Payneful Con Law Outline

Payneful Con Law Outline

Payne Con Law Outline

FEDERAL POWER GENERALLY:

In our federalist system, national and state gov’ts co-exist.

The three branches can only assert powers specifically granted by the C.

You must watch whether some power asserted by the fed’l gov’t is in fact allowed under the C, and watch whether some power asserted by the states is limited in favor of fed’l power.

Ask: “what is the enumerated power in the C that gives the fed’l branch the right to do what it has done?”

I. JUDICIAL REVIEW:

Definition: Doctrine that provide state and federal courts the power to invalidate Congress’s or Executive’s action that is contrary to the Constitution.

A) Article III, Sec. 2

Grants judicial power to the Supreme Court and inferior federal courts to say what the law is. However, “jurisdiction is made subject to exceptions and regulations as Congress from time to time shall make. “

a) Types of cases that can go directly to the Supreme Ct under Art. III, Sec 2:

1. Federal question – C, treaties, law of US. (not until 1871).

2. Diversity jurisdiction- dispute b/w citizens of diff’t states.

3. Admiralty cases

4.Cases b/w state/ citizens and foreign country/ citizen.

It’s the case, not the controversy that determines SC’s jurisdiction.

b) Review of Federal Action: Marbury v. Madison (1803) - Marshall
  1. Facts:
  2. Marbury was appointed and confirmed as a judge the day before the Adams administration came to a close
  3. The new administration refused to deliver the commission
  4. Marbury sued Secretary of State Madison directly in the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus.
  5. Theoretical underpinnings of the decision:
  6. Words in the Constitution must have an affirmative meaning
  7. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land
  8. Any act of Congress which conflicts with the Constitution is not a valid law:
  9. §13 of Judiciary Act of 1789 – “Sup. Ct. shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies of a civil nature…also have appellate jurisdiction from circuit courts…power to issue writs of mandamus” – is contrary to the Constitution.
  10. It is the job of the Supreme Court to state what the law is
  11. Based on the above presumptions, the Supreme Court may declare a law unconstitutional
  12. Holdings: § 13 of Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional.
  13. Marbury had a vested right in the commission
  14. Writ of Mandamus was a proper remedy for Marbury
  15. Because the act establishing the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction for this trial was unconstitutional, the above two points were moot as the Court could not decide the case

I: Does the Supreme Court have original jurisdiction to hear this case? NO. H:Marshall declines to enforce it, and therefore Marbury doesn’t fall w/in jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and he loses. Decision based on: (i) Written Constitution - can’t allow legislature to write laws that contradict the Constitutionn; (ii) Law w/ limits (checks/ balances, etc.); (iii) Principal supremacy of C over statutory law. C trumps statute!!!

Note: Doctrine of Judicial Review applies to executive action except when Executive has legal or constitutional discretion.

c) Review of State Action: Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee (1816) – Justice Story
  1. Facts: Treaties of 1783 & 1794 prohibited Virginia from seizing land owned by Great Britain. VA Court of Appeals held contrary to treaties. Supreme Court reversed. VA Court of Appeals refused to obey Supreme Ct – it claimed that Section 25 of Judiciary Act was unconstitutional.
  2. Section 25 of the Judicial Act of 1789 gave the Supreme Court the power to review the decisions by State Supreme Court when the decision:
  3. Invalidates a treaty or statute thereof of the United States
  4. Involves favoring of state law that was repugnant to the Constitution or federal law.
  5. Involves any clause in the Constitution, federal law, or national treaty and the decision violates that provision – applies to this case.
  6. Theoretical underpinnings of the decision:
  7. The Constitution creates a Supreme Court and gives Congress the discretion to create lower courts.
  8. Article III § 2 Clause 2: granted Supreme Ct original jurisdiction over cases involving ambassadors and diversity of citizenships. It also granted appellate jurisdiction over all other cases in Constitution.
  9. Supremacy Clause of Article VI establishes that US Constitution “shall be the supreme law of the land…shall bound anything in constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”
  10. Holding: Virginia could not ignore the Supreme Court’s decision.
  11. Appellate power of SC extends to cases pending in state court. Sec. 25 of FJA (1789)
  12. Rule: When the state courts decide federal c’l questions, the SC has appellate jurisdiction under Art. III, §2 over such decisions. It’s the final word!!!

