Constitution states that the judicial power in the US should be vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as Congress may ordain and establish
  55. Since lower Federal Courts are optional, if SCOTUS did not have appellate jurisdiction over state courts then they would not have appellate jurisdiction over anything
  56. Johnson J. Concurring
  57. The Court is supreme over persons and cases in terms of judicial power, but isn’t deciding on the matter of asserting compulsory control over state tribunals (Prophetic)
  58. COHENS v. VIRGINIA (1821)
  59. Facts
  60. People arrested for selling DC lottery tickets in VA when the state did not allow lotteries.
  61. People appealed their conviction to SCOTUS
  62. Issue
  63. Does SCOTUS have appellate jurisdiction over criminal appeals coming from the State Supreme Courts
  64. VA Argues
  65. Article 3, § 2, Cl. 2“And those in which a state shall be a party, SCOTUS shall have original jurisdiction”
  66. Original jurisdiction precludes exercise of appellate jurisdiction
  67. Marshall J. Decision
  68. Expansive View
  69. Court has appellate jurisdiction over anything arising under the Constitution regardless of who the parties are
  70. To achieve purpose of constitution, criminal appeals must be within SCOTUS appellate jurisdiction
  71. Under Article III the appeals to State Supreme Courts also fall in line with the appellate jurisdiction of SCOTUS
  72. COOPER v. AARON (1958)
  73. Facts
  74. Arkansas Governor tried to fight integration of schools arguing that states can nullify Federal Constitutional commands if they intrude too much on state sovereignty
  75. Issue
  76. Does SCOTUS have power to bind State Governments (not just state courts)
  77. Holding
  78. Constitution applies to governors
  79. The legislature and governor CANNOT nullify the Constitution
  80. State and Federal Officials take an oath to uphold the Constitution and it is the arena of the court to determine whether something is Constitutional
  81. State officials CANNOT refuse to implement a plan the court has said its constitutional
  82. Techniques for Constitutional Interpretation
  83. Originalism (Intentionalism) – Bork, Perry
  84. Try to figure out what the people that wrote the Constitution meant by what they wrote
  85. Start with the Constitutional text, but take it based on the history
  86. Then shape it so that it’s relevant today in settling Constitutional issues
  87. Problem
  88. Broader than textualism, but possible multiple views from the same theory
  89. Textualism – Scalia, Thomas
  90. Text is the only subject of inquiry
  91. Although the language may be ambiguous, the text gives us something concrete to hold on to
  92. Problem
  93. Words can change their meaning
  94. Interpretivism – Ely
  95. Courts can interpret the Constitution when the result can be fairlyimplied or derived from its language
  96. Uses the Constitution as an anchor AND to provide some structure
  97. Non-Interpretivism– Grey
  98. When we have complex words found in the Constitution we should be open to conceding
  99. Fundamental issues in our society are protected by vague phrases and we should concede that SCOTUS relies on norms and other sources
  100. Neutral Principles – Frankfurter
  101. The courts should interpret the Constitution in completedetachment
  102. Look for the most neutral principles
  103. Judges should be free from any kind of result oriented jurisprudence
  104. Passive Virtues – Judicial Restraint
  105. Even when courts have power to act they should be reluctant to do so
  106. Legitimacy on the judiciary depends on its restraint
  107. It’s better for a complex problem to be solved by the Executive and Legislature working together, than the Judiciary itself
  108. Participatory Values
  109. When there is a dispute of law, it is best to combine the view of the Judges with that of the Legislature

FEDERAL JUDICIAL POWER  Limitations on Judicial Review

  1. Limitations on Judicial Review
  2. Types
  3. Textual  Exceptions Clause (Congress can limit jurisdiction)
  4. Constitutional Limitations
  5. Case or Controversy
  6. Standing
  7. Mootness
  8. Ripeness
  9. Judicial Limitations
  10. Political Question Doctrine
  11. TEXTUAL LIMITATIONS - Congressional Control of Federal Court’s Jurisdiction
  12. Exceptions Clause
  13. Gives Congress power to LIMIT the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
  14. EX PARTY MCCARDLE (1869)
  15. Facts
  16. McCardle was arrested for disturbing the peace, inciting insurrection, and impeding reconstruction, due to a story he published in his newspaper after the Civil War
  17. He sought the Writ of Habeas Corpus requiring the detaining authority to explain the legal basis for the detention
  18. In the middle of the case Congress exercised the ability to control SCOTUS appellate jurisdiction and repealed law giving SCOTUS appellate review of Habeas Corpus over “Reconstruction Program”
