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;
35 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
judgment |
? |
|
|
holding |
? |
|
|
reasoning |
? |
|
|
judicial review v supremacy |
Supreme Court not the final say
Review decisions of legislature based on constitutionality |
|
|
commission |
formal, written authorization to perform various acts or duties |
|
|
original jurisdiction |
the jurisdiction granted a court to try a case in the first instance |
|
|
appellate jurisdiction |
jurisdiction granted to particular courts to hear appeals of the decisions of lower tribunals |
|
|
exclusive jurisdition |
jurisdiction granted only to a particular court to the exclusion of others
(Example: Federal Tax Courts) |
|
|
writ of mandamus |
issued by a court compelling the performance of an act
when there is a duty by law to perform the act, the plantiff has the clear right and no other adequate remedy available |
|
|
habeas corpus |
issued to a bring a prisoner/detainee before the court to ensure no unlawful imprisonment
to prevent unlawful imprisonment |
|
|
bill of attainder |
legislation that imposes any punishment without a trial |
|
|
advisory opinion |
nonbinding opinions of the court on issues without controversy
to answer questions not brought before the court |
|
|
declaratory judgment |
declaring a right,
establishing the legal status,
interpretation of law or instrument |
|
|
injunction |
compelling a party to do or refrain from doing a specified act |
|
|
ripe |
claim for relief that is ready for judicial resolution because the injury is certain to occur and is not merely hypothetical |
|
|
moot |
deprived of practical significance
plantiffs claims are settled outside of court (released from prison, let into school, settled lawsuit) |
|
|
racially restrictive covenant |
contractual agreements that prohibit the lease, purchase or occupation of a particular property by a particular group of people |
|
|
majority opinion |
an opinion in a case that is written by one judge and in which a majority of the judges on the court join |
|
|
concurring opinion |
an opinion by a judge who agrees with the result in the case but not necessarily with the reasoning |
|
|
dissenting opinion |
an opinion by a judge who disagrees with the result in a case |
|
|
plurality opinion |
an opinion with which the majority of the judges on the court concur in the result but not reasoning |
|
|
Reasoning for Ex Parte McCardle |
Congress provides Exceptions and Regulations of Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction
They can grant additional appellate jurisdiction. They can also take away this jurisdiction
SEPARATE from constitutional "original jurisdiction"
McCardle = NewspaperCivilWar |
|
|
Reasoning in US v Klein
Why Act Unconstitutional |
Act is unconstitutional since Congress already granted jurisdiction to the courts, but was now trying to dictate the means of trying those cases
separation of powers issues
Klein = Pardons |
|
|
Principles of Avoidance (Brandeis)
Ashwander v Tennessee Valley Authority |
No friendly, nonadversary proceedings
No anticipation of questions
Has to prove injury
|
|
|
Reasoning of Plaut v Spendthrift Farm |
Congress cannot tell courts to reopen cases retroactively
final judgments had already been made and cases closed prior to the new legislation
(Cases were Closed due to Statute of Limitations)
SEPARATION of POWERS. "independent judiciary" with "province and duty to say what law is" |
|
|
Constitutional Requirements for Standing
Justice O'Connor Reasoning |
1) Injury 2) Traceability 3) Redressability
separation of powers. need for final resort, paramount case or controversy. direct injury held |
|
|
Two Principles for Prudential Standing |
1) Prohibition of third party standing (first parties are best proponents of their rights, might be unnecessary if able-bodied unwilling to bring case) 2) Prohibition of Generalized Grievances (ultimately political issues) |
|
|
Dissenting Opinion's View in
Massachussets v EPA |
The redressability of the issue is up to Congress and the Executive on this particular issue
The court does not have standing, because that is not the appropriate means of recourse |
|
|
Where does Act of 1789 violate Constitution
In view of Justice Marshall |
Congress was trying to prescribe authority to Supreme Court that is not expressed in the Constitution
They cannot add to the Supreme Court's ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
Courts role to "REVIEW" legislation to catch these moments |
|
|
Approach to Hypothetical |
- Break down into different parties and issues
- Use IRAC for Each Issue
- For reasoning discuss how different factors and different relevant cases push in different directions
- Use the conclusion the Supreme Court would have reached on the issue |
|
|
IRAC |
Issue Rule Analysis on how to apply the rule (reasoning) Conclusion |
|
|
prima facie |
on first appearance, absent other information |
|
|
How to determine if case is non-justiciable as political question |
1) Textually demonstrable commitment of issue to a coordinate political department 2) Lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it 3) Impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion 4) Impossibility of a court's undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of respect due coordinate branches of government 5) An unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made 6) The potentiality of embarrassment from multifarous pronouncements by various departments on one question |
|
|
Reasoning in Powell v McCormack |
There is a "textually demonstrable commitment" to Congress from the Constitution Article 1 Section 5
Congress is varying from its Constitutional limitations. People have the right to determine their representatives |
|
|
Holding in Powell v McCormack |
Political Question Doctrine does not apply to this case
It does not bar courts hearing these claims |
