Con Law - Power Of Judiciary

Front 1

A. Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land

Back 1

Art. 6, s. 1
1. Role of the cts to say what the law means (Marbury)
2. States must follow the rules issued by fed cts even when they aren't a party to the suit (Cooper v. Aaron)
3. The S. Ct. says what the Constitution "is" and what it means for everyone (fed branches must follow it UNLESS Congress overrides the decision by enacting a new law/statute)
a. States can't amend their laws to "get around" what the S. Ct. says (Brown v. Board)

Front 2

B. Supreme Court has limited original jurisdiction

Back 2

Art. III & Marbury
1. Must have proper jurisdiction to hear a case (THRESHOLD QUESTION!!)
a. Is there a right?
b. Is there a remedy?
c. Can the S. Ct. issue the remedy?

Front 3

C. Appellate Review

Back 3

1. S. Ct. can review all state ct decisions (esp. if based on the Const., fed laws or treaties)
Rationale = app review necessary to ensure uniform interpretation of the laws
a. Martin v. Hunter's Lessee

Front 4

S. Ct. Org. Jdx

Back 4

Art. III, s. 2
Original Jdx over "Cases"
1. arising under the Const., fed laws & treaties
2. affecting ambassadors, other public ministers & consuls
3. admiralty and maritime jdx

Front 5

S. Ct. App. Jdx

Back 5

Art. III, s. 2
Appellate Jdx over ALL "Controversies"
1. when US is a party
2. between 2+ states
3. between a state & citizen of another state
4. between citizens of different states
5. between citizens of same state claiming lands under grants of different states
6. between a state or its citizens and foreign state, citizens, or subjects

Front 6

Textual Limits

Back 6

1. Congress has the power to create lower fed cts "tribunals inferior to S. Ct." (Art. I, s. 8)
2. Congress can enact regulations to change S. Ct.'s jdx granted by Const. (Art. III, s. 2 - "Exceptions Clause")
3. President has the authority (w/approval from Senate) to appoint judges of the S. Ct. (Art. II, s. 2)

Front 7

Congressional Limits - Jdx Stripping

Back 7

(Removes S. Ct.'s app jdx)
1. Congress can make exceptions to S. Ct.'s app jdx (McCardle)
2. When Congress makes an exception it must be clearly stated (Yerger)
3. App review of claims based on induv. const. protections cannot be stripped (implied in Yerger)
4. Congress cannot direct the results for a case by enacting legis. that would affect the outcome of PENDING cases; cannot enact statute telling the Ct to deny itself jdx to hear a case when Const. already granted jdx (Klein)
5. Congress cannot "act like a ct" and impose judgment when one has already been issued by a legit ct.

Front 8

Congressional Limits - Jdx Shifting

Back 8

1. Fed or tribunal ct created by Congress & separate from the regular federal cts
2. NEED AN ACT OF THE LEGIS TO CREATE A SPECIAL CT!
3. usu. housed w/in the Executive

Front 9

Schor Factors Test
(Jdx Shifting)

Back 9

1. Are the essential functions of the reg fed cts TAKEN AWAY?
a. do the fed cts still have app review?
b. is participation in the agency ct voluntary or mandatory?
c. what sort of procedural or evidentiary rules are applied in the agency ct?
2. Are the powers which ONLY reg fed cts should have, given away to the agency cts?
3. ORIGIN and IMPORTANCE of the right being shifted to the agency ct?
a. Const. (prob super-important) vs. Fed Statute (maybe could be shifted) vs. Common Law
b. is the right important enough that it SHOULDN'T be shifted to an irregular ct? (e.g., Habeas)
4. Congressional purpose?
a. keep fed cts out of the picture and certain sets of issues strictly between the executive or legislature?
b. or to make a more efficient regulatory scheme?

Front 10

Historical Non-Art. III Cts and rationale against them

Back 10

1. Territorial Cts (Art. 4, s. 3, c. 2)
2. Military Cts (Art. 1, s. 8, c. 12, 13, 14)
3. Adjunct Cts (Art. 1, s. 1
Tribunals inferior to S. Ct. (Art. 1, s. 8, c. 9)

Rationale:
1. Fed. 78/original/Framers' intent (separation of powers)
2. agency cts don't have to comply w/Art. III ct rules

Front 11

Baker Test
Political Question Doctrine
Prudential Limits (self-imposed)

Back 11

1. Const. grants power to a specif. political branch (e.g., war powers, immigration or foreign affairs)
2. Is the issue suited for judicial inquiry?
3. Is the issue of policy or law? (policy = in favor of political branches)
4. Concern about the local/domestic perception of the fed govt & acknowledgment that the judiciary relies on the voluntary compliance w/the law by the executive & legislature (answering the Q would show disrespect)
5. In certain "unusual" circumstances may have to deny the right to review a decision that was already made, for the overall good (e.g., national security and exigent circumstances)
6. If contradicting the executive or Congress would "embarrass" them (international perception)

Front 12

"Clues" something is a Political Question (orig. factors thrown out in Baker + 3 extra)

Back 12

1. Republican Form of Govt Clause (Art. IV, s. 4)
2. Foreign affairs
3. War (duration of hostilities; Art. I, s. 8)
4. Relations w/Indian tribes
5. Processes of ratifying Const. amendments
*Extras
*6. Congress' ability to regulate its internal processes (structure of govt)
*7. Instances where the fed ct cannot shape effective equitable relief
*8. Impeachment process

Front 13

Justiciability - Standing
1. Const. Req

Back 13

Standing = is it the right person, with the right case, in the right ct?
1. INJURY IN FACT
a. NOT speculative
b. Must be actual or imminent
c. Sufficiently direct, CONCRETE & PARTICULAR TO P
2. CAUSED BY DEFENDANT
a. Fairly or reasonably traceable to D's actions
b. Not incl an absent 3rd party w/o which D's act wouldn't have been enough to injure P
3. REMEDIABLE BY COURT
a. Court can give the P a remedy

Front 14

Justiciability - Standing
2. Prudential Limits

Back 14

1. Limited 3rd party standing
a. Don't want ct deciding issues (rights) unnecessarily
b. 3rd party might not want someone else asserting their rights on their behalf
c. 1st part usu best to assert their own rights
EXCEPTIONS:
*Is there a genuine & sufficient obstacle to the 1st party bringing the suit themselves?
*Is the 3rd party close enough to the 1st, that the issue can be fully litigated as if the 1st party had brought it?
2. Limited ass'n or org. standing
a. members must meet Const. standing req 1st
3. No taxpayer standing
4. No standing based on generalized grievances
a. can't bring an overly broad "universal" injury that isn't specific to the P
5. "Citizens' suits"
a. authorized by statute

Front 15

Justiciability - Ripeness
"Is it too early?"

Back 15

Const. Source = "Case and Controversy Clause" (Art. III, s. 2)
Balance between:
1. whether the matter is fit for judicial review (unfitness for justiciabilty?) and
2. Harm to P if the ct doesn't hear the case