Powers of the Federal Government Flashcards
(92 cards)
Article III authorizes what?
Federal courts shall have judicial power over all “cases and controversies”:
- Arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the US
- Of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction
- In which the US is a party
- Between two or more states
- Between a state and citizens of another state
- Between citizens of different states
- Between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states
- Between a state or citizen thereof and foreign states, citizens, or subjects
What did Marbury v. Madison establish?
Judicial review
What are the two types of Supreme Court jurisdiction?
Original and Appellate
Can Congress restrict or enlarge the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction?
No
What are the two methods to invoke the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction?
Appeal (where jurisdiction is mandatory) and Certiorari (in court’s discretion)
When does the Supreme Court have mandatory appellate jurisdiction?
Available only as to decisions made by three-judge federal district court panels that grant or deny injunctive relief
What cases may be granted certiorari?
- Cases from the highest courts where (i) the constitutionality of a federal statute, federal treaty, or state statute is called into question; or (ii) a state statute allegedly violates federal law
- All cases from federal courts of appeals
Congress may eliminate specific avenues for Supreme Court review as long as what?
It does not eliminate all avenues.
Although Congress may eliminate Supreme Court review of certain cases within the federal judicial power, it must what?
It must permit jurisdiction to remain in some lower court.
If Congress were to deny all Supreme Court review of an alleged violation of constitutional rights - or go even further and deny a hearing before any federal judge on such a claim - this would violate what?
Due Process
Ripeness
A plaintiff generally is not entitled to review of a state law before it is enforced. Thus, a federal court will not hear a case unless the plaintiff has been harmed or there is an immediate threat of harm.
Mootness
A federal court will not hear a case that has become moot - a real, live controversy must exist at all stages of review, not merely when the complaint was filed.
Exception 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
Ex: pregnancy, elections, divorce actions
Ex: Defendant voluntarily stops the offending practice, but is free to resume it
Mootness in class action cases
A class representative may continue to pursue a class action even though the representative’s controversy has become moot, as long as the claims of others in the class are still viable.
Standing
A person has standing only if she can demonstrate a concrete stake in the outcome of the controversy.
Components of standing
- Injury in fact
- Caused by the government
- Redressability
Injury component of standing
To have standing, a person must be able to assert that she is injured by a government action or that the government has made a clear threat to cause injury to her if she fails to comply with a government law, regulation, or order.
Some specific injury must be alleged and it must be more than the merely theoretical injury that all persons suffer by seeing their government engage in unconstitutional actions.
Ex: A Communist Party member would have standing to challenge a statute making it a crime to be a member of the Communist Party because the member’s freedom of association is directly infringed, but a non-Party member would have no standing
In order to have standing, does the harm/injury need to be economic?
No, can have standing if harms person’s well-being.
Ex: Law students were allowed to challenge an Interstate Commerce Commission rate-setting policy on the ground that such policies discouraged recycling and thereby diminished the quality of each student’s physical environment. If the ICC rate-setting policy violated congressional statutes, the elimination of those rate-setting policies would have an impact on the students’ physical environment.
Causation component of standing
There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of - injury must be traceable to the challenged conduct
Redressability component of standing
Will a ruling in favor of the plaintiff eliminate the harm?
Ex: The Supreme Court held that mothers do not have standing to challenge the government’s refusal to enforce criminal laws that would require the fathers of their children to pay child support. The enforcement of the criminal laws against a father who is guilty of nonsupport would not necessarily result in the father’s providing support to the mother and her children.
Ex: Indigents have no standing to challenge an IRS policy that allows hospitals to receive favorable tax treatments even though they refuse to provide free or subsidized care for indigents. The indigents could not demonstrate that a different IRS policy would cause hospitals to provide them with free care.
Does standing have to be met at all stages of litigation?
Yes, even on appeal.
Ex: A district court held unconstitutional a state constitutional amendment that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. After trial, the court enjoined state officials from enforcing the provision, and the state officials elected not to appeal. The proponents of the state constitutional amendment sought to appeal. Since the proponents were not ordered to do or refrain from doing anything, they have no injury other than a generalized grievance in vindicating the validity of a generally applicable state law. Such an interest does not give the proponents a concrete state in the outcome. Therefore, they lack standing to bring the appeal.
Common standing issues
- Congressional Conferral of Standing
- Standing to Enforce government statutes - zone of interest
- Standing to assert Rights of others
- Standing of Organizations
- No Citizenship standing
- Taxpayer standing
- Legislators’ standing
- Assignee Standing
Common Standing Issues: Congressional Conferral of Standing
Congress has no power to completely eliminate the case or controversy requirement, because the requirement is based in the Constitution. However, a federal statute may create new interests, injury to which may be sufficient for standing.
Common Standing Issues: Standing to Enforce Government Statutes - Zone of Interests
In some instances a plaintiff may bring suit to force government actors to conform their conduct to the requirements of a specific federal statute. Even in such cases, the person must have an “injury in fact.” Often, the Court asks whether the injury caused to the individual or group seeking to enforce the federal statue is within the “zone of interests” that Congress meant to protect with the statute. If Congress intended the statute to protect such persons, and intended to allow private persons to bring federal court actions to enforce the statute, the courts are likely to be lenient in granting standing to those persons