Con Law Flashcards
What does the Eleventh Amendment prohibit?
The Eleventh Amendment prohibits an action in federal court by a citizen of one state against another state when the basis for the action is the violation of state law.
Does the Eleventh Amendment prevent recovery of retroactive money damages by citizens against a state agency?
The Court has interpreted the Eleventh Amendment as barring unconsented private suits against a state for retroactive money damages. Congress may abrogate state sovereign immunity only if it (1) provides a clear statement of its intent to abrogate, and (2) acts under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
May Congress expand or limit SCOTUS original jurisdiction?
No. Article III, Section 2 gives the Supreme Court “original jurisdiction” (i.e., the case may be filed first in the Supreme Court) over “all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls and those in which a State shall be a party.” Congress may not expand or limit the Court’s original jurisdiction. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).
Can the Supreme Court hear cases in which state supreme courts refused to hear? Further, may Congress establish the manner in which the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is exercised.
Yes, Congress can establish the manner in which appellate jurisdiction is exercised, and Congress has eliminated certain types of appeals, pursuant to Article III, Section 2.
The Supreme Court has the power to review state court decisions and statutes to ensure conformity with the U.S. Constitution “and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.” The two means of establishing Supreme Court jurisdiction are (i) direct appeal and (ii) certiorari (discretionary review).
What argument best supports the US Supreme Court denying a petition, such as a habeous claim based on ineffective assistance of counsel when the federal law allows a year to file but state law requires it be filed without substantial delay and the highest state court denies review because of said delay?
The Adequate and Independent State Grounds Doctrine operates to forestall review by the U.S. Supreme Court of a final state-court judgment based on state law that is independent of federal law and adequate to support the judgment. A judgment by a state court may be adequate even if it prevents a party from litigating a federal right on the basis of a state procedural rule. The rule may even permit the state court to exercise discretion so long as the rule is not being utilized to discriminate against claims of federal rights.
If a state is a party, who has original jurisdiction?
Section 2 of Article III of the U.S. Constitution specifically provides that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over all cases in which a state is a party. Note that Congress cannot expand or limit this jurisdiction, but it can grant concurrent original jurisdiction to lower federal courts.
What is Taxpayer Standing?
Taxpayer standing is the idea that a person who pays taxes should have the right to file a lawsuit against the government if the government allocates money improperly. The Supreme Court has held that this is not sufficient basis for standing, unless the suit is challenging specific appropriations under the taxing and spending power for violation of the Establishment Clause.
What is required to have standing? Further, can an individual have standing to challenge a federal statute on Tenth Amendment grounds?
In order to have standing to assert a claim or defense, a person must suffer an injury in fact. An individual, as well as a state, may have standing to challenge a federal statute on Tenth Amendment grounds.
Can an assignee have standing?
An assignee has standing under Article III to bring an assigned claim, even if the claim is mature at the time of assignment and the assignment is made for collection only. An assignee may sue on the basis of the assignor’s injuries.
A state legislature passed a law requiring employers to provide their employees with health insurance that covered certain prescription drugs. Violation of this statute was considered a crime that subjected the offender to fines, which were described in detail in the statute. The law was effective immediately. An employer did not provide its employees with insurance that covered the required drugs, and argued that such drugs were prohibited by the religion practiced by the employer. The employer filed a complaint in federal court asserting that the law was unconstitutional and asked for a preliminary injunction against the attorney general to prevent him from enforcing the statute while the case was heard. The attorney general filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that the federal court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case. How should the federal court rule on the attorney general’s motion to dismiss?
Answers:
A. Grant the motion based on prudential grounds.
B. Grant the motion based on the doctrine of abstention.
C. Deny the motion, because the employer has taxpayer standing due to the imposition of fines.
D. Deny the motion, because the employer’s injury is imminent.
Answer choice D is correct. In order to bring a claim in federal court, a plaintiff must have standing and the issue must be ripe for litigation. To have standing, a plaintiff must establish (1) a particularized injury, which must have actually occurred or be imminent; (2) that defendant caused this injury; and (3) that the relief requested is likely to redress the injury. First, the employer can show an imminent injury—loss of money from the threatened fines, which can be imposed immediately. Second, the government caused this injury by forcing the employer to comply with the law or pay a fine. Third, the requested injunction will redress that injury by removing the burden of compliance unless and until a court rules that the law is constitutional. Furthermore, the case is ripe because the threat of enforcement is imminent and the legal issues are sufficiently developed for a court to decide the case. Answer choice A is incorrect because neither of the categories of prudential standing applies here: The court is not being asked to adjudicate the claims of third parties or “generalized grievances” (i.e., injuries that are widely shared, as contrasted with the employer’s individualized injury here). Answer choice B is incorrect because the two abstention doctrines—the Younger abstention doctrine, which applies only to pending state criminal cases or administrative proceedings, and the Pullman abstention doctrine, in which constitutional claims depend on resolving an unsettled issue of state law—are inapplicable. Answer choice C is incorrect because the doctrine of taxpayer standing, which allows a taxpayer standing to file a federal lawsuit challenging a specific congressional appropriation for violation of the Establishment Clause, is also inapplicable.
Can a federal court enjoin a pending state criminal case?
Under the Younger doctrine, a court will generally not enjoin a pending state criminal case, unless the state prosecution was taken in bad faith or for the purpose of harassment.
A state statute criminalizes the public distribution in quantity of anonymous handbills related to any political party or candidate in connection with any election of state public officials. Previously, a citizen had been convicted for violation of this law with regard to handbills that he had distributed in opposition to the candidacy of particular person for mayor. His conviction was overturned on appeal by a state appellate court because the state failed to prove that he had distributed the handbills in quantity. The candidate, who had been successful in winning the office of mayor, had since resigned. The citizen, concerned that the former candidate might run again for elective office, has filed an action in federal court seeking a declaratory judgment that the criminal statute is unconstitutional due to overbreadth.
How is the court likely to rule on this matter?
Answers:
A. Rule in favor to the state, because the state has an interest in maintaining the integrity of state elections.
B. Rule in favor of the citizen, because the statute has a chilling effect on the citizen’s exercise of his First Amendment rights.
C. Dismiss the action for lack of an actual, present controversy.
D. Abstain from deciding the matter until the state court has the opportunity to construe the statute.
Answer choice C is correct. In order for a federal court to entertain an action, there must be an actual controversy. Although an action that seeks a declaratory judgment may be constitutionally permissible, the challenged action must pose a real and immediate danger to a party’s interests for there to be an actual dispute. Here, the citizen’s sole concern is the hypothetical danger that a particular person will run for elected office in the near future. Therefore, there is not a present danger of the citizen’s running afoul of the state criminal statute regarding the distribution of handbills, and there is no actual controversy to be decided by the court. Answer choice A is incorrect. Although the state does have an interest in maintaining the integrity of state elections, the plaintiff has failed to assert an actual controversy. Consequently, the court should dismiss the action without ruling on the citizen’s constitutional challenge. Answer choice B is incorrect. The state criminal statute could have a chilling effect on a plaintiff’s exercise of his core First Amendment right to engage in political speech. However, the narrow and hypothetical focus of this particular plaintiff’s concern makes it unlikely that the statute in question has a current chilling effect on the citizen. Consequently, regardless of whatever merit a constitutional challenge to the state statute might have in the abstract, the citizen’s challenge does not present an actual controversy, and the court should dismiss the action without ruling on the citizen’s constitutional challenge. Answer choice D is incorrect because abstention is not appropriate here. There is no pending state criminal prosecution of the citizen as his conviction was previously overturned. Because the statute does not appear susceptible to interpretation by a state court in a manner that would avoid the federal constitutional question, there is no reason the court should abstain from hearing the matter.
What does Section 5 (The Enabling Clause) of the Fourteenth Amendment permit Congress to do?
The Section 5 Enabling Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment permits Congress to pass legislation to enforce the equal protection and due process rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, as long as there is “congruence and proportionality” between the injury to be prevented or remedied and the means adopted to achieve that end. Congress may override state government action that infringes upon Fourteenth Amendment rights, but it may not regulate wholly private conduct under this amendment.
Is it constitutional for Congress to enact a national property tax that is applied uniformly throughout the US to the fair market value of the property?
