Can the Court do that? Judicial Power

Question 1

What is Judicial Power?

Answer 1

Power to decide legal disputes within the jurisdiction of the courts, including the power to interpret the law and determine legislative or executive compliance with the law

Question 2

what case established the power of judicial review over federal laws?

Answer 2

Marbury v. Madison (The Constitution is the law of the land and SCOTUS is the ultimate arbiter of the Constitutions meaning)

Question 3

Can SCOTUS review state laws and court decisions?

Answer 3

Yes (Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee -Civil and Cohens v. Virginia -Criminal)

Question 4

What is the source of judicial power in the Constitution?

Answer 4

Art. 3
Sect. 1- established SC and lower courts
Sect. 2- describes the types of cases the courts can hear
Sect. 3- Defines treason and how its punished

Question 5

Art. VI (6)?

Answer 5

Supremacy Clause- federal law is supreme and the SCOTUS has interpretation of it (ultimate arbitrator)

Question 6

What views does the SC prevail over?

Answer 6

1) political actors on the state & federal level
2) state courts & lower federal courts
(Fed. laws/actions & State laws/decisions-civil & criminal)

Question 7

When a case is susceptible to the exercise of judicial power it is….

Answer 7

Judiciable

Question 8

SCOTUS Jurisdiction

Answer 8

Art. III, sec. 2, cl.2
1. Original- (state v. state)
2. Appellate -Primarily start elsewhere

Question 9

What is Congress’s general authority over SCOTUS jurisdiction?

Answer 9

authority to specify the jurisdiction, powers, and procedures of the court, BUT MAY NOT INTERFERE WITH CORE FUNCTIONS

Question 10

Can Congress expand or limit SCOTUS original jurisdiction?

Answer 10

No, Marbury held

Question 11

Can Congress regulate/limit/make exceptions to SCOTUS Apellate J.?

Answer 11

Yes, with the EXCEPTIONS CLAUSE Art. 3, but Ex Parte McCardle- it cannot expand in anyway

Question 12

Can Congress strip SCOTUS Appellate J. entirely?

Answer 12

for a specific issues but Congress cannot tell SCOTUS HOW to decide the case. (Patchack v. Zinke & US v. Klein)

Question 13

For a case to be heard, what requirement must it fill?

Answer 13

Case and Controversy

Question 14

What is the definition of Case or Controversy and where does it come from?

Answer 14

Art. III sec. 2
authorizes Court to only decide CASES or CONTROVERSIES
There must be a real dispute w/ adverse parties and real interests @ stake.

Question 15

Will the SC give advisory opinions on the constitution or interpretations of the law?

Answer 15

NO

Question 16

What is the Case and Controversy test?

Answer 16

1) standing
2)ripeness
3) not moot
4) it is not a political question

Question 17

what is Standing?

Answer 17

Used to determine if a Party is the proper plaintiff….
1) there is a personal stake
2) there is concrete adverseness
3)sharpens the presentation of the issues

Question 18

what are the Standing requirements?

Answer 18

Art. III Limitations
1)injury in fact
2)Causation and redressability

Prudential limitations
3) No 3rd Party standing (unless exceptions apply)
4)No generalized grievances

Question 19

How does Warth v. Seldine define standing?

Answer 19

there must be a party with 1) person injury at stake & 2) concrete adverseness which 3) sharpens the presentation of the issue

Question 20

was there standing in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife?

Answer 20

No standing - no actual or imminent injury

Question 21

what there standing in Mass v. EPA?

Answer 21

Yes, Mass had stake in protecting its quasi-sovereign interests

Question 22

what are 5 instances where standing is usually denied?

Answer 22

generalized grievances, taxpayer status, states suing on behalf of citizens, 3rd parties (exceptions), class actions
(everyone must have standing on their own)

Question 23

what does a plaintiff need to show for injury?

Answer 23

a) CONCRETE/PARTICULARIZED (only assert injuries that they personally suffered)
b) ACTUAL/IMMINENT (must allege or prove that he or she has been injured or imminently will be injured)

Question 24

Injury- what must a plaintiff show to get injunction relief?

Answer 24

must show a likelihood of future harm

Question 25

what does Causation and Redressability mean?

Answer 25

1)P must allege and prove that the D caused the injury and 2) the Court has the ability to redress the issue by granting relief on the merits.

Question 26

What does not third party standing mean?

Answer 26

P cannot assert claims of others, of third parties, who are not before the court

Question 27

what are the exceptions to No third party standing?

Answer 27

1) special relationship (e.g. doctor-patient, parent/guardian- child) 2) statutory authorization 3) organization suing on behalf of its members - interests are germane to the org. -members would have standing -claim nor relief require participation

Question 28

what does no generalized grievances mean?

Answer 28

injuries suffered by everyone, or you just don't like the law

Question 29

what is the tax payer status exception?

