Con Law

Question 1

Standing elements

Answer 1

1. injury
2. causation
3. redressability
4. No 3rd party claims
5. No generalized grievances

1-3 consititutional, required by the CON
4-5 Prudencial requirements. Req by the court

Question 2

Advisory opinions

Answer 2

Statement about what a federal statute, law, constitution, does or doesn’t require
Cases w/ no case or controversy
Fed Courts cannot issue them

Question 3

standing

Constitutional requirements

Answer 3

injury, causation, redressability
Mandatory and cannot be modified by Congress

Question 4

Standing

Prudential requirements

Answer 4

No third party claims
No generalized grievances
These ares req’d by court for sound managagement of judicial systems,
They’re mandatory but can be modified by Congress

Question 5

Standing

Injury

Answer 5

Was the P harmed or is he about to be imminently suffer harm

Question 6

Standing

Causation

Answer 6

did the defendant cause harm
Fairly traceable

Question 7

Standing

Redressability

Answer 7

Can the court do anything to remedy the harm

Question 8

Standing

No 3rd party standing

Answer 8

Must bring claim on own behalf
exception parent, guardianship,legal relationship

Question 9

Standing

No generalized grievances

Answer 9

Can’t rely on voter or taxpayer status

Question 11

Necessary and Proper Clause

Answer 11

Anything that is convenient not absolutely necessary
Must be paired w/ another power
A grant of power

Question 12

Commerce Power

Congress can leg under the commerce clause if

3

Answer 12

Channel of commerce
Instrumentalities of interstate commerce
Has substantial effect on intrastate commerce
* Economic, activity w/ substantial effect on interstate commerce = Can aggragate
* Non-economic w/ substantial effect on interstate commerce if shows a direct and substantial effect on the activity = CANNOT aggragate

Congress cannot regulate “inactivity”
* ex. buying veggies

Question 13

10th Amendment

Anti-Commandeering

Answer 13

Even if congress had the ability to legislate something through the commerce clause, it can be found unconstitutional if congress is bossing around the states
Commandeering- having the states act as “federal deputies”
* X compel states to legislate
* X compel states to admin fed mandates
* Congress may forbid states from engaging in conduct, if conduct is prohibited to non-state actors
ex. public + private sector

Fed power is not a power over states, but over citizens in states

Question 14

Taxing and spending power

Answer 14

Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, imposts, and excises (specific taxes) to pay the debt and provide for the common deference and general welfare of the US, but these should be uniform throughout the US.

Congress does not have the power to legislate for the general welfare - states do

Question 15

Taxing and Spending power

What can congress make the states do

Answer 15

Can “bribe” them
Cannot commandeer them through federal funding aid
Cannot Coerce states, the state must have he option to say no
too much money can be considered coercion

Question 16

Inherent Presidential Power

Answer 16

Authority from constitutional or statutory authority

Question 17

Deciding if POTUS acted appropriately

Answer 17

1. Congress gave authority for the presidents actions
   Presidents power is the strongest
2. Where congress is silent
   “twilight zone”
3. Congress has disapproved of the president’s actions
   Lowest power, Pres can only rely on their own consititutional powers explicitly granted through Const. but might not be enough

Question 18

Administrative State

Answer 18

They can make rules/regulations that have the force of laws (legislative)​
Congress can give agencies a lot of power. (They are acting a lot like legislative branch here).​
They can bring enforcement actions (Executive)​
They have the authority to bring enforcement actions against parties that violate or threaten to violate the law. They are acting a lot like executive here.​
They can adjudicate (judicial)​
Agencies can be set up to have their own judiciary committees. This is a lot like judicial branch of government.

Broad authority

Question 19

Nondelegation doctrine

Answer 19

Separation of powers issue
Congress cannot explicitly delegate their lawmaking abilities to the other branches of government
Congress CAN guide them when granting leg power but cannot tell them to make the laws

Its like lending power but with guidance

Question 20

Legislative Veto

Answer 20

If Congress creates a law and then gives broad discretion to an agency, they cannot then set up a legislative veto where they change how the executive/agency has interpreted the statute
Only way to change the regulation is for congress to pass a new law

bicameralism and presentment clause

Question 21

Presidential removal power

Answer 21

President can remove exec officials at will unless limited by congress (leg)
Congress can limit by statute when
1. The official is in an office where independence from the president is desirable (job is neutral, fair or impartial)
2. Statute allows removal by the president only when good cause is shown, and
3. The executive official for whom removal is restricted is not the sole director of an independent agency

