Judicial Power

अब Quizwiz के साथ अपने होमवर्क और परीक्षाओं को एस करें!

Frustrated with law school, Ms. Brittain decided to apply to medical school at the newly opened school at UNC-Pembroke. UNCP denied her application. An admissions officer told her off the record that the school denied her admission because it was focusing on enrolling more male applicants as opposed to female applicants. Ms. Brittain sued, alleging an equal protection violation. The following year, UNCP admitted Ms. Brittain. On the eve of the trial, UNCP's lawyers moved to dismiss the claim, alleging that Ms. Brittain was in her final semester of school and about to graduate. Admissions officials confirmed nothing was going to keep Ms. Brittain from graduating. How should the court rule?

8/31 in class practice question (Corbett)

Woman got pregnant during her senior year of college. An odd set of circumstances kept her from finding out she was pregnant until she'd completed her first trimester. Her home state of North Virginia had a law that outlawed abortion after the first trimester, without exception. Woman sued to contest the law in federal district court. Six months after filing suit, Woman gave birth to a healthy baby boy. Attorneys for North Virginia immediately claimed her case was now moot, and moved to dismiss it. How should the court rule? Dismiss?

8/31 in class practice question (Corbett)

A federal statute prohibited any person convicted of possessing dangerous drugs from serving as a union officer. The duly elected president of a local union pled guilty to possessing amphetamines. The union and the president both felt that the federal statute was unconstitutional, but they were both afraid to violate it. Accordingly, after some discussion, the union sued the president in federal district court for a declaratory judgment regarding whether the president could continue to serve as the union's president without subjecting the union and its members to federal penalties. Both parties agreed to abide by the declaratory ruling, whichever way the court ruled on the issue. Is it likely that the federal district court has jurisdiction to hear the case? A. No, because the parties are not meaningfully adverse. B. No, because the union is asking for a declaratory judgment. C. Yes, because the union is asking for clarification of a federal statute. D. Yes, because a violation of the federal statute could subject the union and its members to penalties.

A. No, because the parties are not meaningfully adverse. Quimbee Judicial Power Final

In a 2018 interview for a Supreme Court vacancy, President T told Judge B he was not going to nominate her for the current opening, but promised her that she would receive the next vacancy that arose on the court. The following year, Judge G died. But instead of nominating Judge B, President T instead nominated Judge K to fill the opening. Judge B was furious and sued in federal district court over the unfulfilled promise. Attorneys for President T moved to dismiss the claim. How should the court rule. A. The court should grant the motion, because the Constitution grants discretionary nominating power under the circumstances to the President. B. The court should grant the motion, because Judge B cannot show the requisite injury. C. The court should deny the motion, because Judge B's legal rights to the position were violated when President T failed to fulfill his promise. D. The court should deny the motion, provided Judge B can prove she detrimentally relied on the promise.

A. The court should grant the motion, because the Constitution grants discretionary nominating power under the circumstances to the President. Political Question Doctrine - There is a textual commitment to another branch of government in the Constitution, and if there is then the courts have determined that they will not get involved in the matter. President has nominating power and it is discretionary in nature, can choose to do it or not do it. (Assessment 2 - Corbett)

A woman declared herself as a candidate for one of her state's seats in the United States Senate. The state commissioner initially refused to place the woman's name on the ballot because she was an immigrant from a foreign country, and he believed that she had not been a United States citizen for the nine-year period required by the U.S. Senate. The woman sued the commissioner in state court. After examining available immigration records, the state court found that the woman had been a U.S. citizen for more than 10 years. The woman ultimately won the election. However, shortly after she began her term, the U.S. Senate expelled her, declaring that new evidence showed she was never actually a U.S. citizen. The woman sued in federal district court for an order reinstating her to the Senate. Which of the following is the Senate's best argument for having the woman's action dismissed? A. The woman's claim presents a nonjusticiable political question because the text of the United States Constitution commits issues about membership in the U.S. Senate to the legislative branch. B. The woman's claim is not yet ripe. C. A judicial decision would violate the sovereign immunity of the state court's decision about the woman's immigration status. D. The woman lacks standing to bring the claim.

A. The woman's claim presents a nonjusticiable political question because the text of the United States Constitution commits issues about membership in the U.S. Senate to the legislative branch. U.S. Const. art. I, § 3 Quimbee Judicial Power Final

Numerous parties were assigning claims to out-of-state or diverse parties just to manufacture federal-court jurisdiction over some claims. To reduce the parties' ability to artificially create diversity jurisdiction in this way, Congress passed the Diversity Act. This act prohibited diversity jurisdiction in cases in which a non-diverse assignor assigned rights to a diverse assignee solely to meet federal subject-matter-jurisdiction requirements. A citizen of one state had a claim against a second citizen of the same state involving a bond and mortgage. The first citizen wanted to file the matter in federal court, but there was no federal jurisdiction over the matter. Accordingly, the first citizen assigned the citizen's rights in the bond and mortgage to a third person, who was a citizen of a different state. This third person then used the assigned claim to sue the second citizen in federal district court based on diversity jurisdiction. The defendant, the second citizen, argued that the federal court did not have jurisdiction over the case because the Diversity Act prohibited diversity-jurisdiction cases in federal courts involving assigned rights. Does the Diversity Act validly deprive the federal court of jurisdiction to hear this case? A. Yes, because Congress may define and limit the jurisdiction of federal courts if its actions do not conflict with the United States Constitution. B. Yes, because Congress has absolute authority over the jurisdiction of any federal courts established by Congress, including the federal district courts. C. No, because Congress may only expand the jurisdiction of federal courts, not curtail or limit that jurisdiction once given. D. No, because Congress can limit the reach of the federal courts' diversity jurisdiction, but it cannot limit this jurisdiction through legislation.

A. Yes, because Congress may define and limit the jurisdiction of federal courts if its actions do not conflict with the United States Constitution. Congress gave the federal courts diversity jurisdiction in the first place. There is no indication that restricting the federal court's diversity jurisdiction in this way violates Article III or any other constitutional provision. Therefore, Congress could lawfully restrict the federal court's diversity jurisdiction through the act. Quimbee Judicial Power Final

A man confessed to murder while he was being interrogated in his local police station. At trial, the man moved to suppress his confession, claiming that his interrogation was unlawfully conducted under state procedures and that his federal Miranda rights had been violated. Miranda rights refer to an arrestee's rights under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to certain warnings after an arrest and before an interrogation. The trial court found that neither the state procedures nor the man's Miranda rights had been violated and denied the man's motion. The man was then convicted. Ultimately, the man's appeal reached the state supreme court, which was the highest court in the state. The state supreme court concluded that the interrogation had violated the man's Miranda rights and suppressed the man's confession. The state appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The man challenged the state's appeal, arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to review the state court's ruling. Is it likely that the U.S. Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review the ruling? A. Yes, because the state supreme court found that the interrogation violated the man's Miranda rights. B. Yes, because the appeal came from the highest court in the state. C. No, because the original ruling from the trial court involved interpreting state law. D. No, because there was no indication that federal interrogation procedures provided more protection than state interrogation procedures.

