Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
31 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
PQD test
|
Baker
(1) Constitution has placed decision-making authority in an another branch. (2) Inadequate standards for the Court to apply (discretion), or (3) Prudent not to infere Factors: 1. need for finality, 2. intrusion into policy making 3. respect for other branches 4. inappropriate expertise 5. consistency (no embarrasement) |
|
|
Chevron test
|
(1) Congressional delegation to an agency
(2) Has Congress provided a clear law within the statute? Yes --> apply law No --> defer to agency interpretation (expertise) |
|
|
Article I balancing test
|
(1) extent of agency court's power
(2) type of right being adjudicated --> public right (A v. Govt): OK for agency court --> private right (A v. B, common law, statutory): 1. based on statute --> OK b/c Congres created it. 2. based on common law --> NOT OK; encroachment of Art. III (3) reason why Congress created agency court --> efficiency, cost |
|
|
Standing
(Const. + Prudential concerns) |
(1) injury
1. concrete, not speculative Lujan, Havens Realty 2. actual or imminent Adarand (future harm OK) 3. particularized, not generalized (2) czation Warth (consequence of economics) (3) redressability Warth (no proof overturning zoning law would redress injury of would-be residents) Adarand (type of relief sought affects redressability: damages v. injunction) Prudential concerns: Third-party standing Associational standing |
|
|
Third-party standing
Associational standing Generalized grievances |
No Third-party standing
Exception: Special relationship b/t holder of legal right and the plaintiff where the plaintiff is being forced to act as a vehicle for denying the legal rights of the right holder (doctor abortion case) Associational standing (1) One member of the association has standing (2) interests of the association are germane to the association's purpose (3) requested relief does not require the individual members to be before the court --damages specific to individuals will require them to be before the court. --injunctions usually OK for association Generalized grievances 1. can be rectified through the political process 2. person with particularized injury from generalized grievance may still sue Lujan (citizen-suit provision allowing anyone to sue too generalized) |
|
|
Ex parte Young
|
(1) must sue an individual officer (the officer, acting illegally, is stripped of his official immunity)
(2) must seek only prospective relief (Edelman) (3) must be a federal violation, not state (Pennhurst) (4) must not impinge State sovereignty in a significant way (Coeur d’ Alene, quiet title hurting sovereign interest) (5) the statute being sued under cannot include a “detailed remedial scheme” (Seminole) |
|
|
Lopez test
|
1. Congress can regulate the instrumentalities of interstate commerce (the wheels)
2. Congress can regulate the channels of interstate commerce (the things) 3. Congress can regulate the activities that substantially affect interstate commerce (1) Does the statute affect economic activity? (Gonzales) If Yes, is there a rational basis to show that the aggregate has a substantial effect on I/C? If No, (1) Is the statute part of a broader regulatory scheme that requires the regulation of intrastate commerce? (2) Does it include a jurisdictional element? (making it a channel) (3) Are there any findings that suggest some sort of connection to I/C that the Court cannot see? (Morrison: Findings not enough) Gonzales: -economocs=distribution, production, consumption, -regulation of a noneconomic activity is constitutional if it is part of a broader regulatory scheme. |
|
|
Conditional spending test
|
South Dakota:
(1) The condition must promote “the general welfare.” (2) The condition must be clear on its face. (Theme: Political safeguards of federalism.) (3) The condition should relate to the spending grant. (4) The condition must not infringe on another constitutional provision. |
|
|
Preemption
|
Express Preemption
Implid Preemption (must still be expressed) 1. Field Preemption (Burbank) 2. Conflict Preemption a. Physical impossibility b. Impairment of fed objectives (Hines) Presumption against Preemption |
|
|
DCC analysis
|
1. Is the statute a nondiscriminatory, evenhanded application? (Exxon)
a. Does the statute discriminate against the commerce coming from out-of-state? i. No --> Nondiscriminatory b. Does the statute discriminate against ALL out-of-state participants? i. Yes --> Discriminatory 2. If Nondiscriminatory --> deferential analysis a. Burden on I/C must “clearly exceed legitimate state interest” and not just tend to favor local. i. Cloverleaf (not exceeding in relation to burden; plastics still brought into state for other purposes ii. Severe impact (Bibb) or burden on national uniformity (South Pacific Co.) may tip scale against statute. 3. If Discriminatory (Dean Milk) --> strict scrutiny a. Was there a less discriminatory way of protecting the state interest? i. Yes --> Voided b. If no sufficient non-discriminatory way to protect interest. --> OK (Maine) |
|
|
1. B/L
|
(Youngstown majority, Morrison dissent, Chadha majority, Plaut majority, Schor dissent)
|
|
|
2. Balance
|
(Youngstown concurrence, Plaut concurrence, Schor majority, Chadha concurrence, dissent)
|
|
|
3. Judicial Review
|
Marbury, Cooper
|
|
|
4. PQD
|
Baker, Chevron
|
|
|
5. Jdx stripping
|
McCardle
|
|
|
6. Control over Substantive Law
|
Klein, Seattle Audubon
|
|
|
7. Control over Original Jdx
|
Schor
|
|
|
8. Control over Final Jments
|
Plaut
|
|
|
9. Standing
|
Lujan, Warth, Adarand, Haven's Realty
|
|
|
10. Eleventh Amendment + Exceptions
|
Hans
Ex parte Young Wavier (Fitzpatrick) Abrogation (Seminole) |
|
|
11. Separation of Powers
|
Formalism (Youngstown—Black, Plaut—Scalia),
Functionalism (Youngstown—Jackson, Historical Gloss: Youngstown—Frankfurter) |
|
|
12. NDD
|
Schehter, Yakus
|
|
|
13. Leg. Veto
|
Chadha
|
|
|
14. Appointments Clause
|
Morrison
|
|
|
15. War Power
|
WPR
|
|
|
16. I/C
|
Lopez, Gonzales
|
|
|
17. Tenth Amendment / Anti-Commandeering
|
Garcia, New York, Printz, Alden, Testa
|
|
|
18. Taxing and Spending
|
Sonzinsky, South Dakota
|
|
|
19. Preemption
|
Gibbons, Burbank, Hines
|
|
|
20. DCC
|
Exxon, Cloverleaf, Bibb, Southern Pacific, Dean Milk, Maine
|
|
|
21. Subsidies
|
New Energy, West Lynn
|