  19. Article III, § 2 “With such exceptions... as the Congress shall make
  20. Issue
  21. Can Congress take away appellate jurisdiction of SCOTUS in the middle of a case?
  22. Chase J. Decision
  23. SCOTUS does NOT have jurisdiction because Congress has the right to take away the Court’s power
  24. However, SCOTUS does have Habeas Corpus jurisdiction pursuant to other Congressional statutes that they have not repealed
  25. This case does NOT stand for the proposition that an entire area of jurisdiction can be taken away because that would interfere with divisions of power between branches too much
  26. Since SCOTUS has other Habeas rights the Congress’ decision to take away Habeas Corpus within the purposes of Reconstruction Statutes is ok
  27. Commentary
  28. McCardle’s Principle
  29. You can have minor withdrawals of appellate jurisdiction by Congress, but NO major severe contractions that would violate Separation of Power
  30. Frankfurter  Congress may withdraw appellate jurisdiction at any time
  31. Bork McCardle is enigmatic
  32. It is odd that the framers would have couched the general power to control the court in the language of exceptions and regulations
  33. EX PARTE YERGER (1869)
  34. SCOTUS explicitly pointed out that it had Habeas Corpus power under other provisions and could hear the case
  35. U.S. v. KLEINS (1872)
  36. Facts
  37. President Johnson offered pardons to confederates who took an oath of loyalty and they were able to get their land back.
  38. Congress passed a law stating that evidence of existence of a pardon could NOT be used in court proceedings to get land back and taking pardon established guilt
  39. The statute also stated that SCOTUS did not have appellate jurisdiction to hear the case
  40. Holding
  41. SCOTUS struck down the statute
  42. Congress can deprive SCOTUS of jurisdiction, but they CANNOT dictate the result of a case or action, or the effect of a pardon (they CANNOT tell the Court how to decide a case)
  43. Difference from McCardle
  44. In this case Congress is trying to usurp the power of both branches, telling SCOTUS how to rule and undermining presidential pardon power
  45. ***NOTE***
  46. Can’t take McCardle too literally (McCardleYerger together)
  47. Congress can limit jurisdiction, but they can’t destroy it
  48. Congress can make modest contractions in the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, but they cannot make major contractions
  49. It would be in violation of the Separation of Powers
  50. ***NOTE***
  51. Barron thinks that if Congress tried this today, the court would strike it down as a violation of Separation of Powers
  52. CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS
  53. Case or Controversy Requirement
  54. Case or Controversy Requirement
  55. Federal Judicial Power granted in Article III is limited to certain defined “cases or controversies” requiring that a case be in “adversary form” that is capable of judicial resolution and that resolution does NOT violate separation of powers
  56. Need present or possible ADVERSE parties throughout the entire litigation
  57. MUSKRAT v. UNITED STATES (1911)
  58. Facts
  59. Congress sets aside land for one group of Cherokee Indians, but then gave the same land to some other Indian Group
  60. What Congress did was adjudicate land to a greater group by adding others to the land given to the first group
  61. Congress then enacted a law providing that Cherokees who objected to the second land conveyance could bring a lawsuit against the U.S.
  62. Holding
  63. SCOTUS dismissed the case for lack of standing due to no case or controversy
  64. For a true “case or controversy” you need the existence of present or possible ADVERSE parties whose contention is brought to the court for adjudication
  65. The U.S. had no interest in the suit and was just trying to get an advisory opinion on the constitutional validity of the law
  66. To bring a successful suit the Cherokees would have to bring a suit of ejectment against someone “in their land”
  67. The real party to this suit would be a member of the second group which was given the land after the Cherokees
  68. Standing
  69. First and Most important Justiciability Requirement
  70. Two types of Standing
  71. Case or Controversy Standing
  72. Prudential Standing (After 3 Requirements have been met)
  73. Even though a case meets the constitutional requirements of standing, the court feels that it’s inappropriate to grant standing as a matter of judicial discretion
  74. Three requirements for Standing
  75. Injury in Fact
  76. Π must allege and prove that he has been or will be imminently injured
  77. If seeking injunctive or declaratory relief Π must show the likelihood of future harm
  78. Causation Requirement
  79. The injury must be traceable to the challenged acts of the Δ
  80. In other words, the injury was caused by the entity you are suing “But For”
  81. Redressability Requirement
  82. The court must be in a position to redress the Π’s injury by providing some form of relief
  83. NO Third Party Standing Allowed
  84. Π cannot bring claims of others
  85. Exceptions (Π must meet all other Standing Requirements)
  86. Close relationship between Π and injured Third Party (i.e. Doctor-Patient)
