The Nature of Judicial Review Flashcards
(13 cards)
Organization/Relationship of State & Federal Courts In a Federal System
State and Federal Courts in a Federal System
State courts generally have concurrent jursdiction with federal courts over cases arising under federal law. A decision of the highest court of a state is subject to appellate review in the U.S. Supreme Court if the case inlcudes a claim arising under federal law.
Jurisdiction
Congressional Power to Define and Limit
The U.S. Constitution gives the federal courts jurisdiction over all cases arising under the Constitution. Congress has the power to define and limit the jurisdiction of all courts, including the Supreme Court.
Congress cannot interfere with the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court; but it does have the power to restrict the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
Jurisdiction
Original and Appellate Jursidiction
Original jurisdiction simply means the power to hear a case right when it starts, rather than on appeal. The Supreme Court has original, but not exclusive, jurisdiction over cases involving public ministers, ambassadors, consuls, and cases where one state is a party. It has both original and exclusive jurisdiction over cases between two states. Original jurisdiction cannot be enlarged or restricted by Congress, but appellate jursidiction can.
Jurisdiction
The Eleventh Amendment and State Sovereign Immunity
Congress cannot take away a state’s 11th Amendment immunity from federal lawsuits. Citizens cannot sue: their own state in federal court, another state in federal court, or state officials in their official capacity in federal court. The 11th Amendment prohibits the Federal courts from hearing damage claims against a state without their consent. It immunizes the state from suits in federal court for money damages or equitable relief when the state is a defendant in an action brought by a citizen of another state.
A citizen CAN sue a state in federal court when:
1. State waives the right to sue in federal court
2. Congress abrogates (does away with) a state’s immunity when a state is interfering with its citizens civil rights
3. The federal government can sue the state government in federal court
4. Two states can sue each other in federal court, so long as one state is not secretly acting on behalf of a citizen
5. A citizen can sue a state official in their own personal capacity or if they are acting outside their scope of authority by violating federal law
Judicial Review in Operation
Judicial Review
Judicial review means the power of the federal courts to declare as unconstitutional acts of other branches of the federal government or of the states if in the court’s view such as acts are contrary to constitutional requirements.
Judicial Review in Operation
Justiciability
The justiciability doctrine created limits on matters that can be heard in federal courts and is intended to improve judicial decision-making by providing the federal courts with concrete controversies best suited for judicial resolution. The five major justiciability doctrines include the prohibition against advisory opinions, Article III standing, ripeness, mootness, and the Political Question Doctrine.
Essentially, courts can only hear true “cases or controversies.” The plaintiff shows by having standing – injury, causation, and redressability. A plaintiff may assert third party standing as well. The case further must be ripe for litigation, and not moot.
Judicial Review in Operation
“Case or Controversy”
Justiciability is largely based on Article II’s Case or Controversy Clause. Whether a particular piece of litigaition constitutes a case or controversy depends on whether the parties are those appropriate to seek judicial intervention, whether the dispute is sufficiently well-developed, and not too far along to justify resort to the courts, and whether there is a true practical dispute between the parties as opposed to a question of merely academic interest.
Requirements are injury, causation, redressability (which is all just standing).
Judicial Review in Operation
Advisory Opinions
The Court cannot exercise advisory opinions, and by this it is meant and established that courts may not offer legal advice outside of the context of a Case or Controversy, even by request of another branch. Further, court opinions cannot be modified by another branch – court opinions are final. In other words, courts may not issue a decision that can be modified or rejected by another branch outside the judiciary.
Judicial Review in Operation
Article III Standing
Standing is the determination of whether a specific person is the proper party to bring a matter to court against for adjudication. The purpose of standing is to assure the party bringing suit is a participant (and asking for a resolution of) a real existing dispute (i.e., case or controversy) and is not seeking the answer to an abstract question of law or something the party is only guessing will occur. The requirements for standing are as follows: (1) injury in fact, (2) causation, and (3) redressability.
Prudential standing is not constitutionally required but generated by courts to guide the application of federal judicial power.
Judicial Review in Operation
Third Party Standing
Third Party Standing can be asserted in the following situations: (1) there is a close relationship between the Plaintiff and the injured party, (2) the injured party is unlikely to assert their own rights, (3) an assignee to a contract may sue even if the money goes to the assignor, and (4) organizational standing.
The requirements for Organizational Standing are as follows: the member would have the standing to sue themselves, the claims are germane to the organization’s purpose, and neither the claim nor the relief requires the participation of indiviudal members.
Judicial Review in Operation
Ripeness and Mootness
Ripeness refers to the idea that it may be “too early” for court review. The fitness for judicial resolution is that there be a legal question (ripe) rather than a largely fact-intensive question (for executive agencies). “Mootness” refers to when it is “too late” to be a case. A case is moot when the controversy has ceased to be concrete and definite and no longer touches legal relations of the parties. The exceptions to mootness, however, are as follows: voluntary cessation, when the issue is capable of repetition and yet evades review, and a class action is not moot if at least one member has an ongoing injury.
Additional Notes on Ripeness:
1. The plaintiff is not entitled to a review of a statute or regulation before its enforcement unless they will suffer some immediate harm or immediate threat of harm.
2. Also, no speculative harm is allowed.
Judicial Review in Operation
Adequate and Independent State Ground
The Supreme Court can review a state court judgment only if it turned on federal grounds. The Court has no jurisdiction if the judgment below rested on an adequate and independent state ground. For the judgment to be adequate, the state ground must control the decision no matter how a federal issue is decided. This happens when a federal claimant wins anyway under state law. For the judgment to be independent, the state law must not depend/hinge on an interpretation of federal law.
THE SUPREME COURT CAN REVIEW A STATE COURT JUDGMENT ONLY IF IT RESTED ON FEDERAL GROUNDS – THERE IS NO SUPREME COURT REVIEW IF THE FEDERAL ISSUE DOES NOT AFFECT THE OUTCOME.
Judicial Review in Operation
Political Questions
Under the Political Question Doctrine, federal courts treat as non-justiciable certain questions that would otherwise count as a justiciable – “cases” or “controversies” where the party bringing suit has standing. They do so on the ground that such cases raise a “political question,” that is, a question that courts must refrain from answering because our constitutional system reserves the question for one or both of the political branches (Congress or the executive branch, which are—unlike courts—chosen democratically to implement interests or policy preferences to those that elect them).
Examples of Political Questions that the Court cannot hear:
1. Foreign relations
2. Challenges to the removal and impeachment process
3. Political gerrymandering (racial gerrymandering, on the other hand, can be heard by the Court)
The Court CAN make rulings on the production of presidential documents and an arbitrary exclusion of a Congressional delegate from Congress (they have tested these two in the past). And, of course, the Court can ALWAYS hear federal statutes. Always.