Note: This case extended Supreme Court jurisdiction over the states and gave uniformity in the federal constitution interpretation. One law of the land. Otherwise, too many interpretation of the law will erode federal power and create problems.

Cohens v. Virginia: (1821) p. 29VA Lottery ticket law conflicts with fed law. Marshall held that state criminal cases like state civil cases came w/in appellate jurisdiction of Supreme court.

d)Mechanisms tobalance power of judicial review:

(1)Political question doctrine (Baker v. Carr) – based on three criteria.

(2)Exceptions and Regulations clause (Art. III, § 2) w/c gives Congress the power to take away jurisdiction that it thinks the court will exercise unwisely. (Ex parte McCardle).

(3)Standing – (Art. III) (Baker) power of fed’l courts extends to “cases and controversies.” This has also been read to mean that party presenting the case must have a legitimatestake in that issue.

(4)11th Amendment– suits b/w individuals and states. Cong adopts language that has been interpreted as a sovereign immunity doctrine (state’s autonomy).

a)Prohibits fed courts from hearing private party’s or foreign gov’s claim against a state government. Exceptions:

  1. Action against state officers; Actions that enjoin officer from future conduct; Action that violates Constitution or fed law
  2. State consents
  3. Congress removes the Immunity
  4. §5 of 14th allow congress to provide relief to violation of 14th.

(5)Mootness– doctrine originally used to decide a case has now become moot.

(6)Discretion (at appellate level) – SC doesn’t have to hear most cases (only those it chooses).

(7)Ripeness– is the country ready to deal w/ this issue?

B) LIMITATION ON JUDICIAL REVIEW:
The “Exceptions Clause” (Art. III §2)

–SC has appellate jurisdictions “under such regulations as Congress shall make.”

a) Ex Parte McCardle (1869) C. J. Chase:

  • Facts: McCardle (editor) was arrested for criticizing the military and appealed under Habeas Corpus Act of 1867.
  • Holding: Cong passes a statute repealing habeas corpus (SC can no longer hear writs of habeus corpus). Appeal denied.
  • Article III provided that “Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction…with such exceptions, and under such regulations as Congress shall make.”
  • RULE: Congress has the right to w/draw jurisdiction of SC in a case pending b/f it.

b) Ex parte Yerger: (1869)–case suggested limits on McCardle.

  • Facts: Yerger was being held for trial by military court and petitioned for writ of habeas corpus. Lower courts denied.
  • Holding: Supreme Court possess other means to free prisoner from unlawful confinement.
  • Argued that Congress had granted habeas corpus jurisdiction in several statutory provisions: acts of 1789, 1833, 1842 and 1867.

c) US v. Klein (1872) – (Overrules McCardle):

  • Facts: Cong adopts statute providing that rebels forfeit their property and Court of Claims adjudicate title to property confiscated. President Johnson pardoned rebels and promised to have their property back. Supreme Court required Court of Claims enforce the President’s promise. Congress passed another legislation directing court of Claims to deny pardoned rebel’s claims and withdrawing appellate jurisdiction by Supreme Court.
  • Holding. A statute that changes jurisdiction is unconstitutional.
  • Rule: Cong can’t adjust jurisdiction based on a preference for one side of case rather than the other side. This violates Article III. It must w/draw jurisdiction from a class of cases, not pick and choose case it wants to w/draw.

c) Felker v. Turpin (1996) –

  • Facts: Cong concerned it takes too long to execute prisoners, passes statute preventing multiple habeas corpus petitions (limiting to 1 petition). Congress affectively restricting Supreme Court’s jurisdiction. SC granted expedited review of claim by petitioner who was on death row and was previously denied habeas relieve by fed courts.
  • Holding: Statute did not preclude original jurisdiction in Supreme Court of extraordinary habeas petitions.
  • Statute unconstitutionally stripped fed courts of judicial review authority and interfered w/ prohibition on suspension of writ of habeas corpus (Art I § 9).

d)Exceptions Clause (Article III § 2 Clause 2)–examples of Congress trying to use exceptions Clause to limit jurisdiction:

  • School prayer–“SC shall not have jurisdiction to review…any case arising out of voluntary prayer, bible reading, religious meetings in public schools”–failed.
  • Abortion: limits fed court’s jurisdiction case arising from any state law regarding protection of rights of person b/w conception and birth; performance of abortions; or other assistance for performance of abortions.

II. JUSTICIABILITY:

(1) POLITICAL QUESTION: Non-justiciable.

