Constitutional Law - Nature of Judicial Review Flashcards
(16 cards)
Judicial Review:
Does the federal government have limited or unlimited powers?
The federal government is a government of limited powers. Action by an entity of the federal government will be valid only if it is authorised by the Constitution.
Judicial Review:
Explain Article III of the Constitution.
Article III of the Constitution authorises a federal court to have judicial power over all “cases and controversies”:
1. Arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the US.
2. Affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consults.
3. Of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction.
4. In which the US is a party.
5. Between two or more states.
6. Between a state and citizens of another state.
7. Between citizens of different states.
8. Between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states.
9. Between a state or citizens thereof and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
Judicial Review:
Can the Supreme Court determine the constitutionality of acts or other branches of the federal government?
The Constitution does not explicitly state that the Supreme Court may determine the constitutionality of acts of other branches of government. However, judicial review of other branches of the federal government was established in Marbury v. Madison, which held that the Constitution is “law” and it is the province and duty of the judiciary to declare what the law is.
Separation of Powers:
Can Congress introduce statutes that override federal court judgments?
The separation of power doctrine prohibits the legislature from interfering with the courts’ final judgments (Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm). However, Congress may change federal statutes and direct federal courts to apply those changes in all cases in which a final judgment has not been rendered.
Does federal laws take precedence over state laws?
Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the Constitution provides that the Constitution, Laws, and Treaties of the US take precedence over state laws and that the judges of state courts must follow federal law, notwithstanding anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary (Fletcher v. Peck).
What are the two types of federal courts?
Article III Courts are those established by Congress pursuant to the provisions of Section 1 of Article III of the Constitution. Congress has power to delineate the jurisdictional limits, both original and appellate of these courts, subject to standards of judicial power set forth in Article III. Congress cannot require these courts to render advisory opinions or perform administrative or nonjudicial functions.
Article I Courts are those created by Congress by way of implementing its various legislative powers, such as the US Tax Court. Article I courts are sometimes vested with administrative as well as judicial functions (Glidden v. Zdanok).
Can Congress limit the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction?
Ex parte McCardle (1868) has been read as giving Congress full power to regulate and limit the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction. However, possible limitations on such congressional power has been suggested:
1. Congress may eliminate specific avenues for Supreme Court review as long as it does not eliminate all avenues (Ex parte McCardle)
2. If Congress eliminate Supreme Court review of certain cases within the federal judicial power, it must permit jurisdiction to remain in some lower federal court
In what circumstances would a federal court refuse to hear a judicial review case?
Even if a federal court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case, it still might refuse to hear the case. Whether the court will hear the case (i.e. whether case is justiciable) depends on whether (1) a “case or controversy” is involved and (2) whether other limitations on jurisdictions are present.
1. No Advisory Opinions: Federal court will not render advisory opinions on moot cases or cases involving challenges to governmental legislation or policy whose enforcement is neither actual nor threatened
2. Ripeness: Federal courts require that a dispute has matured sufficiently to warrant a decision. When considering a question of ripeness, a federal considers two main factors: (1) the fitness of the issues for judicial decision and (2) the hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration (Pacific Gas and Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conversation and Development Commission)
3. Mootness: Federal court will not hear a case that has become moot as a real, live controversy must exist at all stages of review (DeFunis v. Odegaard)
4. Standing: Supreme Court will not decide a challenge to a government or private action unless the person who is challenging the action has “standing” to raise the issue
5. Adequate and Independent State Grounds: Supreme Court will hear a case from a state court only if the state court judgment turned on federal grounds and will refuse jurisdiction if it finds adequate and independent non-federal grounds to support the state decision
6. Abstention
7. Political Questions: Court will not decide political questions
8. Eleventh Amendment Limits on Federal Courts: Eleventh Amendment will prohibit a federal court from hearing a claim for damages against a state government unless (1) state has consented to allow the lawsuit in federal court, including if the state implicitly consented to such suits as part of the basic structure of the Constitution, (2) the plaintiff is the US or another state or (3) Congress has clearly granted federal courts the authority to hear a specific type of damage action under the Fourteenth Amendment (e.g. under a civil rights statute)
What are the exceptions to mootness?
- Where there is a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party will be subjected to the same action again and would again be unable to resolve the issue because of the short duration of the action (i.e., where the controversy is capable of repetition yet evading review), the controversy will not be deemed moot (Weinstein v. Bradford)
- Case will not be deemed moot when the defendant voluntarily stops the offending practice but is free to resume it
What are the components of standing?
- Injury in Fact: To have standing, a person must be able to assert an injury in fact, which requires (1) a particularized injury that affects the plaintiff in a personal and individual way and (2) a concrete injury that exists in fact
- Causation: There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained
- Redressability: In determining whether a litigant has a sufficient injury to establish standing, courts ask whether a ruling favourable to the litigant would eliminate the harm to him
- Required at All Stages: Standing must be met at all stages of litigation, including on appeal (Hollingsworth v. Perry)
Does a claimant have standing to assert rights on behalf of a third praty?
To have standing, the claimant must have suffered or may presently suffer a direct impairment of his own rights and not third-party rights. However, plaintiff may assert third-party rights where he himself has suffered injury
Does an organisation have standing?
Organisation has standing to challenge action that causes injury to (1) the organization itself or challenge actions that cause an injury in fact to (2) its members if the organization can demonstrate the following three facts (Hunt v. Washington Apple Advertising Commission; Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College):
1. There must be an injury in fact to the members of the organization that would give individual members a right to sue on their own behalf
2. Injury to the members must be related to the organization’s purpose
3. Neither the nature of the claim nor the relief requested requires participation of the individual members in the lawsuit
Can Congress adopt a statute that would allowing citizens to have standing?
Congress cannot change this rule by adopting a statute that would allow persons to have standing merely as citizens to bring suit to force the government to observe the Constitution or federal laws (Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife)
Does taxpayer have standing with respect to taxation matters?
General rule is that there people generally do not have standing as taxpayers to challenge the way tax dollars are spent by the state or federal government, because their interest is too remote
Exception: Federal taxpayer has standing to challenge federal appropriation and spending measures if she can establish that the challenged measure (1) was enacted under Congress’s taxing and spending power and (2) exceeds some specific limitation on the power, such as the Establishment Clause
Does legislators have standing?
Legislators may have standing to challenge the constitutionality of government action if they have a sufficient “personal stake” in the dispute and suffer sufficient “concrete injury” (Raines v. Byrd)
Does a person have standing to bring a free speech claim against the government even if their own speech is not restricted?
Person has standing to bring a free speech claim alleging that the government restricted substantially more speech than necessary even if that person’s own speech would not be protected under the First Amendment. Essentially, the plaintiff can bring a claim on behalf of others whose speech would be protected under the First Amendment (Broadrick v. Oklahoma)
