Constitutional Law Flashcards
(102 cards)
Federal judicial power comes from. . .
Article III of the Constitution
What are the limits of federal judicial power?
Federal judicial power extends to cases involving:
1) INTERPRETATION of the C, federal laws, treaties, and admiralty, and maritime laws; and
2) DISPUTES between states, states and foreign citizens, and citizens of diverse citizenship
Advisory opinions are those that lack. . .
a) An actual dispute between adverse parties, or
b) Any legally binding effect on the parties
NOT JUSTICIABLE
Justiciability
Whether a lawsuit is capable of judicial resolution as a case or controversy depends on:
a) WHAT it requests (NO ADVISORY OPINIONS),
b) WHEN it is brought [(ripe and not moot)], and
c) WHO brings it (someone with standing)
Article III judges have tenure for. . .
Life
Where does the Sup. Ct. have ORIGINAL JURISDICTION?
In all cases affecting ambassadors, public ministers, consuls, and those in which the state is a party, but Congress has given concurrent jurisdiction to lower federal courts in all cases EXCEPT those between states
Where does the Sup. Ct. have APPELLATE JURISDICTION?
In all cases to which federal power extends, subject to congressional exceptions and regulation
How do cases reach the Sup. Ct.? (2)
1) Writ of Certiorari
2) Appeal (rare cases)
Writ of Certiorari
One of two ways to get a case to the Sup. Ct.
The Sup. Ct. has complete DISCRETION to hear cases that come to it by certiorari
Those cases are:
1) Cases from STATE COURTS where (i) the constitutionality of a federal statute, federal treaty, or state statute is in issue, or (ii) a state statute allegedly violates federal law [looks like diversity jurisdiction from civ. pro.]
2) All cases from FEDERAL COURTS of appeals
Most cases brought this way
Appeal
One of two ways to get a case to the Sup. Ct.
The Sup. Ct. MUST hear cases that come to it by appeal
These cases are confined to decisions by THREE-judge federal district court panels that grant or deny INJUNCTIVE relief
Rare cases
What cases can come to the Sup. Ct. on appeal?
Cases that were decided by a 3-JUDGE federal district court panel that grant or deny INJUNCTIVE relief
What does it mean for a case to be “justiciable?”
That a federal court may address it
What cases are justiciable?
Those with a “case or controversy” may be addressed by federal court, subject to other limitations
Limitations on Federal Court Jurisdiction (4)
1) No advisory opinions
2) Ripeness
3) Mootness
4) Standing
When can federal courts hear actions for DECLARATORY relief?
There must be:
(i) an actual dispute between parties having adverse legal interests
(ii) complainants must show they have engaged (or wish to engage) in specific conduct, and
(iii) that challenged action poses a REAL AND IMMEDIATE DANGER to their interests
Requirement of specific PRESENT HARM or threat of specific future harm
Will federal courts determine the constitutionality of a statute that hasn’t been enforced yet and probably won’t be?
No, federal courts will NOT determine the constitutionality of a statute if it has NEVER been enforced and there is no REAL fear that is ever will be
Ripeness - Generally
Refers to the readiness of a case for litigation
“A claim is not ripe for adjudication if it rests upon contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all.”
Ripeness issues most usually arise when a plaintiff seeks anticipatory relief, such as an INJUNCTION
What is the goal of ripeness?
The goal is to prevent premature adjudication
If a dispute is insufficiently developed, any potential injury or stake is too speculative to warrant judicial action
How do federal courts determine ripeness?
A federal court will consider TWO main factors
(i) the FITNESS of the issues for judicial decision, and
(ii) the HARDSHIP to the parties withholding court consideration
Fitness for Judicial Decision
One of two factors considered for determining ripeness
Generally, an issue is not fit for judicial decision if it relies on UNCERTAIN OR CONTINGENT FUTURE EVENTS that may not occur as anticipated
Hardship to Parties
One of two factors considered for determining ripeness
A court will find that an action is ripe for review if a party would have to RISK SUBSTANTIAL HARDSHIP to provoke ENFORCEMENT of law
Mootness Requirement
A real controversy must exist at ALL stages of review
If the matter has already been resolved, case dismissed as moot
Exception - controversies capable of repetition, but evading review, are not moot
Examples: Issues concerning events of a short duration (e.g.: abortion) or D who voluntarily stops the offending practice but is free to resume
Exception to the Mootness Requirement
Some disputes or injuries may arise in the short-term and have the potential for recurrence, but always fail to last long enough to permit federal judicial review
In other words, controversies capable of repetition, but evading review, are NOT moot
Examples: Issues concerning events of a short duration (e.g.: abortion) or D who voluntarily stops the offending practice but is free to resume
Examples of Exceptions to the Mootness Requirement
a) Conduct Capable of Repetition, Yet Evading Review [in CMR]
b) Possibility of Collateral Legal Consequences
c) Voluntary Cessation [in CMR]
d) Class Action Litigation (w/ limitations)