Fed Judicial Pwr Flashcards
JUSTICIABILITY
What are the 4 requirements for justiciability under the “cases and controversies” requirement?
You NEED these 4 things BEFORE a case will be heard in ANY federal court.
Before a case will be heard in ANY federal court…Some Requirements Must be Present!
S-R-M-P
(S) Standing
(R) Ripe for review
(M) not Moot
(P) not Political question
_____________________________________________
(S) Standing = π must be the proper party to bring the matter to a fed ct and thus have standing
(R) Ripeness = the case must be RIPE for review if it is a pre-enforcement review of a statute or regulation
(M) Mootness = the case cannot be a MOOT point – unless an exception applies, there cannot have been events that took place after filing the lawsuit that ended π’s injury
(P) Political Question Doctrine = the case cannot raise certain POLITICAL QUESTIONS – if the case is alleging certain constitutional violations, the federal court will NOT adjudicate the issue
STANDING
What are the 4 req’s for a π to have standing?
The 4 requirements to have STANDING are:
1. INJURY
2. Causation and Redressability
3. Not a 3rd Party Standing (unless an exception applies)
4. Not a generalized Grievance
_______________________________________________
1) Injury: the π must allege and prove that she HAS been injured or IMMINENTLY will be injured
→ π needs to have PERSONALLY suffered injury – Injury is NOT mere ideological objection to a law
→ π’s seeking injunctive or declaratory relief must show likelihood of future harm
→ BEST standing is when π has suffered a personal injury w/economic injury being the highest
→ example: Sierra Club v. Disney (had to have members visit the park to attain standing)
→ example: Clapper vs. Amnesty International (No standing for suit against NSA data )
→ example: City of L.A. v. Lyons (No standing to get injunctive relief for stopping use of choke-hold by cops b/c no proof that victim might suffer harm AGAIN)
2) Causation and Redressability: π must allege and prove that the ∆ CAUSED the injury so that a favorable ct decision is likely to REMEDY the harm
→ Note: If ct’s ruling would have no effect, then it’d be an advisory op (NOT ALLOWED)
3) NO 3d party standing: π CANNOT assert claims of 3d partys not before the ct
EXCEPTIONS: 3d party standing is allowed IF π qualifies under 1 and 2 above AND IF… → (a) there is a CLOSE relationship btwn the π and the injured 3d party (e.g. dr-patient relationship; custodial parents; BUT NOT non-custodial parent)
→ (b) the injured party is unlikely to ASSERT THEIR OWN rights [e.g. if jurors are subject to systematic discrimination, they are unlikely to bring a claim as they don’t have an incentive to serve)
→ (c) it’s an ORGANIZATION suing on behalf of its members, IF
(1) members would have standing to sue;
(2) interests are germane to the org’s purpose; AND
(3) neither the claim nor relief requires participation of individual members
4) NO generalized grievances: the π must not be suing solely “as a CITIZEN” or a TAX PAYER interested in having the gov’t follow/not follow the law OR spend tax money in a certain way NOTE: if the gov’t law actually targets a specific person, then he could sue
→ EXCEPTION #1: taxpayers DO have standing to challenge gov’t expenditures p/t federal statutes as violating the Establishment Cl (i.e. separation of church and state) —BUT THIS EXCLUDES:
a. Gov’t giving of property
b. Gov’t giving of money from Executive Revenue
c. Gov’t tax credits
→ EXCEPTION #2: a person has standing as a citizen to allege that a federal action violates the 10th Am by interfering w/ pwrs reserved to the state (as long as the person can show injury and redressability)
RIPENESS
What does ripeness require?
**BAR exam hint
Rule: π is NOT entitled to review of a statute or regulation before its enforcement AGAINST the π
→ SO NO justiciability if NO enforcement action has occurred yet UNLESS….
….EXCEPTION: Pre-enforcement review IS OK IF: (i) π will suffer immediate hardship, AND
(ii) Issues on record are fit for judicial review (i.e. the record is sufficiently developed)
→ example: Abbott Labs vs. FDA
NOTE: IF YOU SEE A BAR EXAM QUESTION…where there is a π that is seeking DECLATORY judgment then RIPENESS may be implicated
MOOTNESS
What ismootness?
