Part One: constitutional and Statutory Limits on Fed Jur

I. Standing

A. Introduction

1. Values served by limiting standing

  • Promotes separation of powers by restricting the availability of judicial review
  • Judicial efficiency by preventing a flood of lawsuits by ideological stakeholder
  • Improves judicial decision-making by ensuring that there is a specific controversy before the court and that there is a specific controversy before the court and that there is an advocate with a sufficient personal concern to effectively litigate the matter

2. Requirements for Standing

  • π must allege that he suffered an injury or imminently will suffer an injury
  • π must allege that the injury is fairly traceable to the ∆’s conduct
  • πmust allege that a favorable federal court decision is likely to redress the injury
  • Three Prudential Standing Requirements
  • Party may generally assert only his own rights and cannot raise the claims of third parties not before the court
  • Πmay not sue as a TP who shares a grievance in common with other TPs
  • Party must raise a claim within the zone of interests protected by the statute in question

B. Injury

  • GR: π must allege that he suffered an injury or imminently will suffer an injury

1. Requirement for a personally suffered injury

  • Sierra Club – No Standing, special interest in conservation and maintenance of park not enough, since there was no allegation that members had ever used park area
  • SCAP – Standing, Aesthetic and environmental injuries are sufficient for standing so long as π claims to suffer the harm personally
  • Lujan v NWF – No Standing, π not entitled to standing unless they could demonstrate that they used specific federal land that was being mined under the new federal regs
  • Hays – Depends, Only individuals residing within a district suffer an injury from how the lines for that district are drawn, πresiding in racially gerrymandered district has standing, πresiding outside does not
  • Friends of Earth – Standing, environmental πs adequately allege injury in fact when they aver that they use the affected area and are persons “for whom the aesthetic and recreational values of the area will be lessened” by the challenged activity

2. Application of Requirement for personally suffered injury

  • City of LA v LYONS – πseeking injunctive or declaratory relief must show a likelihood of future harm; though a suit for damages could have been brought
  • Lujan v Def of Wildlife – No standing, πs could not show a sufficient likelihood that they would be injured in the future by a destruction of the endangered species abroad

3. What injuries are sufficient

  • Common law, constitutional, Statutory

(a). Injuries to common law rights

  • TN Electric v TVA – No standing, unless right invaded is a legal right such as property, K, tortious invasion

(b). Injuries to constitutional rights

  • Person who claims discrimination or a violation of an individual liberty will have standing
  • Laird – Chilling of rights due to surveillance of domestic groups is not an adequate substitute for a claim of specific present objective harm
  • Beware of generalized grievances - Schlesinger

(c). Injuries to statutory rights – citizen suit provisions

  • Lujan v Def of Wildlife – No, Congress could not create standing by creating a provision in the Act that allowed any person to commence a civil suit to enjoin a violation
  • Friends of Earth – Yes, π’s had met the injury requirement b/c they had alleged that they used the area for recreational purposes and b/c the citizen-suit provision authorized litigation

(d). Other injuries sufficient for standing

  • SCRAP – Yes, aesthetic or environmental harm is sufficient to constitute an injury
  • Lujan – Yes, desire to use or observe an animal species, even for purely aesthetic purposes is a cognizable interest

C. Causation and Redressability

1. Key Cases concerning causation and redressability

  • ‘fairly traceable to the ∆’s allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief”

(a) LINDA RS – lack of redressability

  • Even an injunction commanding state prosecutions would not ensure that the π’s woulc receive any additional child support money

(b) WARTH – lack of redressability

  • Even though there was injury, π’s could not show that appropriate housing would be constructed w/o exclusionary zoning ordinances, may not be able to afford housing or builders may choose not to build

(c). SIMON – lack of causation and redressability

  • Purely speculative that IRS RR was responsible for denial of medical services and complaint suggests no substantial likelihood that victory in this suit would result in respondents’ receiving the hospital treatment they desire

(d). DUKE POWER – causation and redressability met

  • Since construction of a nuclear reactor in the π’s area subjected them to many injuries, including exposure to radiation, but for the Act there would be no reactor

(e). ALLEN – Lack of causation

  • From perspective of the IRS the injury is highly indirect and results from the independent action of some third party not before the court

D. Limitation on Third Party Standing

  • GR: π can only assert injuries that he suffered and cannot present the claims of 3rd parties who are not part of the suit
  • Exceptions x 3
  • N: Still must meet the Injury, Causation, Redressability requirements

1. Exception: Where the Third Party is unlikely to be able to sue

  • IF there are substantial barriers to the 3rd party asserting his own rights and if there is reason to believe that the advocate will effectively represent the interests of the 3rd party
  • Eisenstadt -

2. Exception: Close relationship between π and third party

  • Singleton – doctors challenged laws limiting patients rights to abortion, court considered doctor’s closeness with patient and intimate involvement with abortion decision
  • Craig – Vendors asserts rights of their customers; male underage law
  • S; Each suffered an economic loss

3. Exception: The overbreadth doctrine

  • Appears limited to 1stA cases, reflects a fear that an overbroad law will chill protected speech

