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;
23 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
- 3rd side (hint)
|
RIPENESS
|
Readiness of a case for litigation;
"a claim is not ripe for adjudication if it rests upon contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all." |
If a law of ambiguous quality has been enacted but never applied, a case challenging that law lacks the ripeness necessary for a decision.
Ripeness represents the other side of the coin of standing, and deals with whether the defendant in a case has gone so far in his/her abusive behavior that the court has a right to hear the case. The goal is to prevent premature adjudication; if a dispute is insufficiently developed, any potential injury or stake is too speculative to warrant judicial action. Ripeness issues most usually arise when a plaintiff seeks anticipatory relief, such as an injunction. When drafting his complaint, a plaintiff may be able to avoid dismissal on ripeness grounds by requesting alternative relief in the form of a declaratory judgment, which in many states and jurisdictions allows a court to declare the rights of parties under the facts as proven without actually ordering that anything be done. TWO PART TEST 1- Evaluate the fitness of the issues for judicial decision and 2 - the hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration |
|
|
MOOTNESS
|
A matter is moot if further legal proceedings with regard to it can have no effect, or events have placed it beyond the reach of the law. Thereby the matter has been deprived of practical significance or rendered purely academic.
|
Three Exceptions to MOOTNESS
1 - Voluntary Cessation 2 - Capable of repetition, yet evading review 3 - Class Action Representatives |
|
|
MOOTNESS EXCEPTIONS
|
1 - Voluntary Cessation
2 - Capable of repetition, yet evading review 3 - Class Action Representatives |
1 - Defendant voluntary ceases action in question but is in a position to start again
2 - Acts that are capable of being repeated but have such a short life that review may be impossible. Roe V Wade - refused right to abortion but had birthed before issue resolved 3 - Where a member representating the class has removed himself from the proceeding. Case can go on to advance the objectives of class |
|
|
DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE
|
A restriction prohibiting a state from passing legislation that improperly burdens or discriminates against interstate commerce. The restriction is self-executing and applies even in the absence of a conflicting federal statute.
|
AKA - Negative Commerce Clause
Inferred from the Commerce Clause in Article I of the United States Constitution. The Commerce Clause expressly grants Congress the power to regulate commerce "among the several states." The idea behind the Dormant Commerce Clause is that this grant of power implies a negative converse |
|
|
STANDING
|
The ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case
APPROACH 1. Injury in Fact 2. Causation 3. Redressability |
a person cannot bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the plaintiff is (or will imminently be) harmed by the law.
There are three standing requirements: 1. Injury: The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury—an invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized. The injury must be actual or imminent, distinct and palpable, not abstract. This injury could be economic as well as non-economic. 2. Causation: There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, so that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and not the result of the independent action of some third party who is not before the court.[15] 3. Redressability: It must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that a favorable court decision will redress the injury |
|
|
PRUDENTIAL LIMITATIONS ON STANDING
|
1 - Prohibition of 3rd party standing
2 - Prohibition of Generalize Grievances 3 - Zone of Interest Test |
Prohibition of Third Party Standing: A party may only assert his or her own rights and cannot raise the claims of a third party who is not before the court; exceptions exist where the third party has interchangeable economic interests with the injured party, or a person unprotected by a particular law sues to challenge the oversweeping of the law into the rights of others. For example, a party suing over a law prohibiting certain types of visual material, may sue because the 1st Amendment rights of theirs, and others engaged in similar displays, might be damaged.
Additionally, third parties who don't have standing may be able to sue under the next friend doctrine if the third party is an infant, mentally handicapped, or not a party to a contract. One example of a statutory exception to the prohibition of third party standing exists in the qui tam provision of the Civil False Claims Act. Prohibition of Generalized Grievances: A plaintiff cannot sue if the injury is widely shared in an undifferentiated way with many people. For example, the general rule is that there is no federal taxpayer standing, as complaints about the spending of federal funds are too remote from the process of acquiring them. Such grievances are ordinarily more appropriately addressed in the representative branches. Zone of Interest Test: There are in fact two tests used by the United States Supreme Court for the Zone of Interest |
|
|
Standing
ZONE OF INTEREST TEST |
Two Prong
1 - Zone of Injury - The injury is the kind of injury that Congress expected might be addressed under the statute. 2 - Zone of Interests - The party is arguably within the zone of interest protected by the statute or constitutional provision |
|
|
|
Privileges and Immunities Clause
|
The Privileges and Immunities Clause (U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1, also known as the Comity Clause) prevents a state from treating citizens of other states in a discriminatory manner. The text of the clause reads:
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. |
|
|
|
The Jackson Test
|
Executive Power
1. MAXIMUM - Express or Implied by congress 2. ZONE OF TWILIGHT - Absence of either congressional grant or denial of authority. Can act on own independent powers. Congress is silent on issue 3. Low Ebb - Act incompatible with express of implied will of congress |
Established from Jackson's concurrence in the Steel Seizure Case
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer |
|
|
PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS
|
PDP aims to protect individuals from the coercive power of government by ensuring that adjudication processes under valid laws are fair and impartial (e.g., the right to sufficient notice, the right to an impartial arbiter, the right to give testimony and admit relevant evidence at hearings, etc.)
