Introduction to Constitutional Law
Standing: Injury
Plaintiff must allege that they suffered or imminently will suffer an injury P must be actually/personally injured (be among the injured)
Marbury v Madison Takeaways:
"It is emphatically the province & duty of the judicial dept to say what the law is" Ct Claims power to review both executive & legislative acts Distinction b/w individual rights & gov/political power
1. Bar on advisory opinions
(Art III, §2) • Federal courts may not decide questions/disputes that are "abstract, hypothetical, or contingent." • Must be litigants & must be a substantial likelihood that a fed ct decision in favor of a claimant will bring about some change or have some effect • No free advice or policy giving (don't want them making policy decisions) → ct can give advice about constitutionality until after legislature acts & an issues arises • Position of Neutrality
Federal Judiciary Branch
1. Article III 2. Constitutional Basis for Judicial Review 3. Exceptions Clause 4. Justiciability
5 major doctrines that must be met in order for a party for any fed ct, at any level, to hear a case
1. Bar on advisory opinions 2. Ripeness 3. Mootness 4. Political Questions 5. Standing
Outcome of the Exceptions Clause depends on:
1. Interpretation of text 2. Underlying policy questions 3. Interpretation of past precedent (McCardle, Klein) 4. Broad (McCardle) v. Narrow (Klein) interpretation of case law → deep engagement in the case law - how does it compare to xyz case - Unresolved area of law
Justiciability Doctrines:
All judicially created limits on the matters that can be heard in fed ct (interpreted by the Supreme Ct as setting limits on the fed judicial power based on Art III)
The Oath Clause:
All, executive, legislative, and judicial members of the branches take an oath to uphold the tenets of the U.S. Constitution.
Ex Parte McCardle Context
Before 1867 fed ct could hear habeas petitions only of those held in fed custody (under Judiciary Act) - Congress explicitly attempted to repeal the act to remove this case from the docket & to strike at a branch of the Supreme Ct jurisdiction
Why have these Prudential Principle requirements?
Conserve judicial resources, person actually inflicted could better advocate/represent the issue, increase or frivolous suits w/o this; political process allows other means of "fighting the issue".
Ex Parte McCardle Holding
Const gives Congress express power to make exceptions to the appellate power of the S. Ct. o The appellate jurisdiction of the ct is not derived from acts of Congress but by the Const - it is conferred "with such exceptions & under such regulation as Congress shall make" o Since Congress withdrew jurisdiction to hear the case, McCardle had no legal recourse to challenge his imprisonment in fed. Ct.
Judiciary Constitutional Power Reference: Supremacy Clause (Art VI)
Judges can state that the Const trumps state & other laws
2 types of Limits on Fed Judicial Power
Constitutional and Prudential
Judiciary Constitutional Power Reference: Oath Clause (Art VI)
Judges take an oath to support the Const -if they can't support it, why bother taking the oath → it's meaningless unless judges can defend the Const
Constitutional Limits on Judiciary Power
Art III §2 defines the federal judicial power in terms of 9 categories of "cases & controversies". The Supreme Ct has repeatedly said that the requirement for these imposes substantial constitutional limits on federal judicial power
Judicial review is appropriate b/c Art VI
Art VI makes the Constitution the "supreme law of the land" the Constitution itself is 1st mentioned, NOT the laws of the US generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank"
US v. Richardson: Article I, §9
Article I, §9 requires publication of a "regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money". CIA fails to report so Richardson files suit alleging injury to a taxpayer's right to know how their money is being spent
The Exceptions Clause - Place in the Constitution?
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2
Constitutional Limits on Fed Judicial Power
Ct has declared that some justiciability doctrines are a result of its interpretation of Art III of the US Const. Congress can NOT override them
Marbury v Madison Holding
Ct has no jurisdiction b/c the Judiciary Act of 1789 is unconstitutional - Marbury doesn't get the commission. Although the Judiciary act authorized such jurisdiction, the provision was unconstitutional b/c Congress CANNOT allow original jurisdiction beyond the situations enumerated in the Constitution
Role of Judicial Branch in Constitutional Basis of Federal Law Process
Ever since Marbury v. Madison, the JUDICIARY has had the authority to review the constitutionality of laws & of executive acts
What are the cases to the Exceptions Clause?