E. Prohibition against generalized grievances

  • IF π alleges a violation of no specific constitutional right, but instead claims an interest only as a taxpayer or a citizen in having the gov’t follow the law, standing is not allowed

1. Sequence of Decisions: Four sets of cases

  • Frothingham – no standing b/c interests in treasury money was comparatively minute and indeterminable
  • Ex parte Levitt – π challenging SCOTUS appointment had no standing since he had a mere general interest in common to all members of public
  • BUT, Flast – Taxpayer standing to challenge federal subsidies to parochial schools as violating the 1stA prohibition against establishment of religion
  • TP Standing requirements
  • Logical link between TP status and type of legislation enactment attacked
  • Nexus between TP status and precise nature of the constitutional infringement alleged
  • S: Need to show constitutional violation and not mere exceeding scope of powers
  • Schelsinger – TP failed to allege violation of specific constitutional right, injury was interest in having government follow the law, not enough
  • Valley Forge – TP sued only with interest in gov’t following the law in challenging an agency transferring property to religious group

2. Generalized grievance as a constitutional bar

  • Lujan – generalized grievance claimed and Congress cannot by statute authorize standing in such an instance
  • Citizen suits – Lujan suggests that these provisions in statutes are unconstitutional except in instances where π can otherwise demonstrate an injury sufficient for standing
  • BUT See, FEC v Akins – Congress by statute can create rights that would not otherwise exist and the alleged violation of those rights is sufficient for standing, even under broad citizen suit provision and even where the injury is widely shared in society
  • Denial of right was concrete injury

F. Requirement that the π be within the Zone of Interests protected by statute

1. Creation of the requirement

  • Applies when a person is challenging an administrative agency regulation that does not directly control a person’s actions
  • Πcan sue if he can show that he is within the group intended to benefit from the statute, provided constitutional requirements met
  • Data Processing – π must allege that the interest sought to be protected by the complainant is arguably within the zone of interests to be protected or regulated by the statute or constitutional guarantee in question

G. Special Standing Problems: Organizations, government entities

1. Organizational Standing

  • Sierra Club – Standing to sue only if members would be affected in a tangible way by the challenged action
  • Hunt – three part test; association has standing for its members when
  • 1. Its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right
  • 2. The interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization’s purpose AND
  • 3. Neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation in the lawsuit of the individual members

2. Suits by government entities

  • Wy v Ok – WY had standing to sue OK when OK passed a law requiring OK utilities to buy OK coal, WY had direct injury – loss of tax revenue

3. No such suits against the federal government

H. Related Doctrines – Mootness

1. Wrongs capable of repetition yet evading review – Two requirements

(a). Injury must be the type likely to happen to the π again

(b). Injury must be the type of injury inherently of limited duration so that it is likely to always become moot before federal court litigation is completed

2. Exception: Voluntary cessation

  • Friends of Earth - ∆’s voluntary cessation not enough, must be absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to reoccur

3. Statutory Change

  • Mesquite – City’s repeal of the objectionable language would not preclude it from reenacting precisely the same provision

4. Exception: Class Actions

II. Limits on Federal Court Jurisdiction – Federal Question

A. Meaning of “arising under” federal law for purposes of Article III

1. Osborn v Bank of US

  • GR: Under the Constitution, a case arises under federal law whenever federal law form an ingredient of the original cause
  • Even though other questions of fact or law may be involved
  • H: Since the Bank of the US was created by federal law, any action brought by it arose under federal law

2. Protective Jurisdiction – Lincoln Mills

  • Congress may authorize federal court jurisdiction where it believes that federal court availability is necessary to protect important federal interests
  • S: Broad definition of arising under adopted in Osborn means that most matters will fit within the scope of Article III’s authorization for jurisdiction

B. Meaning of “arising under” federal law for purposes of the federal question jurisdiction statute

1. Principles for determining if a case arises under federal law

  • 28 USC § 1331 provides that the district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the US
  • R: §1331 has much narrower meaning than Art III
  • GR: A case arises under federal law if it is apparent from the face of the complaint either that the π’s cause of action was created by federal law OR if the π’s cause of action is based on state law, a federal law that creates a cause of action or that reflects an important national interest is an essential component of the π’s claim

III. Federal Common Law

A. Introduction

  • Fed C/L – legally binding federal law by the federal courts in the absence of directly controlling constitutional or statutory provisions

B. The Development of Federal Common Law to Protect Federal Interests

1. Introduction – Two part test

  • Court considers whether the matter justifies creating federal law
  • IF federal law is to be developed, the Court decides its content

2. Federal C/L to protect federal proprietary interests in suits involving the US or its officers

  • Clearfield Trust – Federal courts may develop federal common law to protect the proprietary interests of the US
  • Little Lake Misere – State law may not be used to abrogate federal government Ks that acquire land for public uses; Two step inquiry used
  • Matter was one that should be governed by federal law; federal interests needed to be protected
  • Federal C/L principles should not be borrowed from state law when specific state provisions run counter to federal law
  • Yazell – State law applied to prevent recovery by US Small Business Administration on a loan it had issued, not a nation wide act of the gov’t but a specific tailor made action
  • FDIC – State law applies when FDIC sues in the shoes of an insolvent S/L

