Limits on Justiciability Flashcards
Political Question Doctrine
Some issues are not “justiciable,” meaning they are not capable of being resolved by the SCT because they present “political questions,” that only political branches (Executive or Legislative) can resolve
Luther v. Borden
Guarantee Clause states Congress guarantees each state a republican form of government. Not justiciable – the Legislature must determine it
two factions fight over what government control Rhode Island
Baker v. Carr
The reapportionment of legislative district lines violating the equal protection clause is a justiciable issue. Established the Carr balancing test, determining whether an issue is a non-justiciable political question. Test determines it is justiciable.
Baker six factor balancing test
ASIRUE
1. does the text of the constitution give ANOTHER branch responsibilities?
2. is there a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable STANDARDS for resolving the issue?
3. is there an IMPOSSIBILITY of deciding the issue without making a policy determination not suitable for judicial discretion?
4. would there be a lack of RESPECT for the other branches in undertaking independent resolution of the case?
5. is there the unusual need for UNQUESTIONING adherence to a political decision already made?
6. is there potential for EMBARASSMENT for differing pronouncements of the issue by different branches of government?
Nixon v. US
Federal Judge being tried by the Senate for perjury is a political question – SCT cannot examine the trial. used balancing test and found the Senate has the power to impeach, there is a policy question involved (committee trial), and the SCT would have to embarass the Senate and show a lack of respect. USES BAKER SIX-POINT BALANCE
Case or Controversy Requirement
there must be two adverse parties submitting their claims to the court for adjudication (Muskrat v. US)
Muskrat v. US
There must be an actual case/controversy between the litigating parties. a statute cannot assign duties to the court, because the judicial branch cannot give opinions or decide questions.
Congress passed an act allocating land to Native Americans, then passed another act giving the more people claim to the land. Congress passed a statute letting Native Americans file suit against the US in the Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality.
Declaratory Judgments
allows the Court to pronounce whether some government enactment violates an established right of an individual if there is an actual dispute; softens the Muskrat case/controversy requirement
Ripeness
a legal dispute is not ripe if it has not developed into an actual controversy, has not yet caused injury, or is otherwise asserted prematurely
Mootness
a controversy is moot if the parties no longer have any meaningful and concrete state in its resolution.
Standing
a plaintiff must allege a personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct that is likely to be redressed by the requested relief (Allen v. Wright)
Standing Requirements
- injury in fact - an invasion of a legally protected interest that is:
i. concrete and particularized, and
ii. actual or imminent, not conjectural/hypothetical - a causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct (fairly traceable to conduct, not the result of a third-party action)
- is likely that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision (cannot be speculative that the injury is redressable)
Generalized Grievances
if you share a grievance with hundreds of people, that will not create standing.
Third-Party Complaints
you cannot litigate on behalf of someone else, because you will not have standing
Allen v. Wright
You do not have standing if the personal injury is too conjectural and if you dont have causation.
plaintiffs file a suit against the IRS arguing that the failure of the IRS to deny tax-exempt status to segregated private schools caused injury to their kids (allowing segregation). injury is not direct, and causation too attenuated.
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife
endangered species act was limited to not include animals abroad, and DoW sues. they say if animals go extinct, they wont be able to look at them. the injury is too conjectural, because they have no real plans to see the animals.
What is a Congressional Power that Limits Jurisdiction?
Congress has the power to pass legislation that limits the SCT’s jurisdiction to hear cases. Exceptions Clause, Article III Section 2. Seen in McCardle.
Article III Section 2
Exceptions clause:
“… in all the other Cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction…with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make”
Ex Parte McCardle
newspaper editor arrested for publishing articles that were critical of post-civil war reconstruction. McCardle sought a writ of habeas corpus, which was denied, and before he could appeal to SCT, Congress passed a law stripping SCT of their appellate jurisdiction for the habeas act.
Holding: Congress can exercise their right to limit jurisdiction based on the exceptions clause.
Can Congress strip the Supreme Court of certain appellate review power?
Yes, due to the exceptions clause.