A. Yes, because the state supreme court found that the interrogation violated the man's Miranda rights. Quimbee Judicial Power Final

A student challenged the admission process of the state university law school, claiming that the process violated the Equal Protection Clause. The student sought an injunction in state court requiring his admission, and the trial court issued the injunction order. Based on this order, the law school admitted the student. The law school appealed the order though. Eventually, the state supreme court, the highest court in the state, found that the law school was not required to admit the student and reversed the injunction order. However, the state supreme court's judgment was stayed pending the student's appeal to the United States Supreme Court. At the time the matter was argued to the U.S. Supreme Court, the student was in his final term of law school. Shortly before the arguments, the law school agreed that the student's registration for his final term would not be cancelled regardless of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision and that the student was entitled to complete his studies to get his degree. Is the student's claim now moot? A. Yes, because the student's claim sought only an injunction requiring his admission to the law school. B. Yes, because the university voluntarily ceased the alleged activity. C. No, because other students might face the same issue. D. No, because the student had not actually graduated from law school.

A. Yes, because the student's claim sought only an injunction requiring his admission to the law school. A case becomes moot if there is no longer a live dispute for the federal courts to resolve. In those circumstances, judicial resolution of the claim would be essentially the same as issuing an advisory opinion, and, under Article III, federal courts are not allowed to issue advisory opinions. Answer option B is incorrect because, by itself, a claim for injunctive relief is generally not moot because the defendant voluntarily ceases the allegedly illegal activity. This is because the defendant could simply start doing it again in the future. Note that a claim for damages might be different. A defendant may be able to voluntarily moot a claim for damages by paying the requested damages because this provides full relief. Quimbee Judicial Power Final

A federal taxpayer without any children of his own brought a lawsuit in federal district court to enjoin federal officers from spending funds under the federal Elementary Education Act. Under the act, Congress collected a new tax for educational purposes that would provide federal funds for basic instruction and materials in elementary schools. The taxpayer brought the claim solely based on his status as a federal taxpayer, alleging that Congress had misused its taxing and spending power when it passed the act. Specifically, the taxpayer alleged that Congress had used its taxing and spending power in a way that violated the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the United States Constitution because the tax money collected was used to provide materials to religious schools. Is it likely that the taxpayer has standing to bring this claim? A. Yes, because the taxpayer is claiming that Congress used its taxing and spending power to collect a specific tax that violates the Free Exercise and Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. B. Yes, because federal taxpayers generally have standing to challenge federal expenditures. C. No, because federal taxpayers generally do not have standing to challenge federal expenditures. D. No, because the taxpayer did not have any children in school.

A. Yes, because the taxpayer is claiming that Congress used its taxing and spending power to collect a specific tax that violates the Free Exercise and Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Taxpayers generally do not have standing to challenge congressional expenditures based on the simple fact that they paid taxes that were later used to support a particular government activity. However, there is one exception to this general rule. Taxpayers do have standing to pursue a claim that Congress misused its taxing and spending power—but only this power—in an unconstitutional way, like imposing a particular tax and then spending that tax money to support a particular religious group or a religious activity in a way that violates the Free Exercise and Establishment Clause. Quimbee Judicial Power Final

Shortly before the November 2020 election, Congress passed the following law: "The Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review on appeal any case arising out of any state law permitting voluntary prayer in any school setting or any other religious teaching in a public school. All such cases shall be resolved at the district court level." If the new law is deemed constitutional, it is most likely because: A. Article III allows Congress the authority to exert control over the court's original jurisdiction. B. Ex Parte McCardle provides precedent that Congress may use the Exceptions and Regulations Clause in Article III to remove the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction. C. The law does not violate the separation of powers doctrine. D. The law is consistent with the holding in Marbury v. Madison.

B. Ex Parte McCardle provides precedent that Congress may use the Exceptions and Regulations Clause in Article III to remove the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction. This is the best answer because speaks to precedent and explains can add and take away. A is factually wrong, Marbury v Madison was the test drive for this when the Judiciary Act of 1789 tried to give the court original jurisdiction over writs of mandamus and the court ended up striking it down. C is factually correct because Congress does have the ability through the E/R clause to mess with appellate jurisdiction of the court if it chooses to, but this isn't the best answer. 8/31 in class practice question (Corbett)

Congress enacted the Handgun Prevention Act. The act required that the United States attorney general implement a nationwide background-check system for handgun purchases. In the interim, while the national system was being created, state and local officials were required to conduct background checks of prospective handgun purchasers. Specifically, county law enforcement officers, like sheriffs or constables, would perform background checks whenever a firearm seller alerted them to a new sale. If a prospective purchaser passed the background check, then the seller could sell a handgun to the purchaser. A firearm seller sued the state government in federal court, arguing that the new act gave the chief law enforcement officer in his county unlawful power over the seller's right to contract. The state moved to dismiss the claim, arguing that the federal court had no power to hear it. Can the federal court hear the firearm seller's claim? A. No, because the act requires state officials to enforce it in the interim, not federal officials. B. No, because the firearm seller cannot sue the state in federal court. C. Yes, because the state is interfering with the firearm seller's right to contract. D. Yes, because a federal law is compelling the state officials to conduct the background checks.

B. No, because the firearm seller cannot sue the state in federal court. Quimbee Judicial Power Final

A woman was arrested after police officers found marijuana in her car. The woman pled conditionally guilty and was sentenced to six months in prison. During that time, the woman appealed her conviction, arguing that the police lacked probable cause to search her vehicle during her arrest. While the woman's appeal was pending, the woman completed her six-month sentence and was released. The state moved to dismiss the woman's appeal, arguing that her claim was now moot. Should the court dismiss the woman's action as moot? A. No, because the woman's claim is capable of repetition while evading review. B. No, because the woman's conviction carries the possibility of collateral consequences. C. Yes, because the woman has already completed her sentence and been released. D. Yes, because it was highly unlikely that the woman would be arrested again under the same circumstances.

