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;
39 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Marbury v. Madison |
Pres. Adams signed judicial commissions on the eve of leaving office. New Pres. Jefferson instructed his secretary of state Madison to withhold the commissions Issue: Can SCOTUS issue writ of mandamus to compel Jefferson/Madison to give commissions No OJ because Constitution prescribes OG to SCOTUS for very specific kinds of cases. Thus - Section 13 of Judiciary Act of 1789 is VOID because it provides OJ not spelled out in the Constitution. Quotes Federalist #78, which assumes judicial review (Constitution imposes limits on Legislature, for example, and Court must be there to enforce those limits.) Marshall says it's inherent to judicial role to decide constitutionality of the laws it applies . Power to "decide cases arising under the Constitution" gives Court the implied power to declare laws unconstitutional conflicting with our nation's legal charter No one is above the law - this question OJ. In dicta, Marshall says that Marbury is entitled to what he wants BUT the court cannot give it to him |
|
|
Cooper v. Aaron |
Arkansas refused to enforce desegregation of schools b/c they claimed it would lead to violence Federal judiciary is "supreme" in exposition of the constitution and it's laws. Legislators/executives must follow judicial decrees. Other gov. officials must look to COURT'S interpretation of Constitution. Allows SCOTUS to determine constitutionality of STATE actions in addition to FEDERAL LAW Technically goes beyond Marbury because it says that SCOTUS is ultimate guardians of the Constitution |
|
|
McCulloch v. Maryland |
Maryland wanted to tax US Bank Defines scope of federal legislative power (broad) and relationship that power has to state government authority (narrow) Can Congress make the bank under N&P clause - yes? Can MD tax it under Supremacy Clause - no?
|
|
|
"Case and Controversy" |
Art III Sec. II |
|
|
Jefferson & SCOTUS |
Jefferson asked SCOTUS about legality of actions, SCOTUS responded that it cannot answer such questions because it didn't come to the court in the form of a case/controversy POTUS can ask heads of departments for legal opinions |
|
|
Clapper v. Amnesty International |
Plaintiffs challenged FISA - allowed surveillance on non-US persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States. Lawyers, journalists, etc. sued because they thought their conversations with these individuals would be recorded. Holding - No standing Couldn't show certainly impending harm, future injury does not suffice, costs incurred not "traceable" to FISA. Court not sympathetic to "self-inflicted wound" of costs for measures taken to guard against FISA. Plaintiff's arguments based on "speculative assumptions." Distinguished from Monsanto case because that had concrete/direct evidence. Requirements for Standing: Harm 1. Harm to a legally protected interest that is 2. Concrete and particularized AND 3. Actual or imminent Causation 1. Harm traceable to challenged action(s) of D Redress 1. Favorable decision must fix, solve, or make up for the harm caused Breyer says we should use common sense when applying test, not the 2nd Circuit's "objectively reasonable" standard |
|
|
Mass v. EPA |
MA sues EPA to force it to regulate the Clean air act and regulate car emissions of greenhouse gasses Issue - does MA have standing to sue EPA to force them to enforce emissions standards on automobiles. MA's arguments FOR standing 1. Harm - in its capacity as landowner, MA is losing coastal land by rising sea levels caused by global warming 2. Cause - Global warming results in rising sea levels 3. If EPA makes changes to come into compliance with statute, global warming will slow Holding - MA did have standing. Gave a broad reading to Art. III and standing in general, the climate change risks are widely shared but that doesn't minimize MA's interest in the outcome of the litigation. Because MA owns much of the territory to be affected, it strengthens the position that its stake in the outcome is substantial enough to warrant standing Roberts (dissent) tries to say that the majority has diluted the standing requirements. He says that if citizens CAN sue, then the state should not do so under parens patriae. Also says that the harm is not particularized (courts won't hear cases that harm everyone absent a statute). Connection between EPA and global warming is too speculative to show causation. No evidence that changing EPA enforcement will redress MA's supposed injury |
|
|
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife |
Challenged revision of federal regulation that provided the Endangered Species Act doesn't apply to US gov. activities outside USA or on high seas. Ps wanted US Gov to protect crocodiles in Egypt in danger of going extinct from Suez Canal work. Issue: Did P have standing? Holding - No standing, why? 1. P's lacked standing because they couldn't show sufficient likelihood of injury in the future by a species' extinction abroad Visiting this area in the past proves nothing "some day" isn't sufficient without any concrete plans for that day. Scalia alludes that a plane ticket WOULD satisfy this. Harmful acts wouldn't cease even with injunction because of actions of third parties who will harm the crocodiles. If opinion doesn't redress harm, then its just an advisory opinion. Separation of powers - Judiciary would oversee other branches if it issued this opinion (advisory). Court decides individual rights, not grievances about how government does its business |