APPROACH 1. Adequate Notice 2. Hearing 3. Impartial Arbiter |
In order to deprive on of LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY one must go through the legal PROCESS that ensures FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS (Equal Protection in inherently implied)
|
|
|
SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS
|
14TH AMMENDMENT PROTECTION
Protection of unenumerated rights that can be classified under LIFE, LIBERTY, AND PROPERTY APPROACH Judical Review: 1. Strict Scrutiny: Compelling/Narrowly Tailored - (Fundamental Right or Suspect Class) 2. Intermediate Scrutiny: - Important/Substantially Related - (Quasi- Suspect Class) 3. Rational Basis: Rational/Generally Related - (No Class) |
SDP aims to protect individuals against majoritarian policy enactments which exceed the limits of governmental authority—that is, courts find the majority's enactment is not law, and cannot be enforced as such, regardless of how fair the process of enforcement actually is
|
|
|
PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES
|
Article 4 of Constitution (Comity Clause)
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. 14th Amendment No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.... |
Comity Clause - prevents a state from treating citizens of other states in a discriminatory manner.
14th Amendment - prevents a state from denying the privileges and immunities of citizens of the US. |
|
|
DUE PROCESS
|
Due process is the legal requirement that the state must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person.
APPROACH When one is deprived of Life, Liberty, or Property 1. Procedural Due Process - Notice, Hearing, and Fair Arbiter 2. Substantive Due Process - Judicial Review: Strict, Intermediate, Ration Scrutiny |
Due process balances the power of law of the land and protects individual persons from it. When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law, this constitutes a due-process violation, which offends against the RULE OF LAW.
|
|
|
TAKINGS CLAUSE
|
5TH AMMENDMENT
" . . . nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" APPROACH 1. Private Property 2. Public Use/Purpose 3. Just Compensation 4. Due Process: Procedural and Substantive |
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation
|
|
|
FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE
|
1ST Amendment right to freely exercise religion
|
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
|
|
|
Levels of
JUDICIAL REVIEW |
Part of Substantive Due Process
1. Strict Scrutiny 2. Intermediate Scrutiny 3. Rational Basis Test |
|
|
|
STRICT SCRUTINY
|
Most rigorous level of Judicial Review used when dealing w/SUSPECT CLASS or infringement of FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT in Due Process issues
2 Prong Test - It must be shown that the law or policy being challenged is: 1. NARROWLY TAILORED and 2. LEAST RESTRICTIVE means to further a COMPELLING governmental interest. APPROACH 1. Fundamental Right 2. Suspect Class 3. Narrowly Tailored and Least Restrictive 4. Compelling Gov't Interest May need to discuss DUE PROCESS and/or Equal Protection |
The practical result of this legal doctrine is that government sponsored discrimination on the account of a citizen's race, skin color, ethnic, religion or national origin is almost always unconstitutional, unless it is a compelling, narrowly tailored and temporary piece of legislation dealing with national security, defense, or affirmative action
|
|
|
INTERMEDIATE SCRUTINY
|
Middle level of Judicial Review
2 Prong Test - It must be shown that the law or policy being challenged: 1. furthers an IMPORTANT government interest, 2. in a way that is SUBSTANTIALLY RELATED to that interest APPROACH 1. Quasi-Suspect Class 2. Important Gov't Interest 3. Substantially Related May require discussion of Due Process and Equal Protection |
Quasi-Suspect Classes
- Gender - Marital Status at Birth |
|
|
RATIONAL BASIS
|
Least rigorous level of judicial review
2 Prong Approach that demonstrated legislation is 1. Rationally related to 2. a GENERAL gov't purpose APPROACH 1. No Suspect or Quasi Suspect Class 2. Rational Relationship 3. General gov't purpose May require discussion of Due Process and EPC |
This leads to wide political discretion and a focus of judicial resources to other cases where the classification employed tends to be more suspicious, and thus close judicial balancing is needed.
|
|
|
SUSPECT CLASS
|
Subjects one to STRICT SCRUTINY
RACE, NATIONAL ORIGIN, RELIGION, OR Alienage (State law only for alienage) The SC analyzes any government action that discriminates against these classes under strict scrutiny. |
The group has historically been discriminated against, and/or have been subject to prejudice, hostility, and/or stigma, perhaps due, at least in part, to stereotypes.[1]
They possess an immutable[2] and/or highly visible trait. They are powerless[2] to protect themselves via the political process. (The group is a "discrete" and "insular" minority.[3]) The group's distinguishing characteristic does not inhibit it from contributing meaningfully to society |
|
|
QUASI - SUSPECT CLASS
|
Classification that subjects one to INTERMEDIATE SCRUTINY
Gender, marital status of parents at birth |
|
|
|
COMMERCE CLAUSE TEST
NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp |
Close and substantial relation to interstate commerce
|
Chief Justice Evan Hughes wrote for the majority
"Although activities may be intrastate in character when separately considered, if they have such a close and substantial relation to interstate commerce that their control is essential or appropriate to protect that commerce from burdens and obstructions, Congress cannot be denied the power to exercise that control." |
|
|
Justiciability
|
Ability of the courts to hear a case
1. Standing - actual or threatened injury 2. Cases and Controversies 3. Ripeness - maturation of harm 4. Mootness - still in existence |
|
