Please analyze whether the following cases are justiciable.
(1) In 2002, the City of Jacksonville, Florida created a “minority set-aside” program which requires that a “15% bidding allowance” be granted to any “minority owned” business seeking participation in city public works projects. Jose’s Good Construction Company, which meets the requirements for classification as a “minority owned” business, has just been awarded a city contract for bridge repair work. The City awarded the contract to Jose’s over a competing bid by “WASPY Construction” even though Jose’s bid was nearly 10% higher. Analyze whether WASPY has standing to challenge the constitutionality of the set aside program in federal court.
Claim is denial of equal protection…key justiciability q is injury in light of causation and redressability reqments. If injury is loss of bid, P can’t show he would have gotten the bid but for D’s set aside, nor a substantial likelihood that ct order would redress his losses. But if the injury is denial of equal opportunity to bid – the injury is the loss of his right which is caused by the set aside and will cured by a court order enjoining the law (might also be an argument here that this is too speculative in that it is unclear whether P has concrete plans to bid on future contracts for city work…)
(2) Michigan recently passed a statute that requires all schools educate children in the English language only. The Society of Catholic Sisters School for Wayward Boys is a private school in Detroit, which provides a completely Spanish language curriculum. Please evaluate whether the School may challenge the Michigan statute on grounds that it violates the fundamental right of parents to raise and educate their children free from unjustified governmental interference.
School is meets core Article III reqments – injured in loss of program is caused directly by law forbidding Spanish language instruction, and court order will remedy this injury by striking down the law….but key Q is 3rd party standing issue: issue present here because School’s primary argument is that the law will violate the parent’s (3rd party) fundamental right to control education of children; P’s burden to show exception applies allowing P to rely on rights of the parents. 3 factors/ criteria: Relationship/ mutuality of interests, ability of 3rd party to litigate effectively/ obstacles – key fact here is that parent’s injury and interests are clearly tied into injuries to P
(3) Missouri law provides medical services to the poor through a program called “medicaid.” This law excludes medicaid benefits for any abortion found “not medically indicated” by a pre-selected panel of physicians. May Planned Parenthood Corporation, which owns and operates family planning clinics in Missouri that regularly provide services to the poor, challenge the constitutionality of this law? Could Dr. Jones, who performs abortion services at a Planned Parenthood clinic, challenge the law?
Again 3rd party standing…only real difference is relationship (md vs organization) women here may have obstacles in bringing the action effectively
(4) On January 1, 2002, Florida increased the minimum age for males to obtain a driver’s license to 18. Johnny, who turned 16 on January 2, 2002, brought a class action lawsuit in federal court seeking to enjoin application of the statute on grounds that it constitutes a denial of equal protection. Denied relief by the trial court, Johnny’s lawsuit has still not been decided on January 3, 2004, when he obtains his driver’s license. Should the court dismiss Johnny’s claims as non-justiciable?
Looks moot because P’s circumstances have changed eliminating his personal stake in the outcome …exceptions: capable of repetition is NA because P will himself never have the problem again but class action…
(5) In 1998, federal judge Hiram Wright was convicted of bribery. As a result, the United States Senate commenced impeachment proceedings aimed at removing Wright from the bench. A committee of sitting judges was called together by the Senate to review the grounds for impeachment. This committee, after a full investigation, then recommended that Wright be impeached. The full Senate, based solely on the committee’s findings, voted by a 2/3 majority to impeach Wright and remove him from the federal bench. Wright now challenges the constitutionality of his impeachment. He alleges that the process described above violated Article I, Sec. 2, Cl. 5 and Article I, Sec. 3, Cl. 6 & 7. Are Wright’s claims justiciable?
PQ analysis: divide q into two parts. 1 is senate bringing impeachment articles directly…not committed to political branches but rather explicit limit…not discretionary (house must originate)therefore not q committed to other political branches and standards for judicial resolution clear/ manageable
2. can senate try the impeachment based on committee recommendations? Texual commitment? senate has “sole” power to “try” (unread Nixon case) thus the text leaves it up to senate to decide how exactly to do this…(note important potential restriction since courts are checked by impeachment power…can panel of judge, ie the judiciary, serve in this capacity??)