CON Law Flashcards
(18 cards)
Limits on Judicial Power
Article III
- Advisory Opinions
- Standing
- Ripeness
- Mootness
- Political Question Doctrine
generally
Advisory Opinions
Statement about what a federal statute, law, constitution, does or doesn’t require
* Cases w/ no case or controversy
* Fed Courts cannot issue them
Generally
Standing
elements
(1) Injury (const’l)
(2) Causation (const’l)
(3) Redressability (const’l)
(4) No third-party claims (prudential)
(5) No generalized grievances (prudential)
(6) Must be within zone of interests of statute or regulation (prudential)
Standing
Injury
P personally suffered or will imminently suffer an injury
Standing
Causation
The injury is fairly traceable to the defendant’s conduct
Fairly traceable = more than speculative, but less than But For.
Standing
Redressability
A favorable federal court decision is likely to redress (remedy) the injury
Standing
No 3rd party claims
A party must assert only her own rights and cannot raise claims of 3rd parties
Standing
No generalized grievances
P may not rely on voter or taxpayer status to complain about a harm suffered in common with all citizens or taxpayers.
Standing
Constitutional requirenment?
injury, causation, redressability
Theres 3 elements are required from the consititution b/c Article III “case or controversy” req
Standing
Prudencial req
no 3rd party, no generalized grievences, zone of interest
Theses are self imposed requirements, the court sees theses are necessary but not req by consititution.
They can be waived by congress
BUT all 6 MUST be met for a P to have standing
generally
Ripeness
determines when litigation may occur
Want to seperate premature matters where the injury is speculative and may never occure v. those which are appropriate for fed court
demonstrating that a harm has occurred or imminently will occur
elements
Ripeness
- What hardships will the plaintiff suffer without pre-enforcement review?
* Pre-enforcement review allows for a statute/law/regulation to be looked at for the amount of harm to a plaintiff before it is enforced - Are the issues adequately focused and ready for judicial review?
* Is there an issue ready to be resolved?
* Are the facts developed?
generalized
Mootness
A case is moot when even though there was once standing, there is no longer a case or controversy.
Political Question Doctrine
The fed courts will refuse to hear cases which they deem are better left to the other “political” branches of gov’t.
Nonjusticiable pq
Poltical Question
Under baker v. carr we got 6 issues that can be id’d to be nonjusticiable
1. a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of that issue to another political branch;
2. a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving the issue;
3. an impossibility of deciding the issue without making an initial policy determination of a kind not suitable for judicial discretion;
4. a lack of respect for the other branches of government in undertaking independent resolution of the case;
5. an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; or
6. the potential for embarrassment for differing pronouncements of the issue by different branches of government.
Only need 1 of the 6
Elements
Mootness
(1) Rule is there must be a live controversy at all stages of legal proceeding.
(2) Moot if intervening events have occurred removing the controversy.
(3) Examples are death of party, change in law, change in circumstance
exceptions
mootness
(1) Harm capable of repetition but evading review. Example is abortion cases.
(2) Collateral injuries, where primary harm is gone but P is suffering secondary injury.
(3) Class actions where case is moot for named plaintiff.
(4) Voluntary cessation of activity by D. If he volutarily stops but there’s nothing stopping resumption,
won’t be moot.
Necessary and Proper Clause
Expands are not a limitation; the Grant of power
Anything that is convenient not absolutely necessary
Must be paired with another power given