  87. Injured Party unlikely to be able to assert his/her own rights
  88. NO Generalized Grievances Allowed
  89. Π must NOT be suing solely as a citizen or taxpayer objecting to government not following the law or using taxpayer money inappropriately AND NO standing if challenging spending from general executive revenue
  90. Exception
  91. Taxpayer CAN challenge government expenditure of money pursuant to Federal Statute as violating the Establishment Clause (Only giving money, but NOTproperty)
  92. MASSACHUSETTS v. MELON & FRONTINGHAM v. MELON (1923)
  93. Facts
  94. Maternity Act protects moms & infants, and states must comply to get money
  95. Both the State of Massachusetts and Frontingham (Mass Citizen) sue the Secretary of State Melon
  96. Massachusetts
  97. Claim that they are affected by the legislature and interferes with the reserved rights of the state under the 10thAmendment
  98. 10th Amendment“The powers not delegated to the U.S. by the Constitution, NOT PROHIBITED BY IT TO THE STATES, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”
  99. Frontigham
  100. A rich citizen of Massachusetts argues that she is directly affected because she is a Federal Taxpayer which argues that the Maternity Act increases her tax burden without her consent
  101. Issue
  102. Should Federal Taxpayers have standing? (As individuals or State)
  103. Sutherland J. Decision
  104. Both cases are DISMISSED for lack of standing
  105. A state CANNOT bring suit on behalf of its citizens, it is no part of its duty or power to enforce its citizens rights in respect to their relations with the federal government
  106. A party who invokes a suit must be able to show not only that the statute is invalid, but that he hassustained or is immediatelyindangerofsustaining some direct injury
  107. A party CANNOT simply show that he suffers in some indefinite way in common with general people
  108. When it comes to the Federal Level a tax payer will NOT have standing simply based on the fact that they are paying taxes
  109. There are millions of other tax payers and thus the amount they contribute to the Federal Budget is very small
  110. If this was allowed a single person could tie down the Federal Government by seeking injunctive relief
  111. Massachusetts consented to the bill by taking money from it and therefore they can’t complain about exercise of Federal Spending Power
  112. The grievances here are political questions and thus non-justiciable
  113. Commentary
  114. It is not clear whether the impediment to Federal Taxpayer Standing is based in Article III or is Prudential
  115. May be Prudential because there is no “direct” injury and the only injury happens in some indefinite way in common with people generally
  116. Tax Payers CAN have standing if they can show direct pocketbook injury, that something harmed them specifically
  117. Injury and Causation
  118. Injury in Fact“An invasion of a legally-protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized (b) actual or imminent, no conjectural or hypothetical”
  119. DOREMUS v. BOARD OF EDUCATION
  120. Facts
  121. Two plaintiffs (state and municipal tax payers) challenged a NJ statute requiring certain portions of the Old Testament to be read at the beginning of a school day
  122. Holding
  123. SCOTUS DISMISSED the case since the claimants did not have standing
  124. Reading portions of the Old Testament did NOT cause an “injury in fact” sufficient to give them standing
  125. Standing will meet “case or controversy” requirement ONLY when it is a good faith pocket book action (direct dollars and cents injury)
  126. In this case reading the Bible did not affect the taxes of the Π
  127. Association Standing
  128. Associations can have standing EVEN if the association has not suffered injury as a whole IF
  129. One or more members would have standing independently
  130. Interests at stake are related to the issues that the organization deals with
  131. Claim or relief is NOT dependant on member participation
  132. As long as individual participation is NOT required in order for the suit to go forward
  133. SIMON v. EASTERN KENTUCY WELFARE RIGHTS ORG
  134. Facts
  135. IRS amended a tax-exemption rule to state that non-profit Hospitals could have non-profit status if they only gave outpatient services (emergency treatment) to indigents for free
  136. Eastern Kentucky challenged on grounds that the IRS is encouraging hospitals to deny services to the Π and the members of Π organizations
  137. Hospitals are not being generous enough, so they should not be able to receive favorable tax treatments
  138. Holding
  139. Indigents and Organization have NO standing
  140. Where injury at the hands of hospital by denial of services is alleged, it is insufficient to establish a case or controversy where NO hospital is a Δ
  141. Causal Connection
  142. The indigents’ injuries were being caused by the hospital NOT the IRS, thus the injuries were caused by a third party not present in court
  143. Redressability
  144. Organization CANNOT be sure that if the Court rules for them, then their clients will be takenc are of
  145. The hospital could deny to give them inpatient care due to lack of resources
  146. Brennan J.