Article I, Section 9 provides that “no . . . direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the Census[.]” Although there is dispute as to the types of taxes that are encompassed within the definition of a direct tax, a tax on real property interests is undisputedly a direct tax. To satisfy the apportionment rule, a state with twice the population of another state would have to pay twice the tax, even if the more populous state’s share of the national tax base were smaller. Here, because the real property tax is not in proportion to the population of each state, it would run afoul of Article I, Section 9.
Can Congress tax goods exported to foreign countries?
Congress may not tax goods exported to foreign countries. Under the Export Taxation Clause, a tax or duty that falls on goods during the course of exportation or on services or activities closely related to the export process is prohibited.
Suppose Congress passes a law denying federal courts jurisdiction over habeas petitions of those designated as enemeny combatants. Then, can an enemy combatant alien’s habeas corpus petition be denied who is taken to a territory outside the US but over which the US has sovereign control
Under the Suspension Clause of Article I, Section 9, Clause 2, a detainee retains the privilege to file a habeas corpus petition unless this privilege is suspended. This clause applies to individuals detained in a territory over which the United States has sovereign control, even though such territory is outside the United States.
Congressional power to investigate, Congressional Subpoena power and limits
Congress does not have an express power to investigate, but the Necessary and Proper clause allows Congress broad authority to conduct investigations incident to its power to legislate. While a subpoenaed witness who fails to appear before Congress or refuses to answer questions may be cited for contempt, the witness is entitled to certain procedural due process rights, including the presence of counsel.
Property Clause of Article IV, Section 3
The Property Clause of Article IV, Section 3 states, “The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.” This power includes not only the power to dispose of property owned by the United States and to make incidental rules regarding its use, but also the power to protect the property. Although a state generally has the same right as any property owner to construct a fence on its property, this right must give way to federal regulation.
Can Congress take away a persons citizenship?
The protection of national citizenship in Clause I of the Fourteenth Amendment prevents Congress from taking away a person’s citizenship without her consent, unless that citizenship was obtained by fraud or in bad faith.
State classification based on alienage v Federal classification based on alienage
A classification based on alienage is subject to a different standard depending on whether the action is taken by the state or by the federal government. Courts will generally apply the strict scrutiny test and strike down state-based laws that discriminate against resident aliens for lack of U.S. citizenship. In contrast, Congress has plenary power over aliens under Article I, and the power to expel or exclude aliens is a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control. Therefore, a federal alienage classification is likely valid unless it is deemed arbitrary and unreasonable.
Can state’s regulate federal elections?
The Elections Clause explicitly empowers Congress to override state laws concerning federal elections.
A recently enacted federal statute requires the President to make each appointment of a United States ambassador to a foreign country from a list of three individuals. The list is to be compiled by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and approved by the full Senate in advance of the appointment. The statute also provides that Senate confirmation of the appointment is deemed to occur automatically 30 days after the time the President names an appointee from the list, unless the full Senate determines otherwise within the 30-day period.
Is this statute constitutional?
Answers:
A. No, because the statute violates the constitutional requirements for appointment of principal officers of the United States.
B. No, because the statute impermissibly restricts the plenary foreign affairs powers of the President.
C. Yes, because the statute is consistent with the constitutional requirement that the presidential appointment of ambassadors be with the advice and consent of the Senate.
D. Yes, because the statute is a necessary and proper measure in furtherance of Congress’s power to regulate commerce with foreign states.
Answer choice A is correct. Two provisions of the statute violate the appointments clause of the Constitution as they go beyond simply ‘advice and consent’. First, the provision limiting the President to a list of three potential nominees violates the President’s power to nominate principal officers. Second, the automatic confirmation provision violates the requirement that the Senate consent to the appointment of a principal officer. Answer choice B is incorrect because the statute does not restrict the President’s conduct of foreign affairs. It applies only to the appointment of ambassadors. Answer choice C is incorrect because the statute represents a misapplication of the Senate’s advice and consent power. Answer choice D is incorrect. The statutory scheme for the nomination and confirmation of ambassadors is not “necessary” because it is not reasonably related to furthering any congressional statute regulating foreign commerce. Moreover, the statutory scheme is not “proper” because two provisions of the statute described above violate the appointments clause of the Constitution.
If a treaty is not self-executed and the Senate ratifies it, what is the effect on state laws or courts?
