Constitutional Litigation Essay Flashcards
(22 cards)
What is the core rule from Cahill v Sutton?
A person can only challenge legislation if they show their own constitutional rights are adversely affected or imminently threatened.
What is the jus tertii rule?
A person cannot argue the constitutional rights of third parties unless they share a common interest or the third party cannot assert their rights.
Which case reaffirmed the Cahill principle recently?
O’Doherty v Ireland [2023] – O’Donnell CJ emphasized live controversies and evidential context.
Name two cases where the Cahill rule was relaxed due to public importance.
Crotty v An Taoiseach and SPUC v Coogan.
What did the court decide in Digital Rights Ireland on standing?
A company could bring a challenge where it had a bona fide concern and the issue affected the public broadly.
When will courts hear moot cases?
If the issue is likely to recur and evade review, or is of exceptional public importance (e.g. Condon, Okunade, McCann).
What danger did Henchy J highlight in Cahill v Sutton?
That allowing abstract litigation would clog courts and enable bad challenges that could affect genuine litigants.
What academic criticism exists of Cahill?
Humphreys argued that all citizens should be able to challenge unconstitutional laws, and the fear of busybodies is overstated.
What are ‘weighty countervailing circumstances’ in the context of Cahill v Sutton?
Situations where the court may allow standing even without direct personal harm, e.g., where affected parties can’t challenge the law themselves.
What principle did King v AG illustrate about standing?
Courts limit challenges to only the statutory provisions that directly apply to the plaintiff.
How did Norris v AG apply the jus tertii rule?
The plaintiff could not argue the statute infringed the right to marital privacy because he was not married.
What did the Court decide in Lancefort v An Bord Pleanála about corporate standing?
Standing was denied to a company created after the impugned decision; timing and genuine connection matter.
What exception to mootness is recognized in Irish and US law?
The ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review’ doctrine (e.g., Condon v Minister for Labour).
In McCann v Monaghan DC, why did the Court proceed with a moot case?
The legislation had already affected the plaintiff and could do so again, raising constitutional concerns.
What did SPUC v Coogan establish about standing for public rights?
A bona fide citizen or group may have standing to vindicate fundamental public constitutional rights.
What is the relationship between standing and mootness?
Standing is assessed at the start of proceedings; mootness is assessed when the case is heard.
What did Farrell v Governor of St. Patrick’s Institution [2014] clarify?
Courts may hear moot cases in exceptional circumstances, especially when systemic legal issues are involved.
What role does evidential context play in standing after O’Doherty?
Courts require sufficient factual grounding to hear constitutional arguments—hypothetical disputes are not justiciable.
What was denied in Hall v Minister for Finance despite a public interest claim?
Standing was denied as no unique, personal impact was shown by the plaintiff.
What does the case of Digital Rights Ireland suggest about modern standing doctrine?
Courts can adopt a pragmatic approach—granting standing to groups where individual litigants are unlikely to emerge.
What did Riordan v Ireland [2009] say about access to courts?
Access exists for resolving justiciable issues—not for hypothetical or abstract constitutional debates.
In what kind of cases are Irish courts most likely to relax the Cahill rule?
Cases involving structural constitutional questions or rights of public interest with no suitable alternative plaintiff (Crotty, SPUC).
