Conlaw Intro

Front 1

Key Components to Marbury v. Madison

Back 1

Distinctions made between the rights of the individual (and therefore governmental duties) and where the executive has discretion to act
Article III authorizes maximum jurisdiction for supreme court and the federal courts cannot hear cases outside of that
Establishes judicial review of legislative and executive actions(generally) and declares a provision of a federal law unconstitutional (both state and federal levels)
Constitution does not authorize the Judiciary to do so

Front 2

Cohens v. Virginia

Back 2

Criminal defendants could seek S.C. Review when they claimed the conviction violated the Constitution

Front 3

Martin v Hunter's Lessee 1816

Back 3

The supreme court has the power to review state court decision. The case itself focused on the ability of a British citizen to own land in the US after the Virginia Court of Appeals declared the S.C. did not have jurisdiction to review.

Front 4

Justicability Requirements

Back 4

"Standing- Most important
Ripeness- may the federal court grant pre-enforcement review of a statute or regulation (usually have to violate to challenge it)

Mootness- Events after a lawsuit end the π’s injury, it will be dismissed

Political Question Doctrine"

Front 5

Requirements for standing

Back 5

"Plaintiff must allege and prove that he/she has or imminently will be injured( must be a personal injury)

A plaintiff that is looking for injunctive relief must show a liklihood of future harm

Causation and addressability (∆ caused the injury, and the court can remedy it)

No third party standing is allowed (unless there is a close relationship between the two, such as an abortion doctor standing up for his client’s right, or if the injured third party is unable to assert his own rights)

No generalized grievances are allowed (The plaintiff cannot sue solely as a citizen or as a tax payer interested in the government.)"

Front 6

Advisory Opinions

Back 6

SC cannot do these. There has to be a favorable ruling that addresses a problem for the plaintiff.

Front 7

Only generalized grievance allowed

Back 7

To challenge government expenditures as violating the establishment clause with direct spending (cannot challenge grants of property however)

Front 8

Ripeness

Back 8

"Distinguished by looking for declaratory review
1)hardship that the plaintiff will suffer without pre-enforcement review
2) Is the time right, and any reason for waiting for an actual violation?"

Front 9

Mootness Exceptions

Back 9

"(Pregnancy cases are the exception because it will end during, but if it is capable of being repeated often will be reviewed)

∆ voluntarily stops behavior, but is free to resume at any time, will not be dismissed

Class action suit- if the named plaintiff’s injury is moot, but at least one person is still being injured"

Front 10

Political Questions

Back 10

"Cases under the Republican form of government clause (Art. IV)
Challenges to President’s foreign policy
Challenges to the impeachment and removal process
Challenges to partisan gerrymandering (politcal party redraws election districts)"

Front 11

Two Factor Test for Ripeness

Back 11

fitness of the issues for judicial decision

hardship to the parties of witholding consideration by the court

Front 12

statutes that are yet to come into effect

Back 12

if a statute is inevitable in its potential effects, but is not IN EFFECT as of the date it is challenged, the court doesnt have to wait until the implementation (Regional rail 1974)

Front 13

Voluntary cessation and mootness

Back 13

a ∆’s voluntary cessation of a challenge practice does not deprive a federal court of its power to determine the legality of the practice... there has to be compelling assurance that the behavior cannot occur again

Front 14

Taxpayer standing

Back 14

generally no standing to sue, unless it is enacted under taxing and spending power AND there is some exceeding of a psecific limitation on a power (court has only allowed suit on the establishment clause to date)

Front 15

What case established Political Q?

Back 15

Baker... considered by the court because it isnt between two branches of federal government, but rather between federal government and the states

Front 16

3 components to Political Q

Back 16

Does the issue involve resolution of questions committed by the text of the constitution to a coordinant branch of government?

Would resolution demand the court move beyond areas of judicial expertise?

Do prudential considerations counsel against judicial intervention?

Front 17

Article III Jurisdiction

Back 17

a. Original Jurisdiction- Art III, cannot be enlarged or diminished by Congress, Marbury v. Madison

b. Appellate Jurisdiction- Congressional Power- Sup Ct’s appellate jurisdiction is vested by Art III subject to congressional exceptions. Congressional power may be subject to limitations arising from separation of powers principles and constitutional rights and liberties.

c. Discretionary Review- Sup Ct review of lower decisions almost entirely matter of discretion.

Front 18

3 levels of scrutiny when reviewing law to determine constitutionality

Back 18

i. Rational Basis Test- law has to rationally related to legit gov interest to be constitutional
ii. Intermediate Scrutiny- law must be substantially related to important gov interest
iii. Strict Scrutiny- law must be necessary to achieve compelling gov interests

Front 19

Exceptions and Regulations Clause

Back 19

Congress can create exceptions to the Jurisdiction granted by the Constitution, however Congress has granted more than one basis for jurisdiction it may repeal one of those bases.

i. Congress has power to remove all matters from supreme courts appellate purview
ii. Congress limited in ability to control sup ct jurisdiction exceptions “only modifies facts not law”
iii. Congress power limit sup ct jurisdiction but cannot be used in manner in violation of constitution.

Front 20

Removal of jurisdiction by Congress

Back 20

b. Congress may alter law by removing jurisdiction or creating new law, however may not direct court to rule in certain way under existing law on matter before the court or make executive power null and void