Judicial Process Study Questions Part 1 (1-80)

What is a "class action"? In a class action, must diversity be established with the entire class? If not, then with whom?

A class action is a lawsuit brought by a representative member(s) of a large group of persons on behalf of all the members of the group. Basically, it's a lawsuit where so many people want to be plaintiffs that they just all sue collectively, but you have to have one named party as the representative. Diversity just has to be established with the one named party, not with the entire class.

What is the purpose of having laws?

A law is the aggregate of those rules and regulations by which the government regulates, limits, and protects the conduct of members of the state. Sometimes, this purpose of "regulating, limit(ing), and protecting the conduct of the members of the state" is controversial. Conduct refers to interpersonal conduct. So, should we have laws restricting non-interpersonal activities, like gambling, drinking, and victimless crimes? Most would say yes, because pretty much any action that a person carries out has the potential to affect others. Drinking could lead to an OWI and vehicular homicide, and something as simple as parking your car in your lawn could make your house less attractive and drive down the property values of your neighbors' homes. "Protect" usually refers to protecting those who cannot help themselves, like minors, disabled people, or people who are being discriminated against. Some able adults get angry with the government trying to "protect" them from things like smoking and obesity.

What do we mean by "access" in a judicial context? What are the two major conditions that must be met for one to gain access to the judicial system? What's a third related condition?

Access means the ability to use the judicial system. There are two major conditions that must be met for one to gain access to the judicial system: 1) standing to sue; this means that the plaintiff has the legal right to challenge in a judicial forum. 2) jurisdiction; the court where the plaintiff files suit must have jurisdiction, as well as jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties. 2 related conditions: 3) venue= which physical location/courthouse you go to (based on jurisdiction) 4) removal to federal court; sometimes can start in state court but can be transferred to federal court

What is "interpleader"? How is the diversity of citizenship requirement met in an interpleader case?

An "interpleader" is an equitable action in which a debtor, not knowing to whom among his creditors a certain debt is owed, and having no claim or stake in the fund or other thing in dispute other than its proper disposition, will petition a court to require that the creditors litigate the claim among themselves. Usually happens with insurance agencies. Basically, when an insurance agency owes a sum of money, but doesn't know who exactly to pay it to or how to divvy it up, the agency will let the court decide. There only needs to be 2 claimants from different states to have the diversity of citizenship requirement met in an interpleader case.

What is ancillary jurisdiction? What is its purpose? When is it used? Are there any restrictions on its use? Give an example where it might be used.

Ancillary jurisdiction is the jurisdiction assumed by federal courts, largely as a matter of convenience to the parties, which extends beyond that conferred upon them expressly by the Constitution or by enabling statutes. Its purpose is to make the courts more efficient by joining related claims. Ancillary jurisdiction might be used when Peter from New York is suing Kyle from California. Then, if John from California filed a separate claim against Kyle, ancillary jurisdiction would apply so that John's claim would get grouped with the other one in federal court.

Why would Chief Justice Marshall be unable to participate in the decision of Marbury if the case came before the Court now?

Chief Justice Marshall, in the present day, would not be able to participate in the Marbury decision because it would be a conflict of interest given that he had been Secretary of State during the time the appointments were made by Adams, and would therefore have to recuse himself. But anyway, he would never be able to be both Secretary of State and Chief Justice in the present day.

How can one define "policy making"?

Choosing among alternative courses of action; basically, this is the practice of allocating limited resources.

What does the term "civil law" mean (as opposed to common law)? Did any of the states ever use a civil law system? What's another name for this type of system of law?

Civil law is a system where the legislative and executive bodies of a government use a set of codes to follow and make decisions. This type of law is prevalent in Western countries that adopted Napoleonic law, i.e. most of Europe. Louisiana's private law system is a "codified" civil law system based on Napoleonic law rather than English common law. Another name for this type of law is codified law.

How might a collusive agreement destroy diversity jurisdiction?

Collusion is the making of an agreement with another for the purposes of perpetrating a fraud or engaging in an illegal activity. Collusion is illegal, so if someone tries to make a collusive agreement or if a collusive agreement is discovered during a case, diversity is lost.

What does the term "common law" mean? What are its origins?

Common law refers to judge-made law, law made by judicial precedents rather than statutes. Common law originated in England, where the decisions of judges created law.

How are corporations treated differently for purposes of diversity of citizenship? Does this help or hurt the corporation?

Corporations have dual citizenship: one is the state in which its principal place of businesses is, and one is in the "state of corporation" or where the corporation is based out of. And, it depends.

What is "federalism"? What are six elements of federalism?

