Constituional Law (Federal) Flashcards
(33 cards)
Sources of Law
U.S. Constitution - Articles and Amendments
Exam Approach: Main Topics
- Powers
- Federalism
- Individual Rights
Exam Approach: Question Work Through (MBE)
- Who are the parties: Who is taking action against whom?
- What is being effected?
- authority of the government
- constitutionality of government action - How is the problem resolved - narrowing the issue
- Can the actor do what they are doing
- how is the right infringed AND how does the constitution impact this infringement
Source of Judicial Power
Article III - federal courts have power over all “cases and controversies”
Cases and Controversies Asks:
Is the issue justiciable? There has to be an actual issue for the courts to resolve that affects the parties bringing the suit.
Advisory Opinions
No advisory opinions allowed - but declaratory decisions are ok - assuming C&C requirements are met (i.e. there is an actual dispute to resolve)
Three Requirements for there to be a “Case and Controversy”
The issue must be:
- Ripe
- Not Moot
- The parties must have standing to sue
Ripeness
Has the dispute matured sufficiently to warrant a decision?
To show ripeness:
1. Is the issue FIT for judicial decision (meaning it does not rely on uncertain or contingent future events that might not occur)
2. Hardship to the Parties (π has to show risk of substantial hardship to provoke)
Mootness
Is the case and controversey at all stages of review - there must be suffering from an ongoing injury
Exceptions to Mootness
- Controversies capable of repetition but that evade review because of their inherently short duration (i.e. abortion, elections, divorce actions)
- ∆ voluntarily stops the offending practice but is free to resume at any time
- Class actions in which the class representative’s controversy has become moot BUT the claim of at least one other member is still viable
Mootness v. Ripeness
Mootness bars consideration AFTER an issue has been resolved
Ripeness bars consideration BEFORE a claim has developed
Standing
A person has standing when they can demonstrate a concrete stake in the outcome of the controversy
Which Party has to have standing: the party challenging the action
Components of Standing
- Injury in Fact - requires both a particularized injury (an injury that affects the π in a personal and individual way) AND a concrete injury (one that exists in fact)
It is not enough to just show that a federal statute or constitutional provision has been violated
An injury does not need to be economic in nature
- Causation - there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of - the injury must be traceable to the challenged conduct o the defendant and not be attributable to an independent third party not before the court
- Redressability - would a ruling in a litigant’s favor eliminate the harm
- Required at all stages - standing must be met at all stages of litigation, including on appeal
Congressional Conferral of Standing
Congress cannot completely eliminate a C&C requirement because it’s based on the constitutional grant of power
But, federal statute can create new interests, injury to which may be sufficient for standing
Standing to Enforce Government Statutes - Zone of Interest
A plaintiff may sometimes bring suit to force government actors to conform their conduct to the requirements of a specific federal statute
- For injury in fact, ask whether the injury caused to the individual or group seeking to enforce the statute is within the “zone of interest” that Congress meant to protect with the statute. If so, the court is likely to grant standing to those persons
Standing to Assert the Rights of Others
May Assert Third-Party Rights where they themselves have suffered injury AND:
- Third parties find it difficult to assert their own rights OR
- The injury suffered by the π adversely affects his relationship with third parties (resulting in an indirect violation of their rights - think Craig v. Boren male v. female age to purchase beer)
Standing Of Organizations
An organization has standing to challenge an action that causes injury to the organization itself
An organization also has standing to challenge actions that cause an injury in fact to its members if the organization can demonstrate:
- that there is an injury in fact to the members that would give individuals the right to sue on their own behalf
- The injury to the members must be related to the organization’s purpose; and
- Neither the nature of the claim nor the relief requested requires participation of the individual members
No Citizenship Standing
People have no standing merely as citizens to claim that government action violates federal law or the constitution.
BUT - a person can have standing to allege that federal action violates the 10th A by interfering with the powers reserved to the states
Taxpayer Standing
Generally: No Standing to litigate government expenditures - the interest is too remote
Taxpayer Standing Exception
Congressional Measures Under Taxing And Spending Power that Violate Establishment Clause - If a person can show
- the measure was enacted under Congress’s taxing and spending power and
- the measure exceeds some specific limitation on the power
Adequate and Independent State Grounds
The Supreme Court will hear a case from a state court ONLY IF the state court judgment turned on federal grounds. The Court will refuse jurisdiction if it finds adequate and independent nonfederal grounds to support the decision
- Adequate: fully dispositive of the case, so that even if the federal grounds are wrongly decided, it would not affect the outcome of the case (the Supreme Court’s review of the decision would then have no effect on the judgment rendered by the state court - in effect would be rendering an advisory opinion)
- Independent: if state court’s interpretation of its state provision was based on federal case law interpreting an identifical federal provision, the state law grounds for the decision are not independent
Abstention
Unsettled Question of State Law: federal court wil abstain so as to give the state courts time to settle the underlying state law questions
Pending State Proceedings: generally will not enjoin pending stte criminal proceedings
- Pending - begun before the federal court begins proceedings on the merits
- Federal courts should abstain from enjoining pending state administrative or civil proceedings when the proceedings involve an important state interest
- Exectpion - cases of prooved harassment or prosecutions taken in bad faith
Political Questions
The court will not decide political questions - these are issues:
- constitutionally committed to another branch of governemnt (i.e. the president’s conduct of foreign policy)
- inherently incapable of judicial resolution
Sovereign Immunity and the Eleventh Amendment
11th A prohibits a federal court from hearing a private party’s or foreign government’s claims against a state government
Exception: State consents (think tort claims acts), actions against local government, actions by the United States or other states, proceedings in federal bankruptcy courts, actions against state officers for injunctions, Actions against state officers for monetary damages from officer directly, actions against state officers for prospective payments from state