|
|
Data Processing |
Legal interest test - discarded in favor of an injury in fact test. Can now have standing in cases in which Congress confers a benefit that P is entitled to, and that benefit gets taken away. Don't need to be harmed |
|
|
Prudential Standing |
Judicially self-imposed limits on standing that go beyond Constitutional constraints. E.g., third party standing, generalized grievances, zone of interest test (kind of injury Congress expects to redress under the statute) |
|
|
Sierra Club v. Morton |
Ps wanted to contest construction of recreation site in a national park because it allegedly violates federal statute No standing because no plaintiffs used the area on the Nat.l park that was going to be changed into a recreational area. Ps must have suffered or be in imminent harm of suffering injury. |
|
|
US v. SCRAP |
Ps sued Interstate Commerce Commission for failure to suspend a surcharge on railroad freight rates because it would damage surrounding forests Standing upheld despite attenuated causal chain of harm (rate increase leads to increased use of non-recyclable goods as compared to recyclable goods, and these resources might be taken from the Washington forests which results in more refuse that might be discarded in these national parks). Plaintiffs actually showed that they used these forests, as compared to Ps in Sierra Club |
|
|
Summers v. Earth Island Institute |
Ps wanted US Forest Service to enforce regulations requiring notice, comment, and appeal procedures for proposed actions implementing land and resource management plans No standing because it was highly unlikely that P's wanderings in US forests will bring him upon an area of the forest that is improperly subjected to a project that didn't go through the unenforced procedures |
|
|
Schlesinger v. Reservists to Stop the War |
Ps wanted to sue Reservist Congressmen violated incompatibility clause Court denies standing because it's a generalized, abstract injury. If enough people are hurt, no one individual can go to court for it. |
|
|
US v. Richardson |
Ps wanted to challenge CIA Act, which provides expenditures not be made public. Alleged this was in violation of Art. I Sec. 9 clause 7 of the Constitution, which states that government bodies will publish receipts No allegation that he, as a taxpayer, will suffer any concrete injury as a result of the operation of the statute Powell Concurrence - In Marbury, Marshall says that courts and constitution protect individual liberties and provide redress from harms, NOT to amorphously oversee the operations of government |
|
|
Lyons v. City of Los Angeles |
Lyons injured when cops use chokehold on him, seeks injunction against the use of chokeholds by LAPD No standing to enjoin police from using chokeholds because he couldn't demonstrate a substantial likelihood that he, personally, would be choked again in the future Takeaway - P seeking injunctive or declaratory relief must allege a substantial likelihood of future harm caused by an alleged illegal policy |
|
|
Flast v. Cohen |
Did taxpayer have standing to challenge aid to religious schools? Flast nexus test - Logical link between taxpayer status and the type of legislative enactment attacked (spending measures) Nexus between taxpayer status and the precise nature of the constitutional infringement alleged (unconstitutional direct giving of money to religious school) Holding - taxpayer standing satisfied when taxpayer challenged an expenditure of public funds as violating the establishment clause RARE EXAMPLE OF COURT RECOGNIZING TAXPAYER STANDING |
|
|
Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation |
Could Ps have standing to challenge Bush's Faith-Based ad Community initiatives program? Holding - taxpayers can only challenge spending by Congress. Do not have standing to challenge Executive Spending. Executive used a general appropriation to promote religion, not taxpayer funds Essentially limits Flast to its facts |
|
|
DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno |
Ps challenged STATE tax credits to Chrysler because it would increase their own burden and that it violated the commerce clause Standing DENIED - otherwise courts would end up reviewing the reasonableness of fiscal administration by the states |
|
|
FEC v. Akins |
Citizens wanted AIPAC classified as a political committee, thus requiring it to make public its membership, contributions, and expenditures Congress gave a cause of action for "any person" to sue when this information isn't made public. Ban on generalized grievances is prudential, not rooted in Art. III, so standing WAS available based on Congress' statute |