B. No, because the woman's conviction carries the possibility of collateral consequences. Quimbee Judicial Power Final

Because of projected overcrowding in the parking lots at a city's commercial harbors, the city enacted an ordinance that made it illegal for commercial trucks and other vehicles to park overnight in a parking lot for a city harbor. The consequence for violating the ordinance was a ticket with criminal penalties or fines. Not many trucks parked overnight in these lots, but they sometimes did so during storms or hazards that shut down interstate highways leaving the city. After the city ordinance was passed, the city raised the possibility of revisiting the issue before actually enforcing the ordinance. The city then scheduled a hearing to allow new evidence to be heard regarding the potential efficacy of the ordinance. Before the hearing had occurred or the new ordinance was enforced, a group of interstate trucking companies sued the city commissioner in federal court, arguing that the new ordinance unlawfully impacted interstate trucking. The city commissioner moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the group's claim was not ripe for adjudication. Is it likely that the group's claim is ripe for adjudication? A. No, but only because the ordinance has not been enforced yet. B. No, both because the ordinance has not been enforced yet and because withholding judicial review at this time will not cause significant hardship to the trucking companies. C. Yes, because future enforcement of the ordinance is imminent. D. Yes, because a trucker faces potential criminal penalties or fines for violating the ordinance.

B. No, both because the ordinance has not been enforced yet and because withholding judicial review at this time will not cause significant hardship to the trucking companies. For a potential future injury to make a claim ripe, the injury must be both severe and likely to occur. Here, the criminal penalties are the fines associated with a parking ticket and are not likely to be severe. Quimbee Judicial Power Final

A state was predominately controlled by Republican politicians for 100 years. During that time, the state never changed its political districts, although the state's constitution required the state to change the districts every 10 years. Then, one year, Democratic candidates won almost every state office in a landslide victory. Immediately thereafter, the new state government redrew the state's political districts. The new districts were oddly shaped and gave Democratic candidates a clear advantage in future elections. The leader of the state's Republican party sued the state in federal court, arguing that the state redistricting was unconstitutional political gerrymandering. The state moved to dismiss the federal-court case, arguing that the claim was a nonjusticiable political question. Is it likely that the claim is a nonjusticiable political question? A. Yes, because a judicial decision in the case will aid one political party over another. B. Yes, because the claim is based on political gerrymandering. C. No, because the state violated its own constitution by not redistricting for 100 years. D. No, because the redistricting involved a partisan abuse of government power.

B. Yes, because the claim is based on political gerrymandering. Quimbee Judicial Power Final

State voters passed a state constitutional amendment that created a new redistricting commission within the state's executive branch. The executive-branch commission was supposed to redraw the state's jurisdictional lines for elections to remedy years of partisan gerrymandering by the state's political parties. However, the state legislature sued the executive-branch commission in federal district court, arguing that the new commission's purpose violated the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution and nullified the effect of legislator's votes. The legislature requested a declaration that, if the executive-branch commission went forward with the redistricting, then the commission's actions would be unconstitutional. The executive-branch commission moved to dismiss the claim, arguing that the legislators did not have standing to bring it. Is it likely that the state legislators have standing to bring this claim? A. Yes, because state officers always have standing to sue their state in federal court. B. Yes, because the legislators are claiming that the new commission nullified the effect of their votes. C. No, because partisan gerrymandering issues raise a nonjusticiable political question. D. No, because any decision on the claim will require interpreting the state's constitution.

B. Yes, because the legislators are claiming that the new commission nullified the effect of their votes. Quimbee Judicial Power Final

Congress passed the United States Counter-terrorism and Citizenship Act. Under the act, foreign nationals who helped U.S. interests in some way could sue the federal government in federal court for expedited citizenship. If the federal court decided to grant citizenship, the case would then go before a congressional committee that would consider the court's judgment and the evidence. The committee would either give a final grant of citizenship to the individual or else return the case to the federal court for further proceedings. Is this act likely valid? A. Yes, because Congress has the power to create committees with judicial powers. B. Yes, because Congress is not dictating any particular federal court decision. C. No, because the act allows Congress to review and set aside federal-court judgments. D. No, because Congress is not free to change the law in a manner that could help or hurt a particular party.

C. No, because the act allows Congress to review and set aside federal-court judgments. Quimbee Judicial Power Final

A United States congressman was convicted of unlawful activity. Although many federal-government officials called for the congressman's resignation, the congressman's home state continued to support him by an overwhelming majority. The United States House of Representatives began impeachment proceedings against the congressman, and the matter was transferred to the United States Senate. The congressman sued in federal court, arguing that the U.S. Senate could not impeach him. The congressman pointed out that he was still overwhelmingly supported by citizens in his home state, who had chosen him as their congressional representative and did not want to see him leave Congress. The congressman argued that the U.S. Senate lacked the authority to override the electoral decision of his state's citizens. Is it likely that the federal court has jurisdiction to hear the congressman's suit against the U.S. Senate? A. Yes, because the congressman is challenging the authority of a federal entity. B. Yes, because the matter was transferred from the U.S. House of Representatives to the U.S. Senate. C. No, because the congressman is challenging his impeachment. D. No, because a judicial ruling would violate the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution.

C. No, because the congressman is challenging his impeachment. Quimbee Judicial Power Final

A state citizen sued the state in federal district court. The citizen had purchased state bonds as an investment and claimed that the state had not paid him the interest that was due on those state bonds. The state had not paid the interest because there had been a recent amendment to the state's constitution that barred the state from paying interest on bonds issued by the state. The citizen's lawsuit argued that the amendment to the state's constitution violated the Contracts Clause of the United States Constitution. The state argued that the federal-court action should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Is it likely that the federal district court has jurisdiction over the claim? A. Yes, because the claim is based in contract. B. Yes, because the citizen is claiming a violation of the Contracts Clause of the U.S. Constitution. C. No, because the federal district court cannot hear claims brought by a private citizen against the state. D. No, because only the federal government may sue a state in federal district court.

C. No, because the federal district court cannot hear claims brought by a private citizen against the state. Quimbee Judicial Power Final

Congress passed the Endangered Animals Act. A provision in the act provided that any person could initiate a civil suit on his or her own behalf to enjoin anyone, including governmental entities, from violating the act. After the act was passed, the secretary of the interior issued a regulation limiting the geographic scope of the act. An organization dedicated to the protection of wildlife sued the secretary of the interior, seeking a declaratory judgment that the new regulation's interpretation was incorrect. The organization argued that it was injured because a lack of consultation regarding the new regulation could increase the rate of extinction of endangered species. The secretary moved to dismiss the claim based on the organization's lack of standing. Does the organization have standing to sue the secretary of the interior? A. Yes, because the organization was dedicated to the protection of wildlife. B. Yes, because the act provided any person with standing to sue for violations of the act. C. No, because the organization had only a generalized complaint. D. No, because the organization's complaint was based on procedural issues.