RULE: if events after the filing of the suit end π’s injury, then the case is MOOT; NO good b/c cases require a live controversy
3 EXCEPTIONS where the case is will NOT be dismissed as moot…
1) the wrong is capable of repetition BUT ALSO cabale of evading review b/c of its limited time duration (e.g. a right to abortion claim as π will likely NOT be preg at time of trial)
→ Roe v. Wade heard under this exception
2) the wrong is ceased VOLUNTARILY by ∆, but ∆ can also freely resume at any time (e.g. employer who gives a discriminatory test can easily stop/start whenever)
3) for Class Action Suits, the mootness of named π will NOT make the entire action moot, if injury still exits for AT LEAST one other class member then the case is NOT moot
POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE
What isthe Political Question Doctrine?
The Political Question Doctrine Refers to constitutional violations that the fed cts WILL NOT adjudicate; as they would be better left to another branch of gov’t)
4 Political Questions that are ALWAYS DISMISSED as non-justiciable political questions…
1) Any type of case implicating the Guarantee Clause —this is also called the republican form of government clause and it states that the US will guarantee to each state a republican form of gov’t
2) Challenges to the President’s conduct of foreign policy
→ example: Courts would not hear challenges to the Vietnam War
3) Challenges to the impeachment/removal process
4) Challenges to PARTISAN gerrymandering
CASES WITH MANDATORY SCOTUS REVIEW
What is the rule re: mandatory SCOTUS review?
General Rule: All appeals from state courts and federal courts of appeals come to SCOTUS on writ of certiorari
EXCEPTIONS (i.e. mandatory review):
1) Appeals from 3-judge federal district courts
2) Suits b/t states – SCOTUS w/original/exclusive jx NOTE: By statute, Congress can change the SCOTUS’s appellate jurisdiction, but NOT its original jurisdiction
FINAL JUDGMENT RULE FOR SCOTUS REVIEW
What 2 reqs must be satisfied before SCOTUS can hear cases?
Final Judgment Rule
SCOTUS may hear ONLY after there has been a final judgment of the
(i) HIGHEST state ct,
(ii) a US Ct of Appeals; OR
(iii) a 3-judge panel from fed dist ct
SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY
Can federal cts OR state cts hear suits against state gov’ts?
Fed cts (and state cts) may NOT hear suits AGAINST STATE gov’ts
Based on SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY under the 11th Am., which bars suits against states in fed cts, fed agencies OR state cts (even on federal claims)
NOTE: this bar does NOT apply to local/city gov’ts;
NOTE: Suits against state officers are allowed
— state officers may be sued for injunctive relief;
— state officers may be sued for money damages
to be paid out of their own pockets (State
Official MUST be personally liable)
— state officers may NOT be sued IF it is the state
treasury that will be paying retroactive
damages
EXCEPTIONS (where A STATE MAY BE SUED)…
1) Waiver: a state may and MUST expressly consent to be sued before a ct. will adjudicate
2) P/t§5 of 14th Am (ONLY):
States may be sued p/t fed laws adopted under §5 of the 14th Am. (authorizes Congress to adopt laws to enforce the 14th Am); Congress cannot authorize suits under ANY OTHER const. prvn
→ example: Title VII claims can be made against State Gov’ts
3) The FEDERAL government may sue STATE gov’ts
4) Bankruptcy proceedings: the 11th Am does NOT apply to federal laws excerized p/t Congress’ bankruptcy pwrs (i.e. does not bar actions of the US BK cts)
MANDATORY ABSTENTION by FEDERAL Ct.
When must a fed ct abstain from an action?
Rule: Fed cts may NOT enjoin PENDING state court proceedings when claim is premised on an unsettled issue of state law
Rule for NO INDEPENDENT State Law Grounds for IN ORDER TO GET FOR SCOTUS REVIEW
SCOTUS may hear a case ONLY if there is NO independent/adequate state law ground for the decision
If a state ct decision rests on 2 grounds (1 federal and 1 state), and a reversal from SCOTUS won’t change the result in the case, then SCOTUS can’t hear the case