3. Federal C/L to protect federal interests in suits between private parties

(a). Refusal to create federal C/L

  • Don’t apply Fed C/L unless applying state law frustrates federal interests
  • BoA v Parnell – state law should be used to decide the ability of private parties to recover for conversion of a bond issued by the US, presence of federal commercial interests not sufficient to create federal C/L
  • Wallis v Pan Am Petro – State law should be applied unless there is a significant conflict between some federal policy/interest and use of state law
  • Gap in statutory structure alone, not enough
  • Miree – strong federal interest in aviation safety not enough
  • McVeigh – use state law to determine issues concerning the obligations for the insured to reimburse insurance company out of tort recoveries

(b) Federal C/L in cases involving private parties

  • Boyle – Federal C/L should determine the liability of a contractor providing military equipment to the federal gov’t
  • I: Whether a contractor should be liable under state tort law for injuries cause by design defects in products supplied to the military
  • H: There is a uniquely federal interest in obtaining equipment for the military and that the application of state tort law would impair this federal activity
  • R: Contractor is not liable where the US approved precise specifications for the equipment, the equipment met those specifications, and the supplier warned the US about dangers in the use of the equipment known to the supplier but not the US

C. Development of Federal C/L to effectuate Congressional Intent

1. Introduction

  • SC creates Federal C/L when it believes it necessary to effectuate the intent behind a federal statute

2. Congressional authorization for federal courts to create a body of C/L Rules

  • Lincoln Mills – Court upheld federal jurisdiction on the ground that Congress intended for the federal courts to develop a body of C/L; statute gave federal jurisdiction w/o any substantive federal provisions

3. Private rights of Action

  • When federal courts may create private COA to enforce federal laws that do not contain them

(a). Reluctance to create private rights of action

  • In some instances, the court has created COAs in the absence of express statutory authorization
  • COA for violation of constitutional rights
  • Court has inferred a COA for money damages against federal officers from:
  • 4thA – Bivens
  • 5thA – Davis v Passman
  • 8thA - Carlson v Green

(b). Statues w/o private rights of action

  • Canon/JI Case – Court will create COAs under federal statutes where it is necessary to effectuate Congress’s intent

(c). Approaches in creating private rights of action

  • JI Case – Court would create private COA where it would help effectuate the purpose for a statute and if no legislative history mitigated against authorizing such a remedy
  • Cort v Ash – four part test
  • Is the πone of the class for whose benefit the statute was enacted
  • Indication of legislative intent either to create/deny such a remedy
  • Consistent with the underlying purposes of the legislative scheme to imply such a remedy for the π
  • Is the COA traditionally relegated to state law, in an area of concern for state, so that a inferred federal COA is inappropriate
  • Canon – used four part test to find private COA for Title IX violation
  • Touche Ross – must have affirmative evidence of Congress’s intent to create a private right of action
  • Alexander v Sandoval – No private right of action to enforce Title VI regs
  • H: Scalia writes that for a private right of action to exist there must be rights creating language in the statute;
  • The only right created in Title VI is the right to sue for discriminatory purpose - no language for disparate impact;
  • “Courts cannot conjure up causes of action that have not been authorized by Congress”; “congress makes the law” and federal agencies cannot expand the rights given by a statute

PART TWO: FED COURT RELIEF AGAINST GOV’TS AND OFFICERS

IV. Fed Court Relief Local Gov’ts & S/L Gov’t Officials – 42 USC §1983

A. Introduction

  • P: Function of federal courts is to provide relief against governments and government officers for their violations of the Constitution and laws of the US
  • §1983 – basis of most suits in federal courts against local gov’ts and state and local gov’t officers to redress violations of federal law
  • §1983 creates a COA against any person who, acting under color of state law, abridges rights created by the Constitution and laws of the US

1. Jurisdiction

  • §1983 does not create jurisdiction, only state a COA
  • Jurisdiction is under §1331

2. Rooker-Feldman Doctrine – No Appellate Review of State Decisions

  • Federal courts do not have jurisdiction pursuant to §1983 to review the judgments and decisions of state courts

B. Historical Background of §1983 Litigation

  • §1983 was meant to give broad remedy for violations of federally protected civil rights; alters the relationship between the states and FG

C. The Meaning of “Under Color of State Law”

1. Monroe v Pape – What is a state action

  • I: Whether the actions of city police officers could be deemed to have occurred under color of law b/c the conduct clearly was not authorized by the government
  • H: Actions taken by an officer in his official capacity are deemed under color of law even if they are not in pursuance of any official state policy and even if they violate the law
  • S: Government officer acts under color of law for all actions taken as an official that violate the Constitution and the laws of the US

2. “Under Color of Law” satisfied if there is a State Action

  • The two are one and the same

3. Problems in defining “under color of law”

  • WEST – Public EE acts under color of state law while acting in his official capacity or while exercising his responsibility pursuant to state law

4. Public EEs with independent duties to clients

  • Doctors are acting under color of state law in Estelle and West
  • Public defenders employed by the state to represent indigent ∆s are not
  • Polk County v Dodson

D. Exhaustion of State Remedies in NOT required for §1983 litigation