|
|
Simon v EKWRO |
Hospitals denying medical care to indigents in order to get IRS tax break. Tax breaks offered to charitable organizations, Ps argue that by denying coverage a hospital is no longer charitable Can Ps have standing when harm is loss of opportunity? Alleged injury due to new rule encouraging denial of health services to indigents was inadequate for purposes of standing. Ps needed to show that IRS tax breaks were the cause of reduced services and that a change to the tax scheme would provide relief. Court said both assertions were too speculative for a ruling |
|
|
Regents of UC v. Bakke |
P challenged UC's affirmative action program. Alleges that if program wasn't in place, he would have been admitted P did demonstrate that his injury would be redressed by a favorable decisions of his claim. Constitutional element met because P couldn't compete for all 100 spots in the class due to the program |
|
|
Northeastern Florida Chapter of Associated General Contractors v. Jacksonville |
Ps sued city for setting aside 10% of city contracts for minority business enterprises, claiming it violated equal protection clause Injury in fact is denial of equal treatment resulting from the imposition of the barrier, not the ultimate inability to obtain benefit. Party only needed to establish it was ready and willing to bid on contracts that the discriminatory policy would prevent them from getting. Ps GOT STANDING |
|
|
Gratz v. Bollinger |
P granted standing even though he hadn't applied to U Michigan because he intended to apply if school stopped using race in its undergraduate admissions process |
|
|
Steel Company v. Citizens for a Better Environment |
Ps, environmental org, sued company that released toxins in excess of its permit. Company agreed to bring its emissions within its permit after suit was filed. Court held that P's lacked standing because there was no redressability - having company pay civil penalties wouldn't benefit Ps at all |
|
|
Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw |
Ps sued to enjoin company from emitting toxins and to pay civil penalties. In contrast to Steel Company, Laidlaw had no plans to stop its actions and they were ongoing at the time of the suit, and would continue if not stopped. Thus, standing was allowed. Agencies have discretion to take action, but those adversely affected by discretionary agency decision generally have standing to complain that the agency's discretion is harmful. |
|
|
Raines v. Byrd |
Congressmen try to sue to challenge Line Item Veto Act as unconstitutional. No personal injury was established, there is a rigorous standard for actions brought by one action against the other. Ps didn't claim that they voted for a specific bill, had sufficient votes to pass it, but it was vetoed anyway |
|
|
Elk Grove v. Newdow |
P sues on behalf of daughter claiming daily group recitation of the pledge of allegiance constituted religious indoctrination in violation of the 1st amendment. State-court custody said that mother has final decisions when parents disagree Holding - 2 strands 1. Prudential standing embodying "judicially self-imposed limits on the exercise of federal jurisdiction" 2. The Court declined to intervene in domestic relations, choosing to leave delicate matters of domestic relations to state courts |
|
|
Baker v. Carr |
Facts - Ps challenged TN's district apportionment that became disproportionate overtime (gerrymandering) Issue - is this a political question? Holding - No, Court can hear political cases but cannot hear political QUESTIONS Factors: 1. Textuallydemonstrable Constitutional commitment to the issue of a coordinate politicaldepartment. (Constitution gives duty to another branch) 2. Lackof judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it (No standards to adress/evaluate the claim) 3. Impossibilityof deciding without an initial policy demonstration of a kind clearly fornon-judicial discretion (someone else should make policy decision) 4. Impossibility of a court's undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of therespect due coordinate branches of government (disrespectful to another branch of government) 5. Unusualneed for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made (Deference) 6. Potentialof embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various depts. on onequestion (no contradictory answers to the same question(s) by different branches of government) |
|
|
Nixon v. US |
Facts - P (a federal judge) claimed that the Senate failed to "try" him appropriately under the Impeachment clause of the Constitution. Claimed the Senate had to sit and hear evidence Issue - is this a political question? Holding - Yes it is - no standards with which to evaluate whether he was "tried" because we do not know what that exactly means. Furthermore, oversight over judicial impeachments is textually committed to the Senate |
|
|
Powell v. McCormack |