Answer 29

TAXPAYERS have standing to challenge government expenditures pursuant to federal statutes as violating the Establishment Clause ONLY FOR GOVERNMENT GRANTS OF MONEY PURSUANT TO FEDERAL STATUTE or STATE AND LOAL GOV (no standing for tax credits).

Question 30

What is ripeness?

Answer 30

Ripeness is the question of whether a federal court may grant pre-enforcement review of a statute or regulation.

Question 31

what do you look for in issues of ripeness?

Answer 31

1. adverse impact: the hardship that will be suffered with ought preenforcement review. the grater the hardship the more likely the federal court will hear the case -is there any reason why the court should wait to hear the case? 2. attempted enforcement: generally, must exhaust administrative remedies and/or be subject to legal process

Question 32

exception to Ripeness

Answer 32

1st amendment chilling of free speech - ensures that the government cannot impose regulations that broadly suppress speech or create an environment of fear around expressing certain views. (Laws that indirectly discourage free speech)

Question 33

define Mootness (must not be moot)

Answer 33

There must be actual controversy at the time a court renders a decision

Question 34

what are the exceptions to mootness

Answer 34

NOT moot if: 1. case is capable of repetition but evading review (shacking policy in Sanchez- not moot) 2. Voluntary cessation - D halts practice, but is legally free to resume the offending practice at any time, will not be dismissed as moot 3. if policy altered, amended or substituted Moot if policy or law being challenged is completely repealed

Question 35

the concept of Justiciability

Answer 35

1) question subject to judicial resolution (must have identifiable standards) 2)appropriate for such resolution (separation of powers concern)

Question 36

Political Question Doctrine bars review of....

Answer 36

"Political questions" not "political cases"

Question 37

Political Question Doctrine Baker v. Carr Historical Categories

Answer 37

1. Foreign relations issue- President 2. Dates of duration of hostilities- Congess 3.Procedural validity of enactment/constitutional amendments - States 4. status of Indian Tribes- Congress & President 5. Guaranty Clause questions (Art. IV, sect. 4)- Court doesn't know what it means

Question 38

Political Question Doctrine arises if....

Answer 38

1. There is a "textually demonstrable commitment of issue to a coordinate brand" (constitution explicitly assigns the issue to another brand of the government) 2. There is a "lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards" to decide the matter (no clear legal standard to resolve the issue) 3.Prudential considerations (courts may avoid cases where resolving the matter would require policy decisions beyond their expertise or interfere with the separation of powers.) -need for initial policy determination -express lack of respect for other departments -unusual need for unquestioning adherence to political question -potentiality for embarrassment

Question 39

Writ of Certiorari

Answer 39

All cases from US court of appeals and state courts come to SCOTUS by the writ of certiorari

Question 40

Final Judgment Rule, definition

Answer 40

Generally no, interlocutory review. all appeals must be used before SCOTUS can hear the matter

Question 41

What happens if there is an independent state ground to decide the case?

Answer 41

For the Supreme Court to review a state court decision, there must not be an independent and adequate state law ground of decision. If a state court decision rests on two grounds, one state law and one federal law, if the Supreme Court’s reversal of the federal law ground will not change the result in the case, the Supreme Court cannot hear it.

Question 42

Can you sue against a state officer?

Answer 42

yes

Question 43

Under what conditions may you sue a state officer?

Answer 43

state officers may be sued for injunctive relief; state officers may be sued for money damages to be paid out of their own pockets 3.state officers may not be sued if it is the state treasury that will be paying retroactive damages

Question 44

Can SCOTUS answer: what does it mean to "try" an impeachment in the Senate?"

Answer 44

No (U.S. v. Nixon) PQ 1& 2 - Impeachment clause power of the Senate and "try" does not have an obvious meaning

Question 45

Can SCOTUS answer: Review of HOR decisions to disqualify members for reasons not listed in Art. I sec. 5?

Answer 45

Yes (Powell v. McCormack)- court can decide it cannot add requirements to Art. 1 sec. 5

Question 46

Are Partisan gerrymandering claims justiciable?

Answer 46

No (Vieth v. Jubelierer /Rucho v. Common Cause) PQ 1&2

Question 47

Can SCOTUS evaluate "adequacy" of National Guard training?

Answer 47

No (Giligan v. Morgan) PQ 1 - President

Question 48

Can SCOTUS review state ratification of amendments?

Answer 48

No, KS CASE (Coleman v. Miller) PQ - if a state says its ratified then it is

Question 49

Can SCOTUS review a Presidents termination of a treaty?

Answer 49

No (Goldwater v. Carter) foreign policy PQ 1- President

Question 50

Can SCOTUS decide passport place of birth?

Answer 50

Yes (Zivitovsky v. Clinton) -The only question for the courts was whether the statute was consitutional which was solely within the province of the judiciary