Kaplan Pgs 84-93 Judicial Review

Question 1

What does the 11th amendment do?

Answer 1

It prohibits the citizens of one state from suing their own state or another state in federal court on federal claims for money damages or an injunction, without the state’s consent

Question 2

What is governmental immunity or sovereign immunity?

Answer 2

The government cannot be sued without its consent.

Question 3

What types of governments do not have immunity under the 11th?

Answer 3

subdivisions of a state like cities, towns, and counties do not have immunity from suit under the 11th amendment

Question 4

Would it be proper for a Native American tribe to sue the state in federal court?

Answer 4

No, this would be barred under the 11th amendment

Question 5

What is the exception to the 11th amendment that involves later amendments?

Answer 5

According to its enforcement powers under the post Civil War amendments [13th, 14th, and 15th], Congress can authorize private suit by individuals to compensate for state law violations of those amendments

Question 6

What are the major exceptions to the 11th amendment?

Answer 6

• suits against state officials for abusing their power in enforcing unconstitutional state statutes
  – federal suits brought by one state against another state
  – most suits for injunctions that are brought against state officials. I.e.: a private citizen can sue to enjoin a state official from acting in violation of the plaintiff’s federal constitutional rights

Question 7

If a state is going to consent to suit in federal court, what does the 11th amendment require?

Answer 7

That the state clearly waves its 11th immunity expressly and unequivocally, or by voluntarily invoking a federal court’s jurisdiction

Question 8

Under the 11th amendment, will a state be held to have waived its immunity because Congress provided that a state would be subject to private suit if it engaged in federally regulated conduct and the state voluntarily elected to engage in that conduct?

Answer 8

No

Question 9

What is a major limitation on the jurisdiction of federal courts?

Answer 9

Article 3’s case or controversy

Question 10

What is case or controversy?

Answer 10

• a real and substantial dispute
  – that touches the legal relations of parties
  – having adverse interests
  – that can be resolved by a judicial decree of a conclusive character

Question 11

Could the president or Congress ask the Supreme Court to give an advisory opinion on the constitutionality of a proposed action or legislation?

Answer 11

No, because there is no case or controversy

Question 12

Can the federal courts grant declaratory judgments?

Answer 12

Yes

Question 13

What is a declaratory judgment?

Answer 13

A decision where the court is requested to determine the legality of proposed conduct without awarding damages or injunctive relief. The plaintiff must still meet CRAMPS

Question 14

What is CRAMPS?

Answer 14

– case and controversy
- ripeness
– abstention and adequate state grounds
– mootness
– political question
– standing

*** these are all of the limitations on federal court jurisdiction that must be met in order for federal court to hear a case

Question 15

Is the case considered to be moot if the principal issue in the lawsuit has already been resolved, but the party still has an interest in resolving a collateral or lesser matter?

Answer 15

No.

Ie: a case about wrongful termination is not moot even though the plaintiff had his employment restored, if there are still issues about backpay

Question 16

Under the exception to mootness for “voluntary cessation“, when will the case be considered moot even though the person has ceased doing the thing but could do it again?

Answer 16

The case will be moot if subsequent events make it absolutely clear that the wrongful behaviour could not reasonably be expected to recur

Question 17

Who has the burden of persuasion under the voluntary cessation exception to mootness?

Answer 17

The party that is asserting mootness has the burden to prove that the challenged conduct cannot reasonably be expected to begin again

Question 18

What is the difference between mootness and ripeness?

Answer 18

– mootness: bars consideration of claims AFTER they have been resolved
– ripeness: bars consideration of claims BEF0RE they have been fully developed

Question 19

How could a plaintiff get the court to grant a declaratory judgement regarding a law that has not yet gone into enforcement without the court saying the issue is not ripe?

Answer 19

If the plaintiff can show that the law presents a specific and present harm or a threat of specific future and imminent harm

Question 20

What is involved in abstention?

Answer 20

The federal court can abstain or refuse to hear a particular case if there are undecided issues of state law presented. This allows the state court to resolve its own issues of state law and pays deference to the state court while ensuring harmonious federal-state relations

Question 21

If the meaning of a state law or regulation is unclear, is it likely that a federal court would abstain?

Answer 21

Yes, and often the state court will interpret the statute to avoid the constitutional issue

Question 22

In state criminal proceedings, should the Federal court abstain if the suit is seeking an injunction against the state prosecution?

Answer 22

Yes, unless there is a showing of bad faith harassment by the prosecutor

Question 23

What are the two areas that federal courts traditionally decline to hear cases in?

Answer 23

– Probate: federal courts always decline probate estates because this is traditionally an area that belongs to state courts
– family law exception: federal courts do not hear family law claims like divorce, child custody, or child support matters because this area belongs to the states

Question 24

What is required for someone to have standing under article 3?