Facts - Powell won his Congressional election but the House refused to sit him because they found that he made false travel vouchers for reimbursement Issue - is this a PQ? Holding - No, there is a textually demonstrable committment to the House overseeing its members. (Art. I Sec. 5.). Constitution only says qualifications are set forth in the Constitution (age, citizenship, and residency) are what the House may judge a Congressman on. Constitution allows for an "expulsion" but not an exclusion |
|
|
Goldwater v. Carter |
Facts - President Carter terminated treaty with Taiwan without input from the Senate Issue - Is this a PQ? No standards in the Constitution governing recission of treaties and that the matter was a "dispute between coequal branches of our Government, each of which has resources available to protect and its interests." PQ only comes into play in foreign affairs when power is constitutionally committed. If not committed then there is nothing for the Court to interpret. Concurrence - as a prudential measure, court shouldn't hear disputes between other two bodies of government over who has power to act in certain situations. Powell says it's not a PQ, but that there was no dispute yet because Congress had not acted in FULL against the president. Only caveat is if this is because of a constitutional impasse (both parties claim they have constitutional authority to act) Dissent - disagrees with prudential measure, doesn't think that this requires Congress to take action in full. |
|
|
Zivotosky v. Clinton |
Facts: P wants to assert right to have Israel listed as his birthplace on his passport Issue - Is this a political question? Not a political question - deciding constitutionality of the statute. This relies on a statute, Nixon relied on a Constitution. They are deciding whether the statute is constitutional, not deciding whether Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Sotomayor concurrence - Majority distinguished from Nixon because they are interpreting a statute rather than the Constitution. Distinguishment between the two doesn't mean statutory interpretation cannot be a political question. |
|
|
Caperton v. A.T. Massey |
State Judge heard case involving someone who donated $3 million to his re-election campaign Not a PQ - court decided on the merits (due process) - set forth a standard for deciding whether a judge should recuse himself Roberts dissents, says the standard isn't workable. This violates #2 in PQ factors, thus making it a PQ and not something SCOTUS should analyze. Claims there is no workable test |
|
|
Reynolds v. Sims |
Rejected argument in Baker v. Carr that there are no judicially administrable standards for gerrymandering Announces standard for misappropriation cases (gerrymandering) - 1 person one vote |
|
|
Davis v. Bandemer |
Can hear claims of partisan gerrymandering rather than simply mal-apportionment White - Not a matter more properly decided by other branch no risk of foreign/domestic disturbance, rejected argument that there's no administrable standard - lack of "easy" standard doesn't mean there isn't one White's Standard - P must show that electoral system is arranged such that it will consistently degrade group of voter's impact on the political process -Powell and Stevens - nature of procedures by which the challenged redistricting was accomplished and intent behind the redistricting -Look at shapes of the districts and their conformity with political subdivision boundaries and other "neutral" geographic criteria -Lack of non-partisnal explanation for district boundaries |
|
|
Vieth v. Jubelirer |
Facts - gerrymandering of PA's congressional districts following 2000 census - 5 separate opinions Holding: PQ because no clear general standard, court should stay out until it finds one 5 competing standard -consistent degradation standard (Bandemer, White) -Plaintiff friendly standard (Bandemer, Powell and Stevens) -Democratic Principles (stevens) -New 5 part test (Souter and Ginsburg) -Set of circumstances out of which to identify violations and from which courts could devise a workable test Kennedy Concurrence -agreed that complaint should be dismissed, but that if a clear standard is created then he would allow the court to hear political gerrymandering standards |
|
|
Schneider v. Kissinger |
Facts - Children of Chilean general and his estate sue USS and formal national security advisor in their role of Chilean general's death during coup in 1970s Holding - non-justiciable under PQ Reasoning- -textually demonstrable constitutional commitment to Executive and Legislative (foreign policy/war powers delegated to other branches) -No standard to decide validity of President using covert actions -Would require policy determination re: covert operations. Not in province of the court -Would be clearly disrespectful towards the Executive Branch |
|
|
Luther v. Borden |
Seminal case from 1840 which established principle that SCOTUS will not determine whether state actions violate Guarantee Clause. No judicially manageable standards to measure a "republican form of government." Did not want to find RI's government unconstitutional because then it would invalidate ALL government actions. Congress must decide what constitutes a Constitutional Government |