Under the Supremacy Clause, a state is required to follow federal law when it conflicts with state law. A treaty that is not self-executing is not treated as federal law for purposes of the Supremacy Clause, however, unless it has been implemented through legislation. The President, acting on his own, cannot implement such a treaty.
Who has the power to recognize foreign countries?
Although the Constitution does not specifically state that the power to recognize a foreign country lies solely in the hands of the President, it does provide that the President “shall receive Ambassadors and other Public Ministers.” The President also has the power to nominate ambassadors, as well as the sole power to negotiate treaties. Moreover, historically Congress has acquiesced in the power of the President to recognize a foreign country. Consequently, because the President has exclusive power over the recognition of a foreign country, the court should not grant the injunction because it would require the passport office to recognize a country that the President has not yet recognized.
Can Congress pass resolutions disapproving of Agency action?
It is unconstitutional for Congress to legislatively veto an executive action—that is, to retain direct control over the actions of an executive agency, rather than going through the proper channels of passing a bill.
Best argument against Congress passing legislation allowing a case that was dismissed with prejudice to be brought again
Congress may not reinstate the right to bring a legal action after the judgment in the action has become final. Requiring a federal court to do so violates the separation of powers doctrine. Once a judicial decision becomes the final word of the federal judiciary with regard to a particular case or controversy, Congress may not declare by retroactive legislation that the law applicable to that particular case was different from what the courts said it was.
Congressional v Presidential immunity
Although members of Congress enjoy immunity for statements made in the regular course of the legislative process (i.e., during legislative hearings on a bill), the immunity will not protect statements made outside of Congress. Accordingly, the immunity will not extend to a “re-publication” of a defamatory statement, even if that statement was originally made in Congress. On the other hand, the president enjoys absolute executive immunity to civil suits for money damages for actions while he is in office.
What would the court do if a president was alleged to have made slanderous remarks prior to taking office in a presidential debate?
A president does not enjoy immunity from an action for civil liability that stems from conduct before the president took office. In this regard, the president is subject to litigation in the same manner as any private citizen. Accordingly, a court would permit the case to go forward.
If a judge, with proper jurisdiction to issue the warrant, improperly grants a search warrant against someone and they issued it with actual malice and sole purpose of harassing the individual, and then that judge is sued for that, should the civil court dismiss the action?
A judge is absolutely immune from civil liability for damages resulting from her judicial acts unless it is clear that the judge did not have jurisdiction. Since the judge in question had jurisdiction to issue the search warrant, the court should dismiss the homeowner’s action.
Is the DOD subject to state tax if entered into a state-owned weapons manufacturer?
No. The federal government and its instrumentalities (such as a national bank) are immune from taxation by the states.
A federal statute provides that the Secretary of Education may reduce by six percent the distribution of federal education funds to a state that fails to require local elementary schools to observe February 11, the birthday of Thomas Edison, as Inventors’ Day.
Of the following, which provides the best support for the Congressional power to enact this statute?
The “General Welfare” Clause of Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution
This clause gives Congress the power to spend for the general welfare i.e., any public purpose—not just to pursue its other enumerated powers. Although Congress cannot “commandeer” state legislatures by commanding them to enact specific legislation, Congress can use its spending power to accomplish such a result indirectly by conditioning the receipt of federal funding on enacting such legislation. Congressional “encouragement” cannot exceed that point at which pressure turns into compulsion, but because this statute only limits funding by six percent, rather than eliminating it totally or by a large, coercive amount, that does not appear to be applicable on these facts.
May Congress authorize states to violate the dormant commerce clause?
Because Congress has exclusive authority over interstate commerce, it may explicitly permit states to act in ways that would otherwise violate the Dormant Commerce Clause.
Tests for state tax imposed on interstate and foreign commerce
A state tax imposed on interstate commerce must satisfy the Complete Auto test. Under this test, (i) the activity taxed must have a substantial nexus to the taxing state, (ii) the tax must be fairly apportioned, (iii) the tax may not discriminate against interstate commerce, and (iv) the tax must be fairly related to the services provided by the state. A state tax on foreign commerce must, in addition to meeting the same requirements as a tax on interstate commerce, not (i) create a substantial risk of international multiple taxation or (ii) prevent the federal government from “speaking with one voice” regarding international trade or foreign affairs issues.