Ex Parte McCardle United States v. Klein
United States v. Klein
Exceptions Clause grants BROAD power to Congress to remove matters from Supreme Ct
Ex Parte McCardle Rule
Exceptions Clause grants BROAD power to Congress to remove matters from Supreme Ct and validated congressional withdrawal of the Court's jurisdiction
Marbury v Madison Facts
Facts: Adams nominated Marshall as justice of the peace but the commission wasn't delivered in time so Marbury filed suit seeking a write of mandamus (petition to ct asking it to order a gov officer to perform a duty) to compel Madison to deliver it. Marbury claimed the Judiciary Act of 1789 authorized the Supreme Ct to grand mandamus in a proceeding filed initially in Supreme Ct.
The Exceptions Clause, Article III, Section 2, Clause 2- Verbiage
In all cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which the state shall be a Party, the S Ct shall have original jurisdiction In all other Cases [to which the federal judicial power extends], the S Ct shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make
Role of Legislative Branch in Constitutional Basis of Federal Law Process
Legislators—federal, state, and local—are obliged to consider the constitutionality of bills before ratifying them.
Marbury v Madison Rule
Marshall - Ct claims for itself their ability/power of judicial review of federal acts
Ex Parte McCardle Facts
McCardle wrote a series of newspaper articles that were highly critical of Reconstruction & the military rule of the South following the Civil War - he was arrested b/c of the Military Reconstruction Act and argued that the act was unconstitutional & violated 1, 5, 6 A.
Standing: Redressability
P must allege that a favorable fed ct decision is likely to redress injury
Standing: Causation
P must allege that the injury is fairly traceable to the D's conduct
Constitutional and Prudential Limits on Fed Judicial Power
Raise basic policy questions about the proper role of fed judiciary in a democratic society • Different from jurisdiction - unable to hear it b/c of these doctrines • Conserves judicial resources • Can avoid making opinions • Limits fed ct to questions presented in an adversary context &in a form historically viewed as capable of resolution through judicial process • Intended to improve judicial decision making by providing the fed ct w/ concrete controversies best suited for judicial resolution
Political Question Doctrine
Refers to allegations of constitutional violations that Federal Cts will not adjudicate and that the S Ct deems the subject matter to be inappropriate for judicial review and left to the politically accountable branches to resolve
4. Political Questions
Refers to allegations of constitutional violations that fed courts will not adjudicate & that the Supreme Ct deems the subject matter to be inappropriate for judicial review & left to the politically accountable branches to resolve Originates from Marbury's "sphere of decisions allocated to certain branches"
Constitutional Basis for Judicial Review
Regardless of the method interpretation, who should interpret the Constitution? all government officials & institutions are required to engage in constitutional interpretation. All elected officeholders take an oath to uphold the constitution.
Doctrine of Constitutional Avoidance:
Series of rules under which the Ct has avoided passing upon a large part of all the Constitutional questions pressed upon the Ct for decision
Marbury v Madison (Doctrinal Modality Application)
Some executive actions are discretionary and not subject to judicial review Ruled that the Judiciary has the authority to review the constitutionality of laws and executive acts, "[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is"
Role of Executive Branch in Constitutional Basis of Federal Law Process
The executive must consider constitutionality in deciding what laws to propose, which bills passed by the legislature to veto, and what executive policies to implement.
Counter-majoritarian Difficulty:
Thought that Judges are not accountable to the People because they are unelected, serve for life, and do not have power to make laws. The danger is that they will impose their policy preferences without accountability.