Question 22

Supremacy Clause

preemption generally

Answer 22

Federal law overrides state law

Question 23

express preemption

Answer 23

Federal statute expressly bars state law passed

Question 24

Conflict preemption

express

Answer 24

Theres a conflict between state and fed law where you can’t comply w/ both

Question 25

Impeading federal objectives | express preemption

Answer 25

State law impeads achievement of federal objective | If no conflict, no preemption ## Footnote Pacific Gas v State Energy Comm’n

Question 26

Field preemption | express preemption

Answer 26

Courts state congress intended to occupy that field ex. immigration so states can't pile on

Question 27

Dormant commerce clause | general

Answer 27

If Congress has not acted, the commerce clause power lies “dormant” State and local laws will be invalidated if they put an undue burden on interstate commerce

Question 28

# Dormant commerce clause step 1: Is it discriminatory

Answer 28

3 ways to prove discrimination 1. State law is discriminatory on its face 2. State law is facially neutral but has a discriminatory purpose 3. State law is facially neutral but has a discriminatory effect

Question 29

# Dormant commerce clause Yes discriminatory

Answer 29

Allow regulators to discriminate against out-of-state goods/residents *Only if narrowly tailored to achieve legit local purpose* 1. Does the state admit its purpose was economic profectionism 2. Does the state have a good reason for the protectionist law and Is it the least discriminatory option

Question 30

# Dormant commerce No, not discriminatory

Answer 30

is the law unduly burdensome to out-of-state commerce? Balancing test Does the burden out weigh the benefit "Does the burden on interstate commerce outweigh the (nonprotectionist) benefit to state from the law`"

Question 31

# dormant commerce clause exceptions

Answer 31

Market participant * States can favor their own citizens in receiving benefits from gov.t programs or in dealing w/ gov't owned businesses Congressional approval * Congress approve of the law * ex. higher taxes on out-of-staters v. state residents

Question 32

Privileged and Immunities clause of art 4 sec 2

Answer 32

A state may not discriminate against out-of-state citizens w/ regards to a fundamental constitutional right or to earning a livelihood, unless such discrimination is necessary to achieve a substantial government interest Must be discrimination against out of state citizens Must concern a fundamental constitutional right or the right to earn a living Only Natural citizens may invoke it Not corporations nor aliens Unlike the dormant commerce clause

Question 33

# Privileges and immunities Analysis steps

Answer 33

First, is an out of stater being discriminated against w/ respect to a fundamental right/earn a living? Second, does the state have a substantial justification for the rule or law ex. welfare

Question 34

Ripeness | general

Answer 34

Seeks to separate matters that are premature for review because the injury is speculative and never may occur, from those cases that are appropriate for federal court action.

Question 35

# Ripeness criteria

Answer 35

1. 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​ 2. Are the issues adequately focused and ready for judicial review?​ Is there an issue ready to be resolved? ​ Are the facts developed?

Question 36

Mootness | General

Answer 36

Determines when litigation may occur where a controversy once existed but no longer does by the time the case is actually being litigated ​ If anything occurs while a lawsuit is pending to end the plaintiff’s injury, the case is to be dismissed as moot.​

Question 37

Mootness exceptions

Answer 37

1. Harm capable of repetition, yet evading review​ Injuries that are so short they are over before the federal court proceedings are completed.​ A case is not dismissed even if it is moot, if there is an injury likely to recur in the future and it’s possible that it could happen to the plaintiff again, and it is of such short duration that it likely always will evade review.​ 2. Collateral Injuries​ The Primary harm has been resolved, but the plaintiff is suffering a secondary injury.​ 3. Voluntary Cessation of Activity by Defendant​ A case is not to be considered moot if the defendant voluntarily ceases the allegedly improper behavior but is free to return to it at any time 4. Class action suits​ Class actions suits may continue even if the named plaintiff’s claims are moot.​ As long as members of the class have a live controversy, the case can continue.​

Question 38

Political Question doctrine | general

Answer 38

Should be resolved by the elected branches of government (otherwise inappropriate for judicial review, left to leg or exec for a decision) Cases under the Guarantee Clause are nonjusticiable.

Question 39

nonjusticiable political questions | must be one of 6

Answer 39

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.