C. No, because the organization had only a generalized complaint. Answer option B is incorrect because standing is a requirement imposed by the case-or-controversy requirement in Article III of the U.S. Constitution. Congress does not have the authority to define injuries in a way that defeats or eliminates the constitutionally mandated case-or-controversy requirement. See Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992). Here, even if the act purports to give the organization standing without showing an injury-in-fact, Congress did not have the authority to eliminate any of the Article III standing elements. Thus, the act cannot give someone standing who did not already have standing. Quimbee Judicial Power Final

To widen an existing highway, a state's department of transportation condemned a portion of property owned by a businesswoman. The businesswoman sued the state government, arguing that she had received insufficient notice of the condemnation. Under state law, if a landowner could not be personally located, notice of a condemnation could be posted on the property itself. After the notice was posted, the landowner had three months to appeal the decision in state court. At the time her property was condemned, the businesswoman had been living abroad for a year and missed the three-month deadline. The businesswoman claimed that it would have been easy for the state to discover where she was living abroad, but that state officials did not try very hard to find her. The state trial court ruled that the state had done what was required by state law and properly condemned the property. The businesswoman appealed, and the state appeals court ruled in her favor. The state government appealed to the state supreme court, the highest court in the state. The state supreme court reversed the appeals court's decision and found for the state government, using the same rationale as the trial court. The businesswoman then appealed the state supreme court's decision to the United States Supreme Court. Is it likely that the U.S. Supreme Court has the jurisdictional authority to hear the businesswoman's appeal from the state supreme court's decision in this case? A. Yes, because the state supreme court's decision implicates the protections against condemnation found in the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution. B. Yes, because a state supreme court cannot make a final decision in a case if the state is a party in that case. C. No, because the state supreme court based its decision that the condemnation process was valid entirely on state law. D. No, because state land-use decisions are protected from federal interference by the Eleventh Amendment.

C. No, because the state supreme court based its decision that the condemnation process was valid entirely on state law. The U.S. Supreme Court may not review a state court's decision that is based on adequate and independent state grounds. The fact that an issue in a state-court decision merely implicates federal laws and rights is not enough to make the decision reviewable by the U.S. Supreme Court. If the state-court decision is not actually based on an interpretation of federal law, but is based on an independent state-law ground that is enough to support the decision without applying any federal law, then the U.S. Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to review that decision. There is no restriction that bans state supreme courts from making final decisions in claims just because the state itself is a party. Quimbee Judicial Power Final

Onslow County annually has one of the highest percentages of teenage pregnancy rates in the state of North Carolina. In an effort to provide more support for pregnant teens, the Onslow County School Board enacted the Early Start Program. The Program targeted all girls in Onslow County schools who got pregnant between the ages of 10 and 18. It mandated once the pregnancy was confirmed that the student be removed from their regular classes and enroll in a special school for the remainder of the school year in which they got pregnant. They would continue traditional class work, but also receive special instruction in child-rearing and pre-natal care from school nurses and doctors. Erica, an 18-year-old senior at Northline High School, got pregnant during the spring semester of her senior year and was placed in Early Start. She wanted very much to remain in her regular high school with her friends, so she sued in federal district court to contest that constitutionality of the Early Start Program to return to Northline. Two months before graduation and two days before her birthday, Erica unfortunately had a miscarriage. When she returned to her regular classes at Northline, lawyers for the School Board immediately moved to dismiss her lawsuit on justiciability grounds. A. No, because Erica's injury is capable of repetition, yet evading review B. No, because Erica suffered the requisite injury C. Yes, because Erica's claim is now moot D. Yes, because of the ripeness doctrine

C. Yes, because Erica's claim is now moot Because she will be over 18 if she becomes pregnant again (Assessment #1 - Corbett)

To encourage citizens to remain vigilant in the face of potential constitutional violations by the government, President T convinced Congress to pass a statute that authorized a lawsuit by "any person who asserts a credible claim that any act of Congress or any act by a federal executive official violates the Constitution." After reading an internet story that the executive branch had a secret "kill or capture" list of domestic terrorists, Activist filed suit under the statute in federal district court, claiming the alleged policy violated the Constitution's due process protections. Should the federal district court hear Activist's lawsuit? A. Yes, because the statute granted Activist standing under the circumstances. B. Yes, because of the third-party standing doctrine C. No, because the case presents a political question D. No, because Activist lacks the requisite injury under the circumstances.

D. No, because Activist lacks the requisite injury under the circumstances. Even if the statute gives standing, still need to prove constitutional standing (injury, causation, redressability) (Assessment 2 - Corbett)

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued a ruling permitting certain hospitals to obtain charitable organization status even if they did not accept patients who were unable to pay. An organization dedicated to indigent rights joined together with several indigent people who had been denied services at hospitals, and they jointly challenged the IRS ruling. Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that the IRS ruling encouraged hospitals to deny services to indigent people. The IRS filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that the plaintiffs did not have standing. Is it likely that any of the plaintiffs have standing to challenge the IRS ruling? A. Yes, because the hospitals had denied services to the individual, indigent plaintiffs. B. Yes, because the organization was dedicated to indigent rights and the individual indigent people had been denied services. C. No, because none of the plaintiffs' claims are yet ripe. D. No, because there is no indication that the IRS ruling caused the hospitals to deny services to indigent people.

D. No, because there is no indication that the IRS ruling caused the hospitals to deny services to indigent people. Quimbee Judicial Power Final

Two states shared a river that started in the northern state and ended on the southern state's coast. After marijuana use became legalized in the northern state, farmers in the northern state started growing marijuana. In doing so, the farmers began to draw more water from the river than they had in previous years. Because the river had much less water in it than before, farmers in the southern state had to import water from a third state. Importing the water was twice as expensive as getting water from the river. After lobbying from southern state's farmers, the southern state sued the northern state in federal district court demanding that the northern state's farmers reduce their water usage. The northern state moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the case could not be properly heard in federal district court. Does the federal district court have jurisdiction to hear the dispute? A. No, because there was no indication that the federal government had taken any action in the dispute. B. No, because the action is barred by the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. C. Yes, because the southern state's claim involves interstate commerce. D. Yes, because a state can sue another state in federal district court.