Prohibition against generalized grievances Case
US v. Richardson: 418 US 166 (1974) - Burger → general grievance
Judiciary Constitutional Power Reference: Vesting Clause (Art III)
Vesting in judiciary to tell what the law is
Prudential Limits on Fed Judicial Power
are based on prudent judicial administration & can be overridden by Congress since they are not constitutional requirements Congress by statute may override prudential but NOT constitutional restrictions b/c Congress may NOT expand fed judicial power beyond what is authorized in Art III of the Const
3 Constitutional requirements (based on Art III interpretation)
i. Injury: Plaintiff must allege that they suffered or imminently will suffer an injury o P must be actually/personally injured (be among the injured) ii. Causation: P must allege that the injury is fairly traceable to the D's conduct iii. Redressability: P must allege that a favorable fed ct decision is likely to redress injury Allen v Wright
2 Prudential principles (Congress may override these limits by statute)
i. Prohibition on 3rd party standing ii. Prohibition against generalized grievances
Judiciary Constitutional Power Reference: "Cases" and "Controversies" Art III
list of 9 "cases" and "controversies" categories that allow judges to rule over
US v. Richardson Holding
no standing, was a general grievance; No particularized injury form the operation of the statute at all
Overview of Art III 1:4
o Allocates judicial power o Must rely on other means to make sure its laws are followed (no bank/ army) o Must ask Congress for $, weakest of first 3 Art
Overview of Art III 4:4
o Fed judges allegiance to fed gov b/c they get paid by fed treasure (can't cut salary but can incentivize) o Judges need an actual case/dispute to get involved (9 categories are explicitly enumerated) o Sets out original & appellate jurisdiction (original- filed directly in fed ct)
Takeaways of the Exceptions Clause, Article III, Section 2, Clause 2
o Is an unresolved area of law o Raises important questions about Congress' ability to control the judicial branch
Overview of Art III 3:4
o Leaves out power of judicial review o No selection of judges (Pres nominates them) o Doesn't explain how Const should be interpreted o Judges terms are indefinite
Overview of Art III 2:4
o Says nothing about the size of the ct o Doesn't require ct to issues opinions o Congress decides what ct/judges can hear &do (ct has no individual discretion)
Article III:
the Judiciary Branch §1, §2 Clause 1, §2 Clause 2
No Supreme Interpreter Model of Judicial Review: 1832 Veto Message to Congress by President Andrew Jackson and
the thought is that the Supreme Court has no power of judicial review and that each branch should interpret the Constitution; no single branch is authoritative, and the People act as supreme interpreters.
Marbury v Madison Context
uncertainty about the future of the Republic - political instability - dissatisfaction over taxes -unexpected formation of political powers - aftermath of the 1800 Election (Jefferson v. Adams when Adams lost & Federalists about to get kicked out of Congress/lose control)
Art III Section 1
§1: The Vesting Clause: the judicial power of the US shall be vested in one Supreme Court...Judges, both of the Supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior.
Art III as a ceiling for the ct's original jurisdiction
• Congress cannot expand original jurisdiction of Supreme ct • Congress can't authorizes fed ct to hear cases beyond what Art III specifies & vice versa
2. Ripeness
• Determines when review is appropriate/when that litigation may occur • Excludes cases where review would be premature (usually pre-enforcement challenges)
3. Mootness
• Determines when review is appropriate/when that litigation may occur • Excludes cases where there is no longer a controversy • An actual controversy must exist at all stages of federal ct proceedings. If the events subsequent to filing a case resolve the dispute the case is dismissed as being Moot
5. Standing
• Standing: the determination of whether a specific person is the property party to bring a matter to the ct for adjudication → whether litigant is entitled to have ct decide the merits of the case • The MOST important justiciability doctrine
Where do we look to see if judges have power to deem something unconstitutional?
• Supremacy Clause (Art VI) • Vesting Clause (Art III) • Oath Clause (Art VI) • Art III
Non-Reviewable Discretionary Action
• The Pres is given certain political powers by the Const that he may use at his discretion. To aid him in his duties, he may appoint officials. The Court CANNOT review such decisions of the president or his officers • Precursor to the political question doctrine
Reviewable Ministerial Actions
• Where executive officers are given specific duties by law on which individual rights depend, any individual injured by reach of such duty may resort to eh Court for a remedy • Judicial power of Supreme Ct shall be extended to all cases arising under the Const
Certain executive actions are discretionary & not subject to judicial review & Distinction b/w discretionary & ministerial (forcing hand to do something) acts
− 2 categories of cases which Marbury discusses: o Non-Reviewable Discretionary Action o Reviewable Ministerial Actions
Art III Section 2 Clause 1
− §2 Clause 1: "cases" and "controversies" 9 express categories to which the judicial power shall extend
Art III Section 2 Clause 2
− §2 Clause 2: provides for when the Supreme Ct shall have original jurisdiction
