Constitutional Law

United States v. Klein Issue: Can congress override the presidential pardons? The pardons also included a provision to deny the federal courts jurisdiction over the claims.

Before the court of claims was established, claimants could only be heard by congress. Congress has directed Scotus to dismiss the case on appeal from the Claims Court. Rule: Congress has complete control over the organization/existence of the Federal Court of Claims. However, the court rules that Congress has passed its limit which separates the legislative from the judicial power. Analysis: The rule by congress could also impair the effect of the constitutional power of the Executive. Conclusion: Congress should not be given the power to exclude the pardons by the executive or limit the appellate jurisdiction of the judiciary in this instance.

District of Columbia v. Heller [Interpreted the Second Amendment as protecting the right to have guns apart from militia service] Issue: Rule:

Issue: Does a D.C. prohibition of the possession of usable handguns in the home violate the 2nd Amendment? Respondent Heller is a police officer authorized to carry a handgun while on duty at the Federal Judicial Center; he applied for a registration certificate for a handgun that he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. Rule: "We find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation." The second amendment along with the first and fourth, codified a pre-existing right.

Ex Parte McCardle

Issue: McCardle was a newspaper editor, who was arrested by federal officials for writing a series of newspaper articles that were highly critical of Reconstruction. McCardle filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to a statute adopted in 1867 that permitted federal courts to grant habeas corpus relief to anyone held in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws of the U.S. McCardle claimed that the Military Reconstruction Act was unconstitutional in that it provided for military trials for civilians. Do the federal courts have jurisdiction to grant habeas corpus to McCardle under the 1867 act? Rule: "We are not at liberty to inquire into the motives of the legislature. We can only examine into its power under the constitution." [on whether they can repeal appellate jurisdiction of the writ].

Cohens v. Virginia [Established the authority for judicial review of state court decisions] Issue Rule Conclusion

Issue: Two brothers were convicted in Va state court of selling D.C. lottery tickets in violation of Va law. Rule: Chief Justice John Marshall stated that state courts often could not be trusted to protect federal rights [state judges are sometimes dependent for salary from the legislature]. Conclusion: Criminal defendants could seek Scotus review when their conviction violated the Constitution.

Martin v. Hunter's Lessee [Established the authority for judicial review of state court decisions] Rule

Justice Story argued that the Constitution presumes that the Supreme Court may review state court decisions. Justice Story argued that state interests might sometimes obstruct the regular administration of justice.

District of Columbia v. Heller [Interpreted the Second Amendment as protecting the right to have guns apart from militia service] Analysis Conclusion

Prefatory Clause: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." In U.S. v. Miller, "well-regulated militia" comprised of all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. Does the preface fit the operative clause that creates an individual right to keep and bear arms? The prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The D.C. prohibition totally bans handgun possession in the home and requires that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock at all times. As stated previously, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the 2nd amendment right. Based on both text and history, the 2nd amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Marbury v. Madison [Conclusion]

The judiciary may have original jurisdiction on some matters and appellate jurisdiction in others, but not both, according to the constitution. Therefore, the Judiciary Act of 1789 is unconstitutional. The judicial courts of the U.S. may not issue writs of mandamus to public officers, as the act is void.

Martin v. Hunter's Lessee [Established the authority for judicial review of state court decisions] Issue:

Two competing claims to land within Virginia: Martin claimed title based on inheritance from Lord Fairfax, a British citizen who owned the property; Hunter claimed that Va had taken the land before the treaties came into effect. The Va Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Hunter. Scotus held that the federal treaty was controlling and it established Lord Fairfax's ownership.

Limits on the Federal Judicial Power Interpretive Limits:

o Interpretive Limits: • Originalism: Limit unelected judges in a democratic society; "judges deciding constitutional issues should confine themselves to enforcing norms that are stated or clearly implicit in the written constitution." • Non-Originalism: "courts should go beyond that set of references and enforce norms that cannot be discovered within the four corners of the document"

Bank Markazi v. Peterson [The Clarifying case for Klein]

· A statute does not impinge on judicial power when it directs courts to apply a new legal standard to undisputed facts. Nor is the statute invalid because it prescribes a rule for a single, pending case identified by caption and docket number.

Congressional Limits

· Article III provides that the "S.C. shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such regulations as the congress shall make." o The Exceptions and Regulations Clause: Does congress have the power to limit what cases the supreme court can hear?

Marbury v. Madison

· Created the authority for judicial review of executive actions · Only the political process serves as a check on the executive branch · Article III is the ceiling of federal court jurisdiction o Congress cannot expand the original jurisdiction of the Scotus · Established authority for judicial review of legislative acts o The Judiciary act of 1789, was about appellate jurisdiction and not original jurisdiction

Robertson v. Seattle Audubon Society [The Clarifying case for Klein]

· Klein applies in a situation where Congress directs the judiciary as to decision making under an existing law and does not apply when Congress adopts a new law.

Marbury v. Madison [Issue] (1) Does Marbury have a right to the mandamus? (2) If he has a right and that right has been violated, do the laws of his country afford him a remedy? (3) Is he entitled to the remedy for which he applies? This depends on: (a) The nature of the writ applied for; and (b) The power of this court.

· Marbury claimed the Judiciary Act of 1789 authorized the S.C. to grand mandamus in a proceeding filed initially in the S.C. (1) S.C. decided that when a commission has been signed by the president, the appointment is made. (2) When heads of state act in cases in which the executive possesses a constitutional or legal discretion, then the act is merely political. However, when a duty is assigned by law, and individual rights depend upon the performance of that duty, then the injured individual has a right to resort to law for a remedy. (3) (a) The S.C. cannot decide on how the executive branch performs its duties; the S.C. may decide on the rights of individuals.

Justiciability Limits

· Scotus has interpreted Art. III § 2 as giving limits on the federal judicial power. o These Limits are called justiciability doctrines. § "Constitutional" = congress by statute cannot override them § "Prudential" = limits based on prudent judicial administration and can be overridden by congress since they are not constitutional requirements