Federalism is a system of government in which power is divided between two levels-- the national government and then state (and local) governments. There are 6 basic elements of federalism: 1) The constitutional division of governmental function is such that each level is autonomous in at least one sphere of action. For example, the federal government is allowed to coin money, while education is supposed to be left to the states. 2) Each governmental level is final and supreme in its constitutionally-assigned area. 3) Both levels act directly on citizens. For example, you pay both federal income taxes and state sales taxes. 4) Both levels derive their powers from the sovereign. In the case of the U.S., the sovereign is the people or the Constitution. 5) Neither level can change the relationship unilaterally. 6) The regional divisions exist as of their own right.

In what federal circuit is Iowa? Michigan?

Iowa is in the 8th circuit, Michigan is in the 6th.

What was the factual situation that led to Marbury v. Madison (1803)? Why is this case important?

Jefferson had just won the 1800 presidential election, and was going to take office after John Adams. Adams was a federalist, and his Secretary of State, John Marshall, was also a federalist. Adams also appointed Marshall to be the chief justice, and he wanted to pack the courts with federalist judges before he left office. It was Marshall's job as Secretary of State to deliver these judge commissions, but for some reason he didn't deliver all of them on time. Then, once Jefferson was inaugurated, his new Secretary of State, James Madison, took over. Obviously, he didn't deliver the federalist commissions because he and Jefferson were democratic-republicans. So, these federalist appointees that never received their commissions, even though they were approved to be judges by Congress, got mad and sued Madison. They wanted the Court to issue a writ of mandamus to order Madison to deliver the appointments. Marbury was one of these appointees. Marshall decided to declare part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional on the grounds that it was allowing Congress to expand original jurisdiction; basically, the Act didn't specify that the Constitution trumps Congress. Congress cannot be the body that determines if its own actions are constitutional or not.

What was the difficult choice Jefferson faced given the decision in Marbury? Why did he make the choice he did?

Jefferson had to decide whether he would just appease Marbury and the federalists by giving the federalists the judge appointments, or if he would listen to Marshall and give the SCOTUS judicial review. Partially made the choice because Marshall reasoned that judges take an oath to defend the Constitution (even though all politicians do).

What is "judicial review"? Which courts have the power to exercise judicial review? Which Amendment of the Constitution gives courts the power of judicial review?

Judicial review is the power of the courts to review a ruling or law and decide whether or not it is constitutional; basically, judicial review gives the courts the ability to make policy. All courts have the power of judicial review. Judicial review is not mentioned in the Constitution, so no Amendment gives the courts this power.

What is "jurisdiction"? What are some types of jurisdiction?

Jurisdiction is the legal authority of a court to hear specific kinds of cases. There are many types of jurisdiction, but we will be looking at three main types: geographical, hierarchical, and subject matter.

Can "justice" be found by using an objective standard? If not, then how do we find it?

Justice is the output of what the judicial system ought to be. Justice can't really be found by using an objective standard; it's variable, and it depends on the situation. Justice is found through compromise; since not every citizen of the US will agree, justice is "the tolerable accommodation of the conflicting interests of society." This is evidenced in the example of homicide vs. murder. Homicide is just one person killing another, and could have happened in self defense. Doesn't necessarily offend people. Murder, on the other hand, has a negative, violent, offensive connotation.

What is supplemental jurisdiction?

New term for ancillary and pendent jurisdiction, since federal statutes no longer use those terms.

Under either ancillary or pendent jurisdiction can the added claims be unrelated to the original claim?

No, the added claims must be substantially related.

Name an area in which both levels of government act directly on citizens. Name at least one area in which each level of government is supreme in its ability to act on citizens. How can the federal government exert its influence in areas where the states are supreme?

One area in which both levels act directly on citizens is taxes. You could pay both federal income taxes and state sales taxes. One area in which the federal government is supreme is in coining money and controlling currency. One are in which the states are supposed to be supreme is education. However, the federal government is able to exert its influence over state powers because the federal government controls the allocation of funds. So, although the states are supposed to have autonomy over education, the federal government will have strings-attached piles of money to give to states for education, or will place standards/regulations that states have to follow or run the risk of having their education funds withheld from them.

How do we expect judges to act when they are not at work? Are they held to a higher standard of decorum than other citizens? than other public employees? If so, why?

Outside of work, we expect judges to be nameless, faceless members of the community. They're not supposed to be celebrities or in the public eye, because they don't have to campaign for reelection. They're supposed to be more behind the scenes and stay out of scandal and corruption. Definitely held to a higher standard of decorum than that of legislators or the event the president because they are supposed to be objective and nonpartisan.

What is pendent jurisdiction? What is its purpose? When is it used? Are there any restrictions on its use? Give an example where it might be used.

Pendent jurisdiction is when a plaintiff joins a federal claim with a state law claim based on "a common nucleus of operative fact," or closely related or identical conduct of the defendant. This arises out of federal federal question, not diversity jurisdiction. It cannot be based on diversity jurisdiction. An example of when pendent jurisdiction might be used is if a government employee destroys your campaign sign during an election. You could sue on First Amendment grounds, and then you could join the claim for the monetary damage of the sign itself, in federal court.