Under this doctrine, the court will decline to hear a case on PQ grounds only if it would violate the doctrine of separation of powers, or if it would be an unwise policy decision.

a)Apportionment: Cases.
  • Colegrove v. Green (1946) – Frankfurter (plurality 3-1-3 opinion)
  • About re-apportionment claim. Guarantee Clause was used. Supreme Court held non-justiciable.
  • Baker v. Carr (1962) (good law today) – Brennan. Established “one person, one vote” principal. Important case b/c it defines what a political question involves.
  • Facts:
  • Population in cities of Tenn was higher and more concentrated compared to thinner population in farmland. One urban vote didn’t count as much as rural vote. ¶ sued under Equal Protection Clause b/c votes are not counting less.
  • District Court, following Frankfurter’s opinion in Colegrove, denied relief on grounds of political question.
  • Issue: Can federal court hear this case? YES. Apportionment is not a political question.
  • Theoretical underpinnings of the decision
  • Certain questions are beyond the scope of the court (Foreign relations; Dates of durations of hostilities; Validity of enactments) – political question.
  • Supreme Court did not follow Colegrove (since is a plurality opinion – avoided overruling it) b/c no Guarantee Clause was used here and Equal Protection is available in this case.
  • This case does not involve any branches of government coequal with the Court.
  • Holding: This is an Equal Protection case. Reapportionment is not a PQ and therefore is justiciable.
  • Dissent (Frankfurter): argued that this is Guaranty Clause case – guaranteed republican form of government (representative democracy) – Article IV § 4.
b)Six Elements of a PQ from Baker v. Carr:

Separation of Power:

(1)Textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political dep’t.

Nixon v. US: - (1993)

  • Facts: Judge Walter Nixon claims his impeachment was wrong b/c it was heard b/f Senate committee rather than full Senate.
  • The House of Representatives impeached Walter Nixon, a federal court judge, following his conviction and imprisonment for making false statements to a grand jury.
  • Part of the Senate delegated most of its duties to a committee which reported to the rest of the Senate.
  • Nixon brought suit on the grounds that the entire Senate should have taken part in his evidentiary hearing
  • The district court dismissed the case, ruling it a non-justiciable political question
  • Issue: Is the claim that Rule 11 violates the Impeachment Trial Clause “justiciable?” NO.
  • Holding: This is non-justiciable PQ b/c the Constitution has given Senate, not the courts, the sole power to try impeachment. (Art. I § 3 Clause 6- textual commitment strand of Baker v. Carr). Commitment to another branch = non-justiciable PQ.

(2)Lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it. (Choosing method of drawing voting per district non-judicial function)

Powell v. McCormack – (1969)

  • Facts: House refuses to seat Clayton Powell for alleged “improprieties.” Powell claims this is unconstitutional.
  • Issue: Can the SC hear this case? YES.
  • Holding: this is not a PQ! Manageable judicial standards are present in this case as indicated by Constitution language itself.
  • Article I § 5 – “each house shall be the Judge of the qualifications of its own members”
  • Court found that Powell met all these qualifications (expressed in Article I § 2–age, citizenship and residence).
  • Justice White (concurrence): Found different intentions of founders but same merits of the case.
  • Justice Souter (Concurrence): Court should give deference to other branches in matter such as this.

Prudential Standards:

(3)Impossibility of deciding w/out an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for non-judicial discretion. Court would need some direction from legislature about how to decide it.

(4)Impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution w/out expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of gov’t..

(5)An unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made. (don’t want to use case that decided on political question for precedent).

(6)Potentiality of embarrassment by various dept’s on one question.

(2) RIPENESS: A case isn’t ripe if it has not yet become sufficiently concrete to be easily adjudicated.

a) Specific Threatened Harm – litigant mustnot have already suffered a harm; it’s enough that the litigant has reasonableprobability of harm.

b) Goldwater v. Carter (1979): Justice Powell

  • Issue: Is a President’s unilateral termination of a treaty a PQ? YES.
  • Holding: Case dismissed b/c PQ issue.
  • Rule: A President’s power to unilaterally terminate a treaty is a PQ since:

(1)No Common law provision directly controls the issue (silence)

(2)Political branches have adequate resources to decide the issue, and

(3)Issue involves foreign affairs.