D. Yes, because a state can sue another state in federal district court. Quimbee Judicial Power Final

Congress enacted the Venture Capital Fraud Act. This act gave plaintiffs the right to bring a civil action to have their money returned if the plaintiffs could show that they were encouraged to invest in a start-up company by fraudulent means. The act also included federal criminal penalties that could be assessed against the start-up company's founders in certain circumstances. A woman who had invested in a new tech start-up brought a civil lawsuit under the act in state court, seeking to have her money returned. The start-up moved to dismiss the woman's claim, arguing the state court did not have jurisdiction to hear it. Is it likely that the state court has jurisdiction to hear the woman's claim? A. No, because the woman's claim was created by a federal act. B. No, because there was no indication that the federal act granted state jurisdiction. C. No, because the act includes federal criminal penalties D. Yes, because the default rule is that state courts have concurrent jurisdiction with the federal courts to hear federal claims

D. Yes, because the default rule is that state courts have concurrent jurisdiction with the federal courts to hear federal claims Quimbee Judicial Power Final

A naval pilot was charged with cooking and selling methamphetamine to fellow military personnel. The pilot had not lived on a military base but had rented a house in the general community. The pilot had cooked and sold the methamphetamine out of the garage of the house he rented in town. The pilot was court-martialed by a military court. The court had been created by Congress as part of a larger military-court system. However, no court in the military-court system was an Article III court. The pilot moved to have these criminal charges dismissed, arguing that Congress lacked the constitutional authority to establish a non-Article III court that could decide criminal disputes like this one, and that the pilot was entitled to have any criminal charges heard by an Article III court. Did Congress have the constitutional authority to create a non-Article III, military court to decide this kind of criminal dispute? A. No, because only the executive branch may create non-Article III courts. B. No, because non-Article III courts may decide only regulatory disputes, not criminal disputes. C. Yes, because the non-Article III tribunal was resolving a public health and safety issue. D. Yes, because the non-Article III tribunal was resolving a criminal offense committed by a person in the military.

D. Yes, because the non-Article III tribunal was resolving a criminal offense committed by a person in the military. The U.S. Constitution also gives Congress the authority to establish non-Article III courts to resolve disputes in the federal territories, resolve offenses arising out of the military, or for the protection of certain public rights. Quimbee Judicial Power Final

Kevin decided to apply to become an officer with the State Highway Patrol. His application was denied. He believed the denial was based on arbitrary standards that violated his rights to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. He decided to sue the Secretary of Public Safety, which supervised the division. Upon finding out that women applicants had been rejected at a higher rate than male applicants, Kevin also decided to sue on behalf of female applicants who had been denied under the same standards. May Kevin represent the women who were denied admission under the same standard?

Generally, third party standing is not allowed (default rule). There are a handful of cases where 3rd party standing is permitted. Think about: 1. The individual bringing the suit must satisfy constitutional standing themselves a. Doctors case representing their patients 2. They are the right party to stand up for the third party a. Doctors are the right people to stand up for their patients - special relationship Organizational relationship 8/31 in class practice question (Corbett)

What provision of the Constitution gives the Supreme Court its power to determine the constitutionality of acts performed by the other governmental branches?

None! No constitutional provision explicitly provides for judicial review. The Supreme Court created this power by means of its interpretation of the Constitution. The Court held that it had the power to declare unconstitutional the acts of other branches of the government (Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803)), to declare state statutes unconstitutional (Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. 87 (1810)), and to review the judgment of state courts in cases that fall within the federal judicial power (Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304 (1816)).

What type of cases may be brought under the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court?

Under Article III, §2, Clause 2, the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction extends to all cases: 1. Affecting ambassadors (and other public ministers and consuls); and 2. Those cases in which a state is a party. However, original jurisdiction is most often exercised for controversies between two or more states, under 28 U.S.C. §1251. NOTE: Original jurisdiction can't be enlarged or restricted by Congress; however, lower federal courts could be granted concurrent jurisdiction by Congress. NOTE: Most cases brought under the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court are between two states. Textbook

Kevin decided to apply to become an officer with the State Highway Patrol. His application was denied. He believed the denial was based on arbitrary standards that violated his rights to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. He decided to sue the Secretary of Public Safety, which supervised the division. Upon finding out that women applicants had been rejected at a higher rate than male applicants, Kevin also decided to sue on behalf of female applicants who had been denied under the same standards. Does Kevin have standing to sue?

Yes, if he can show that the arbitrary standards are what caused his denial. For standing must show (1) injury (2) causation (3) redressability. Injury = not getting the job, couldn't become an officer Causation = didn't get it because of these arbitrary standards that violated equal protection under the law Redressability = court can address the standards as a violation of the 14th amendment (Not judging the merits of the case, just judging whether the person can stand before the court and argue that he can be heard on the merits of the case) 8/31 in class practice question (Corbett)

Georgia is considering passing a law that would make it illegal for women to obtain an abortion after the detection of a fetal heartbeat. The law barely passed the state house and senate, but the Governor decided he needed time to deliberate on such a sensitive matter before signing it into law or vetoing it. Activist, who works in the health care field, filed suit in federal district court to challenge the constitutionality of the new law. Attorneys for the state have moved to dismiss the lawsuit on justiciability grounds. Should the court grant the motion?

Yes, since the act was not signed into law the ruling would be an advisory opinion. Ripeness - Before a law gets passed, saying whether that law would make it through the Constitutional stage. Court would determine using the ripeness. Usually there's a challenge to an existing law, and sometimes there won't be a problem yet. If it's pre-mature, the court will say it's not a ripe matter (on the other hand, there's mootness saying there's no longer an issue). 8/31 in class practice question (Corbett)

Due to concerns over public safety, Congress passed a federal law that eliminated the federal courts' jurisdiction to hear a specific type of case. Technically, a provision of the United States Constitution prohibited the type of limit chosen by Congress. However, after much debate, Congress determined that this new limitation on the federal courts' jurisdiction was the only way to adequately protect the safety of the general public. Does the law passed by Congress validly eliminate a federal court's jurisdiction to hear that specific type of case? a. No, because Congress cannot exercise its power over federal jurisdiction in a way that is itself unconstitutional. b. No, because Congress may only increase the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts, not limit any existing jurisdiction. c. Yes, because the U.S. Constitution itself gives Congress the authority to limit the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts as Congress finds appropriate. d. Yes, because the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts may be limited in laws addressing public health and safety.