What is "recusal"? When should a judge recuse him or herself from a case?

Recusal is when a judge has a conflict of interest with a case (or at least the appearance of a conflict of interest) and removes him or herself from a case.

What geographic area do supreme courts cover? What states do not call their highest court a "Supreme Court"? Can a state have more than one supreme court? If yes, do any?

Supreme Courts have control over entire geographic area of country. New York and Maryland call their highest court "Court of Appeals." Some states have two courts: a Supreme Court and a Court of Criminal Appeals. Texas and Oklahoma have this.

What is the "Cult of the Robe"? What are some of its manifestations?

The Cult of the Robe has to do with the stuffy, traditional, "cultish" proceedings surrounding judges and the court system. Basically, the robes that judges have to wear are symbolic of the job of the judge itself; there are a lot of formalities, lots of sophisticated language is used, and there is an air of esteem that is different for judges than any other public official (hence, only judges wear robes; not the president, or senators, etc.) Some manifestations of this are the solemn proceedings of the courtroom, the fact that judges sit on an elevated bench, the separation of judges from the attorneys, and the need for experts in the courtroom.

What's the main difference between ancillary and pendent jurisdiction?

The main difference is that under pendant, you can't raise a suit under diversity jurisdiction. Pendent must arise from a federal question.

The framers of the Constitution institutionalized the view that government is best that governs least via three mechanisms. What are those three mechanisms?

The three mechanisms are: federalism, separation of powers, and judicial review.

Briefly, what are the three schools of legal philosophy or jurisprudence? How are they different? How are they the same? What does Spaeth think about these three schools of thought?

The three schools of legal thought are: natural law, declaratory theory, and sociological/legal realism. 1) Natural law is based on the nature of man, the will of God, etc. This is what the concept of inalienable rights (Constitution) are based on, and the drafters of the Constitution believed in this concept. Natural law is a less popular justification as the US becomes more secularized. 2) Declaratory theory is the theory that judges are merely the mouthpieces of the law, or that they merely find the law and apply it. This is what judges claim to practice. 3) Legal realism is the theory that recognizes that judges are human, and can therefore never be totally objective. However, judges should strive for objectivity. Natural law and declaratory theory are similar in that they don't really take human nature into account. Spaeth thinks that these schools of thought are just different ways of justifying a judge's personal policy preferences/behavior.

Jurisdiction can be divided into three basic types. What are they?

The three types of jurisdiction are hierarchical, geographical, and subject matter.

What are the two levels of government involved in federalism? Because we also have local governments in the United States (e.g., city, county), does this mean the US does not operate under a federal system of government? Why or why not?

The two levels of government involved in U.S. federalism are the national/federal government and the state government(s). Even though we also have local (city and county) governments, the U.S. does operate under a federal system of government because federal law trumps state and city/county law due to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

Some believe judges are only the "finders" of the law. Why would anyone believe this?

There are 6 reasons that we are supposed to believe that judges are the "finders" of the law. The first (1) reason is because judges themselves have told us so. The second (2) reason is because of the "cult of the robe," or the official, solemn environment that surrounds judges. There are a lot of traditions surrounding judges and the court system (elevated benches, way you address judges, need for experts in trials, etc.) that give them an air of esteem. The third reason (3) is because off the bench, judges are supposed to be nameless, almost anonymous, members of the community. The fourth reason (4) is because judges literally make decisions that can mean life or death (i.e. death penalty). The fifth reason (5) is because judicial decisions are very powerful. Since a single federal judge could declare a law to be unconstitutional, we want to believe that judges are smart and objective. The sixth reason (6) is because judges have the opportunity to rule on legal principles and amendments; basically, they can form or dictate policy.

Why is diversity jurisdiction under attack? Can Congress just pass a law to eliminate it? If yes, why don't they? If not, why not? How can Congress effectively eliminate diversity jurisdiction without actually doing so?

There are three reasons that diversity jurisdiction is under attack. The first (1) is because the fear of state bias is not as prevalent today as when the concept was invented. The second reason (2) is because federal dockets are crowded. The third (3) reason is because federal courts and judges must apply state laws in diversity cases. Congress would not just be able to eliminate it, they would need to make an amendment. Congress can basically eliminate it by continuing to raise the minimum amount (right now it must exceed $75k), without literally eliminating it.

Of what importance is the phrase "common nucleus of operative facts"? Who decides whether something comes from such a common nucleus?

This phrase means that federal court will have jurisdiction over state laws. Basically, since everything is coming from the same factual situation, you don't have to go find new facts for the federal court version. The judge at the federal court will decide if the cases are of a common nucleus.

How are unincorporated entities treated for purposes of diversity of citizenship?

Unincorporated entities have individual constituents, so each constituent has a different place of citizenship. It would be almost impossible to sue under diversity of citizenship because there could be so many different states represented that the federal court wouldn't even take it.