  • J. Powell –-> case isn’t ripe for decision-making b/c Senate had not yet formally challenged the President’s authority by getting enough votes in Senate to disagree w/ the President.
  • J. Rehnquist (concur): No textually commitment to this issue. Constitution doesn’t address if Senate has power/right to be involved in rescission of treaty. Court should stay out and let Senate & president fight it out.
  • J. Brennan (dissent): Case should be justiciable. Absence of textual commitment doesn’t bar decision to be rendered elsewhere.
(3) CASE OR CONTROVERSY: Article III, Sec. 2 – prohibits fed courts from giving advisory opinions in common law matters. Court can’t resolve an issue until it comes to the court bearing the hallmarks of actual controversy b/w two litigants. It’s not unusual for state courts to give advisory opinions to their legislatures.

Muskrat v. US (1911) –J. Day –Foundation for “standing” law.

  • Facts: Congress in 1902 set aside land for Cherokee Indians. Later in 1904-06, fed laws tried to enlarge # of Indians who could share property. Muskrat, whose claim derived from 1902 Act, brought suit b/c his property right was adversely affected.
  • Holding: Court says this is a case b/w one group of people and US policy. Too abstract. US itself has no actual interest in outcome. Requirement of actual controversy. This is a case-or-controversy only if it is b/w Muskrat and someone who has a claim of property.
  • Note: Court could have heard this case. There were advisory committees among the original 13 states. Decision involves a lot of discretion. This is a political question case.
(4) STANDING:P must have a significant stake in the controversy.

i) Test for Article III Standing:

(1)Actual or threaten injury – P must show he has been injured himself.

(2)Causation - Injury must be fairly traceable to acts of D.

(3)Redressability – Injury can be redressed by some judicial action.

iii) No third party standing allowed.

ii) Taxpayer Suits: Double Nexis Test:

1)Does it have something to do w/ taxing/ spending?

2)Is there a connection b/w Act and taxing/ spending?

(a) Frothingham v. Mellon (1923): J. Sutherland

  • Facts: Lady complains that fed grant program (Maternity Act) is unconstitutional. She objects as tax-payer, and claims standing to prevent wasting of her tax $.
  • Issue: Does P have standing? NO.
  • Holding: No individual concern, but a public one. Frothingham’s tax contribution to wealth of US is infinitesimal and she has no real injury. Therefore, no standing.
  • Notes: Rich person or organization that pays a lot of taxes. Allowing standing canbring floodgate of suits regarding taxes. No real injury b/c injury to their ideology, not really their property.

(b) Flask v. Cohen (1968): C. J. Warren–case only about standing, not merit of case.

  • Facts: Textbooks subsidized by fed’l gov’t to religious schools. ¶challenged the taxing and spending law (Art. I § 8) as violation of Establishment Clause of 1st Amendment (principle of separation of church and state as a taxpayer).
  • Holding: ¶ has standing (a definable stake in the outcome) b/c: Double Nexis Test is satisfied:

(1)He asserted his relationship as taxpayer to the act and that it’s something a taxpayer would be correctly concerned with, AND

(2)There was a specific common law limitation on Congress’s power to use taxation and spending (Article I).

  • Note: This is distinguishable from Frothingham b/c ¶ showed that there is a limit to Congress’s taxing and spending power rather than just challenging the law.

(c) Valley Forge Christian v. Am. for Separation of ChurchState: - 1982 – J. Rehnquist

  • Facts: ¶ claims that surplus land distributed by gov and given to religious college 100% subsidized violates 1st Amendment.
  • Holding: no standing. Fails the double nexis test:

(1)No personal injury to the organization.

(2)Under Flask, taxpayer can only assert rights against Cong’l acts, and this was done by an agency of gov’t. Gov grant was based on property power (Art. IV, § 3, clause 2) not taxing and spending clause.

(3)No remedy here against agency.

(d) Allen v. Wright (1984) – O’Conner

  • Facts: Nation-wide class action claim on behalf of black school children that the IRS is NOT enforcing fed law and regulations by allowing tax exempt status to private schools that discriminate based on race.
  • Holding: No standing.
  • Reasoning: Although class has a legitimate concern.

(1)Harm - stigma isn’t enough to fulfill harm requested;

(2)Causation – unsure how many disciplinary schools actually benefit from IRS exemption; only traceable to IRS; injury caused by privately motivated families engaging in “white flight”

(3)Injunctive relief, w/c is too broad. Even if remove tax exemption, private families would still engage in “white flight”