a. No, because Congress cannot exercise its power over federal jurisdiction in a way that is itself unconstitutional Although Congress has broad authority over the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts, it cannot exercise its power over federal jurisdiction in a way that is itself unconstitutional. See Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008). Here, the U.S. Constitution prohibits the limitation in the new law. Thus, Congress's attempt to eliminate federal jurisdiction in this way would violate this constitutional provision and, therefore, is not a valid exercise of Congress's power over federal jurisdiction. Quimbee Quiz - Congress' Power Over Federal Jurisdiction

Members of the National Atheist Society (NAS) brought a lawsuit in federal district court against several federal officials who administered the executive branch's federal Faith Based Initiatives Program (FBIP). NAS was founded as a group that generally opposed the entanglement of government and religion. The members of NAS challenged the FBIP program in their roles as taxpayers, arguing that the program inappropriately used taxpayer money drawn from the general funds of the United States Treasury to support faith-based programs. The federal officials moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that NAS lacked standing to pursue the claim. Do the members of NAS have standing to pursue this claim? a. No, because federal taxpayers generally do not have standing to challenge congressional expenditures. b. No, because NAS was not specifically formed to challenge FBIP. c. Yes, because NAS is alleging that the expenditures violated the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution. d. Yes, because FBIP was created by the executive branch.

a. No, because federal taxpayers generally do not have standing to challenge congressional expenditures. The injury-in-fact element must be an injury suffered by the complaining party personally. General grievances suffered by broad portions of the public do not typically satisfy this element. For example, taxpayers typically do not have standing to challenge congressional expenditures based on the simple fact that they paid taxes that were later used to support a particular government activity. See Hein v. Freedom From Religion Found., Inc., 551 U.S. 587 (2007). This is true regardless of whether the government's expenditures are or are not actually constitutional. Here, the members of NAS were suing solely in their roles as taxpayers, arguing about the unconstitutional use of taxpayer money. Without more, the members of NAS would not have standing to pursue this case. Quimbee Quiz - Article III Standing

Congress has appropriated money for the award of 25 Presidential Scholarships chosen by the President and an advisory board. Upon reading that one of the recipients intends to attend a sectarian college and study to be a missionary, Tom Taxpayer sues, claiming that the expenditure of federal funds violates the Establishment Clause. Does Taxpayer have standing to bring the suit? a. No, because the appropriation is to the President to award the money at his discretion. b. No, because the claim represents a generalized grievance. c. Yes, because the Establishment Clause is a specific limitation on Congress's taxing and spending power. d. Yes, because taxpayers have standing to enforce lawmakers' compliance with specific constitutional limitations.

a. No, because the appropriation is to the President to award the money at his discretion. Textbook - Justiciability

Congress passed a federal law that limited the amount of tuition that states could charge students attending state universities. The federal law authorized individuals to bring claims in federal court against states that did not comply with the law. Will a federal court likely have jurisdiction over a claim brought against a state under the new law? a. No, because the state is protected by the Eleventh Amendment. b. No, because the state is protected by the doctrine of independent-and-adequate state law. c. Yes, because the federal law did not specifically give the state sovereign immunity from any claims. Yes, because the federal law specifically provided the federal court with jurisdiction over claims against a state.

a. No, because the state is protected by the Eleventh Amendment. The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits a federal court from hearing claims against a state government brought by a private party or a foreign government. See Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890). In general, Congress may abrogate (i.e., eliminate) a state's sovereign immunity from lawsuits in federal court only if Congress is acting to prevent discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution or in bankruptcy cases. See Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996); Central Virginia Cmty. College v. Katz, 546 U.S. 356 (2006). Congress may not strip the states of their Eleventh Amendment protections in other contexts. Here, although the new law attempts to eliminate a state's sovereign immunity and give jurisdiction to the federal courts to hear private claims against a state, this law has nothing to do with either bankruptcy or discrimination in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, Congress does not have the authority eliminate a state's sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment in this law. Accordingly, despite the language in the new law claiming to give the federal courts jurisdiction to hear a claim by a student against a state, the federal courts will not actually have jurisdiction to hear any claims alleging that a state has violated the new law. Rather, the Eleventh Amendment will still protect all states from lawsuits in federal court under the new law. Quimbee Quiz - Article III and Federal Jurisdiction

**Emissions from coal power plants in State A are alleged to cause problems in adjoining State B. If left unchecked, the emissions could cause harm to crops and to persons with respiratory problems in State B. So far, the EPA, which has jurisdiction to regulate air quality, has declined to take enforcement action against the plants in State A. Which of the following parties would be most likely to have standing to challenge the EPA's nonenforcement? a. State B, if State B can demonstrate that it stands to bear the costs of treating the respiratory ailments of citizens insured by the state, which are likely to develop in the future as a result of the air pollution. b. A resident of State B who suffers from asthma, which can be triggered by air pollution, like the emissions from State A. c. A resident of State B whose crops are at risk from acid rain produced by the emissions. d. B or C.

a. State B, if State B can demonstrate that it stands to bear the costs of treating the respiratory ailments of citizens insured by the state, which are likely to develop in the future as a result of the air pollution. Textbook - Justiciability

Representative Ray has a reputation for being a gadfly. Regardless of who is in power, she always peppers colleagues and members of the executive branch with harsh questions about government actions and policies. Wildly popular in her district, many of her colleagues—and members of the executive branch—find her abrasive, rude, and uncollegial. In fact, she is so unpopular that following reelection, she was seated with the House once the new term began, but soon found herself expelled by her colleagues, pursuant to Article I, § 5, clause 2, which permits both houses of Congress to exclude members with a two-thirds vote. Furious, Ray sues, claiming that she was expelled simply for being too good at her job. She claims that her expulsion was unconstitutional and seeks reinstatement. The Speaker of the House, on the other hand, claims that expulsion is a political question and that the suit is nonjusticiable. For whom should the federal judge in the case rule? a. The Speaker, because the Constitution commits the power to expel to each House of Congress. b. The Speaker, because the Court could not decide the case without expressing disrespect for the House's judgment. c. Ray, because the House may not expel her except for cause. d. Ray, because the Court can interpret the Constitution to decide whether a claim is justiciable or not.

a. The Speaker, because the Constitution commits the power to expel to each House of Congress. Textbook - Justiciability

