Judicial Power Flashcards
(34 cards)
LNG of Original Jurisdiction
Under Article 3 section 1, it states that
Cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers & consuls:
■ All actions or proceedings to which ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign states are parties
AND those in which a state is a party, ■ Controversies between 2+ states
■ Controversies b/w the U.S & a state and
All proceedings by a State against the citizens or aliens of another state
how to amend Original Jurisdiction
The only way to add to the original jurisdiction of the SC is through constitutional amendment, not statute.
Can SC review state court decisions
SC can review the constitutionality of state laws, the actions of state officials & a state court’s interpretation of the Constitution
SC can review Congress too?
SC’s power of judicial review extends to Congress, not just for states
Exceptions Clause LNG
Article 3 section 2 clause 2 states that –> Ability of congress to restrict fed court jurisdiction.
Sep of Powers as limit on Congress Authority
US v. Klein—At CL, Congress cannot have a law already passed that imposes a specific ruling on the SC where the SC shall hear a case and follow that specific ruling bc it violates the separation of powers doctrine
Prohibition against Advisory Opinions RULE
§ Article 3 says courts do not issue advisory opinions because there must:
1) be an actual dispute b/w adverse litigant
2) and the court’s opinion must decide or settle the dispute and be given full faith, and credit.
Con Standing Requirement RULE
Element 1
1) an actual or imminent invasion OR a legally protected interest of the P that is concrete and particularized
Standing
defined terms for element 1
o Actual—already been harmed
o Imminent—something that is about to happen to you; not abstract or conjectural (op based on incomplete info)
o Legally protected interest—you have a right to
o Concrete & particularized—connects you directly to the harm; personal & individual way
Standing Element 2
2) that is caused by the conduct of the D (gov’t) (causation)
o Injury is fairly traceable to D’s conduct
Standing element 3
3) and that can be redressed by a decision of the court (redressability)
o Causation & redressability are combined together usually
Use but-for test
○ But for ______ the harm would not be present & Π would not have suffered these harms
Prudential
Prohibition of 3rd Party Req RULE
Plaintiff can assert only injuries that he or she has suffered; a plaintiff cannot present the claims of 3rd parties who are not part of the lawsuit
3rd Party Exception
a) P who meets all Con Standing Reqs may present claims of 3rd parties with:
1) Relationship b/w the litigant & 3rd party are intertwined
2) And 3rd party alone shall have the ability to assert his right absent the litigant
3rd party exception type
Close relationship b/w plaintiff & 3rd party:
➢ Doctor/ patient
➢ Not non-custodial parent
3rd party exception type
Usually Obstacle prevents 3rd party from being able to sue
➢ BUT plaintiff can effectively represent 3rd parties’ interests Ex: discrimination, age
3rd party exception type
Organizations/Associations:
➢ May sue for its members if:
● Individual members would have standing only if one or they would be affected in a tangible way by the challenged action.
● The interests are germane to the organization’s purpose
Neither the claim nor relief requires the participation of individual members
3rd party exception type
Claim Within the Zone of Interests:
➢ Plaintiff must raise a claim within the zone of interests
● Plaintiff must be part of the group that was intended to be protected by the Fed or State statute
3rd party exception type
Overbreadth Doctrine:
➢ An individual is permitted to challenge a statute on the grounds that it violates the 1st amend rights of 3rd parties not before the court
● Must be substantial overbreadth
● Courts should attempt to construe the statute to avoid constitutional problems & attempt to sever the unconstitutional part
● Cannot be used in challenging the regulations of commercial speech
Prudential
Prohibition of Generalized Greviances RULE
§ Generally, a plaintiff cannot sue as a citizen:
➢ Congress cannot create standing by adding a citizen suit provision into a statute
➢ Even if a statute provides a right for citizens to seek judicial review of action related to the statute, the citizen still must meet standing requirement
§ AND a plaintiff cannot sue as a taxpayer who has a grievance in common with all other taxpayers:
Taxpayer Exception to Generalized Grievance
■ a taxpayer has standing to challenge gov expenditures as violating the Establishment Clause if:
● It was established under the taxing & spending power AND
● The claim is based on a specific violation of the Constitution
■ So if gov’t expenditures violate ONLY the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment–>taxpayer standing is permitted
Ripness RULE
ELEMENT 1
Require the court to evaluate both that issues are:
1) suitable (fitness) for judicial resolution
· Fitness—what does the court need to resolve?
■ If all legal issues and facts are fully formed before the court, the court can properly review
■ If the issue is purely legal–> there is no need for a developed factual record bc the court has all the facts–>review based off fitness
Ripness RULE
ELEMENT 2
2) AND withholding review will cause the P undue hardship
· Hardship—an immediate or substantial impact
■ an extreme burden on costs, financial replanning, etc., incur a huge expense in the following regulation OR choose to break the rule and risk prosecution, and also in this case, lawsuit might harm their reputation and thus sales.
· Timing factor–also consider whether making a potential injured party wait down the road when they face prosecution later
Mootness RULE
o P must present a live controversy at all stages of fed litigation
○ If anything occurs while lawsuit is pending to end the P’s injury–>the case is to be dismissed as moot
Mootness Exception
Capable of repetition but evading review
A case is not dismissed even though its moot if there is an injury likely to recur in the future and it is possible that it could happen to the P again and it is of such a short duration that it likely always will evade review.