Answer 24

The person litigating a constitutional question must show:
– injury in fact: A direct and personal injury that is actual or imminent and caused by the action the person is challenging.
– causation: The injury was caused by the challenged action which was a violation of a duty arising under the constitution or federal law
– redressability: The plaintiff will benefit from the remedy he is seeking

Question 25

If an environmentalist sues the government because he didn’t get notice when the government sold burnt timber after a forest fire, then he settled, and then brought a second suit to require the government to give notice before any future salvage activities, would the environmentalist have had standing in either suit?

Answer 25

– first suit: yes because he suffered a concrete harm of being excluded from the sale
– second suit: no because there was no new imminent harm

Question 26

Do federal taxpayers as a general rule have standing to challenge unconstitutional federal expenditures?

Answer 26

No because their injury is comparatively minute and indeterminative and their interest is too remote

Question 27

The traditional view is that a litigant lacks standing to assert the rights of third parties that are not before the court. What is the exception here?

Answer 27

The Supreme Court has allowed a party to raise the constitutional rights of a third-party when:
– the third-party has suffered an injury, and
– a special relationship exists between the person claiming it and the third-party
– the third-party is unable or finds it difficult to bring suit on his own behalf

Question 28

What are some examples of when third-party standing would be allowed?

Answer 28

– A doctor could raise the rights of his patients to challenge an abortion ruling
– a beer vendor can assert the rights of males under 21 to challenge a law that prohibits the sale of beer to them
– a contraceptive seller can assert the rights of potential purchasers against a law that prohibits the sale of these devices

Question 29

When would an association have associational standing to sue on behalf of one of their members?

Answer 29

• if the members would otherwise have standing to sue on their own
  – the interest asserted is germane to the association’s purpose
  – neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested would require participation by the individual members in the suit

Question 30

What is a political question?

Answer 30

A matter assigned to another branch by the constitution or in capable of a judicial answer

Question 31

What are factors that should be considered in deciding if something is a political question?

Answer 31

– If there is a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department
– lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards to resolve it
– the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind that is clearly for non-judicial discretion
– the impossibility of a court undertaking independent resolution without expressing a lack of respect due to coordinate branches of government
– the unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision that has already been made
– the potential for embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question

Question 32

What are the two principal factors that relate to the political question doctrine?

Answer 32

Separation of powers and limits of the judiciary in resolving certain types of controversies

Question 33

What are things that would fall under the political question doctrine?

Answer 33

– Impeachment process
– amendment ratification process
– the president‘s power to unilaterally terminate a treaty
– foreign affairs
– guarantee clause

Question 34

Would the political question doctrine prevent a court from dealing with a claim that the state has re-drawn its electoral districts in a racially discriminatory way?

Answer 34

No

Question 35

Would the political question doctrine prevent a court from adjudicating a claim that a state has redrawn its electoral district to benefit one political party over another?

Answer 35

Yes. This is held to be non-justiciable because there are no manageable judicial standards for deciding this

Question 36

What are things that the Supreme Court is held to have original jurisdiction over?

Answer 36

Cases affecting ambassadors, public ministers, consuls, and those where a state is a party. Congress cannot enlarge or restrict the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction

Question 37

What are things that the supreme court has the power to do under its appellate jurisdiction?

Answer 37

– Hold acts of the other branches of the federal government like the executive branch and Congress to be unconstitutional
– hold state statutes unconstitutional
– review state court decisions to see if they are in conformity with the Constitution and federal statutes
– decide other state law questions

Question 38

When it comes to the appellate jurisdiction of the supreme court regarding diversity jurisdiction, how will the Supreme Court deal with state law questions?

Answer 38

– The Supreme Court will defer to an existing state court interpretation of state law
– they will interpret state law that has not already been interpreted by the state court based on their best prediction of how the state court would interpret the statute
– they will abstain from a decision if the state court’s interpretation of unsettled state law could end the dispute and the Supreme Court can’t predict how the state court would rule

Question 39

What are the two ways to invoke supreme court appellate jurisdiction?

Answer 39

– by appeal: then jurisdiction is mandatory
– by writ of certiorari: review is discretionary and decided by four or more justices voting to hear the case. Almost all decisions from state supreme courts and federal courts are reviewable by writ of certiorari except decisions made purely on state law

Question 40

What are grounds for the supreme court to issue certiorari?

Answer 40

– Conflict between different federal courts of appeal
– conflict between the highest courts of two states
– conflict between the highest state court and a federal court of appeal
– cases from state courts or US courts of appeal that involve important but unresolved issues

Question 41

Adequate and independent state grounds apply only to what court?

Answer 41

The supreme court

Question 42

When a state court holds that a state law violates both the state and federal Constitution, what doctrine applies?

Answer 42

The doctrine of adequate state grounds

Question 43

If it is unclear whether the state court made a decision based on state or federal interpretations of statutes, can the Supreme Court take this case under adequate and independent state grounds?

Answer 43

Yes, but the Supreme Court can also decide to dismiss or remain the case for clarification

Question 44

Under adequate and independent state grounds, what does the independent part mean?

Answer 44

Whether it is apparent from the four corners of the opinion that the state court judgement was settled based on a state court interpretation of state law