Congress passed the War Injured Benefits Act. According to the act, federal courts were responsible for determining whether applicants for certain military benefits were eligible for those benefits. The federal courts would hear evidence about the applicants' military service and injuries and make a calculation of the proper benefits. The federal court would then forward the information to the secretary of defense (an official in the executive branch), along with the recommended amount of benefits. If the secretary of defense disagreed with a decision, the secretary could strike the person from the list and deny the person any benefits. A man was granted benefits by a federal court, but those benefits were later struck down by the secretary of defense. The man appealed to the United States Supreme Court, arguing that the act was invalid. Was the act an invalid exercise of congressional authority? a. Yes, because federal court judgments may be reviewed only by other Article III courts. b. Yes, because federal court judgments may be reviewed only by either other Article III courts or Congress. c. No, because Congress has the authority to delegate adjudicatory power to members of the executive branch and non-Article III federal courts. d. No, because Congress did not dictate to the federal courts that any particular decision must be made in these cases.

a. Yes, because federal court judgments may be reviewed only by other Article III courts. Congress has broad authority to both expand and limit the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts. Congress is even allowed to delegate initial adjudicatory power to federal administrative agencies and non-Article III federal courts. However, one of the few clear limits on this power is that a final decision from a lower federal court may be reviewed only by other courts in the Article III hierarchy. See Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211, 218-19 (1995). This means that Congress cannot provide for extrajudicial revision of a federal court's final judgment by either the executive or the legislative branch. For example, Congress cannot authorize an executive-branch official to review and possibly set aside judgments reached in federal court cases. See Hayburn's Case, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 409 (1792). Similarly, Congress cannot give itself the authority to review judgments in federal court cases Quimbee Quiz - Congress' Power Over Federal Jurisdiction

A criminal defendant was convicted in state court, using new procedures for criminal cases enacted under a state law that broadened the scope of admissible evidence. On appeal to the state's intermediate and highest courts of review, the defendant challenged the law, arguing that it violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The intermediate and highest courts of review in the state rejected the defendant-appellant's challenge, concluding that the state law was constitutional and did not violate the defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause. The state's highest court rested its decision solely upon its interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. May the U.S. Supreme Court review the decision from the state's highest court? a. Yes, because the case involves a constitutional question. b. Yes, because the U.S. Supreme Court may review any decision from the highest court in each state. c. No, because the state supreme court is the final authority on questions arising under state law. d. No, because the U.S. Supreme Court may review decisions of the highest court in each state only if the underlying complaint states one or more causes of action arising under federal law.

a. Yes, because the case involves a constitutional question. Quimbee Quiz - The Supreme Court and the Constitutional System

After twice being denied parole, a federal prisoner filed a lawsuit in federal district court challenging the validity of the United States Parole Commission's Parole Release Guidelines. The prisoner asked the district court to certify the suit as a class action brought on behalf of "all federal prisoners who are or who will become eligible for release on parole." The district court certified the class. The district court ultimately granted summary judgment for the Parole Commission and dismissed the lawsuit. The prisoner appealed. While the appeal was pending in the court of appeals, the prisoner was released from prison. The Parole Commission moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing that the class-action lawsuit was now moot. May the federal appellate court still review the appeal in the class-action lawsuit? a. Yes, because the lawsuit was a class action and the rest of the class members continued to have a live controversy. b. Yes, because the prisoner could be imprisoned again in the future. c. No, because the prisoner had been released from prison. d. No, because the prisoner has no personal stake in the legal rights of other class members.

a. Yes, because the lawsuit was a class action and the rest of the class members continued to have a live controversy. Quimbee Quiz - Other Justicibility Doctrines

A man was convicted for possession of marijuana after police officers searched the trunk of his car. The man filed a motion to suppress the evidence, arguing that the search violated his rights under both the state's constitution and the United States Constitution. The man's motion to suppress was granted because the state trial court believed that the search violated the state's constitution, which provided more protection during searches than the U.S. Constitution. The state appealed to the state supreme court, which was the highest court in the state. The state supreme court ruled against the man, finding that the search was lawful under both the state's constitution and the U.S. Constitution. The state supreme court's decision cited state law in support of its ruling, but the state supreme court primarily based its decision on its understanding of federal case law. The man appealed to the United States Supreme Court. Does the U.S. Supreme Court likely have jurisdiction to hear the man's appeal? a. Yes, because the state court's decision was based primarily on federal law. b. Yes, because this was a criminal matter involving the deprivation of liberty. c. No, because there was an adequate and independent state ground to support the lower court's judgment. d. No, because the state's constitution provided more protection than the U.S. Constitution.

a. Yes, because the state court's decision was based primarily on federal law. If a state-court decision rests primarily on federal law, the U.S. Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal. In these cases, the U.S. Supreme Court assumes that the state court decided the case the way that it did because it believed federal law required it to do so. See Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983). Here, the state supreme court based its decision primarily on its understanding of federal case law. Accordingly, the U.S. Supreme Court likely has jurisdiction to hear the man's appeal. However, note that if the state court had merely used federal precedents as guidance and had not based its decision on federal law, it would still be possible that the state court's decision rested on an independent-and-adequate state-law ground that the U.S. Supreme Court could not review. Quimbee Quiz - Article III and Federal Jurisdiction

After the most recent census, a state was required to decrease the number of its congressional representatives by two. In redistricting to reflect this change, the state General Assembly, which was predominately Republican at that time, enacted a redistricting plan that was pro-Republican. The plan was ultimately passed by the state governor, who was also a Republican. A registered Democrat sued the state official in charge of the new plan, alleging that the General Assembly had engaged in unconstitutional political gerrymandering when it established the new congressional districts. The state official, who was also a Republican, moved to have the action dismissed, arguing that it was a nonjusticiable political question. Does the action present a nonjusticiable political question? a. Yes, because there is a lack of judicially discoverable standards for resolving the issue. b. Yes, because the appropriateness of the plan had already been upheld by the state governor. c. No, because the redistricting was a clear abuse of power by the controlling political party. d. No, because the redistricting was an example of extreme partisan gerrymandering.

a. Yes, because there is a lack of judicially discoverable standards for resolving the issue. There are six different factors for courts to consider to determine whether a particular dispute presents a non-justiciable political question: (1) the existence in the United States Constitution of a textually demonstrable commitment of the issue to a different political department, (2) a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving the issue, (3) the impossibility of deciding the issue without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion, (4) the impossibility of judicially resolving the issue without disrespecting other branches of the government, (5) an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made, or (6) the possibility of embarrassment from multiple pronouncements by various departments on one question. See Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962). The first two factors carry the most weight. However, if one or more of any of these factors indicates that a dispute presents a political question, then the dispute is not justiciable, and the federal courts should dismiss the case. The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly found that political gerrymandering issues are nonjusticiable political questions because there is a lack of judicially discoverable standards for determining whether a district was drawn in a constitutional or unconstitutional way. See, e.g., League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006); Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267 (2004). Quimbee Quiz - The Political Question Doctrine

President Pauli has promised Ed Executive that she will veto a regulatory bill that has just passed Congress limiting the pay of publicly traded corporations' executives. The bill was born of the public—and Congress's—dismay at the large disparities between what the top earners made at various publicly traded corporations and what those at the bottom took home. To his dismay, however, the President soon reverses course and signs the bill, later claiming that she was persuaded that the curb was, indeed, needed. Furious because his own pay is due to be decimated, Ed files suit in federal district court seeking judicial review of the President's veto. A reviewing court is likely to: a. Grant judicial review, because of the President's promise to Ed. b. Deny review because the decision whether to veto a bill or not is within the President's discretion. c. Deny judicial review because acts of the President are not subject to judicial review. d. Deny judicial review because courts will not review controversies involving politics.

b. Deny review because the decision whether to veto a bill or not is within the President's discretion. Textbook - Judicial Power

Dan was convicted of violating a federal law requiring commercial farming operations to be "carbon neutral," that is, the farms do not add significantly to greenhouse gasses or to global warming. Under the federal legislation, state agricultural officials are charged with conducting inspections and issuing certificates. Dan failed to obtain a certificate. He alleges that the federal legislation commandeers state officials to implement a federal program and is thus unconstitutional. The State is not a party to the lawsuit. In response, the federal government seeks dismissal of the lawsuit saying that Dan lacks standing to assert his defense. Only the State, the federal government argues, may seek to vindicate those federalism interests. How should the court rule? a. For Dan, because he has an interest in ensuring the government acts in a constitutional manner. b. For Dan, because he may challenge the constitutionality of an act under which he is being prosecuted. c. For the government, because Dan is seeking to make claims that belong to third parties not before the Court. d. For the government, because Dan has suffered no injury.

b. For Dan, because he may challenge the constitutionality of an act under which he is being prosecuted. Textbook - Justiciability

A huge increase in the amount of presidential pardons caused a significant increase in the volume of federal cases seeking damages following a pardon. To increase efficiency, Congress passed a statute expressly dictating how federal courts should resolve pending cases involving these pardons. Specifically, instead of providing standards that would allow the courts to determine if a presidential pardon was admissible, the statute stated that a presidential pardon was categorically inadmissible as evidence in cases seeking compensation or the return of property following a pardon. The statute also said that in all cases seeking damages following a pardon, including pending cases, the federal courts were required to make a factual finding about whether the pardon was obtained with or without an express disclaimer of guilt. If the pardon was obtained without an express disclaimer of guilt, then federal jurisdiction over the claim was barred, and the federal courts were required to dismiss the claim. Is the statute a valid exercise of congressional authority to limit the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts? a. No, because Congress cannot abrogate judicial authority regarding claims for damages. b. No, because Congress cannot expressly dictate how a federal court should resolve a pending case. c. Yes, because Congress is free to change the law in a manner that will necessarily lead a court to rule for one party or another. d. Yes, because Congress has broad discretion over the jurisdiction of federal courts.

b. No, because Congress cannot expressly dictate how a federal court should resolve a pending case. There are three limits on Congress's power over federal court jurisdiction. One of the limits is that Congress cannot exercise its power over federal jurisdiction in a way that expressly dictates how the federal court should resolve a pending case. U.S. v. Klein, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 128 (1871). Here, the question states that Congress is expressly dictating how federal courts should resolve certain pending cases. Accordingly, this statute is not a valid exercise of congressional authority. Quimbee Quiz - Congress' Power Over Federal Jurisdiction

Congress enacted a law allowing Americans born in Jerusalem to list Israel as their birthplace on their passports. The policy of the United States State Department was to remain neutral on the political status of Jerusalem. Consequently, the department refused to comply with the congressional statute. The department claimed that the statute was an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers doctrine because it was an attempt by the legislature to usurp the executive branch's ability to make foreign policy determinations about the status of other sovereign entities. The parents of an American born in Jerusalem sued the department in federal court, claiming that the statute was constitutional and seeking to enforce it. The department moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the determination of whether the statute was constitutional was a nonjusticiable political question. Does the dispute about whether this statute is unconstitutional present a nonjusticiable political question? a. No, because this is an issue of international law. b. No, because courts have the authority to determine the constitutionality of statutes. c. Yes, because resolving this issue would require an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to an existing political decision about the status of Jerusalem. d. Yes, because a judicial ruling on this issue would show a lack of respect that is due to the other branches of the government.

b. No, because courts have the authority to determine the constitutionality of statutes. The United States Constitution grants courts, not the political branches, the authority to determine the constitutionality of statutes. See Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 566 U.S. 189 (2012). Here, whether Jerusalem was or was not part of Israel was a political question. However, the dispute in the lawsuit was not whether Jerusalem was really part of Israel or not. Rather, the dispute in the case was about whether Congress had violated the separation of powers doctrine when it enacted the statute (by deciding an issue of foreign policy that arguably belonged to the executive branch). Thus, the dispute was about the constitutionality of the action taken by Congress when it passed the law. Because the question in this case is about whether the statute was constitutional or not, it was a justiciable question, and the court should hear the claim. Quimbee Quiz - The Political Question Doctrine

A state's citizens passed Proposition 1, which stated that marriage was a union between one man and one woman. Several years later, the state supreme court held that the state's constitution defined marriage to include the union of same-sex couples, thus invalidating Proposition 1. After that, the state's citizens passed Proposition 2, which amended the state's constitution to exclude same-sex marriage. A gay couple sued the state officials responsible for enforcing the state's marriage laws, claiming that Proposition 2 violated their equal-protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The state officials named in the lawsuit told the court that they could not defend Proposition 2. In response, a pastor who had been an official proponent of Proposition 2 intervened to defend it. The plaintiffs argued that the pastor had no standing, which was necessary to intervene in the case. Did the pastor have standing to intervene? a. No, because the pastor was not named in the original lawsuit. b. No, because the pastor would not suffer a concrete injury or a harm to a personal, legal interest if Proposition 2 is declared unconstitutional. c. Yes, because the pastor was an official proponent of Proposition 2. d. Yes, because the pastor could invoke the standing of the state to defend the state proposition.

b. No, because the pastor would not suffer a concrete injury or a harm to a personal, legal interest if Proposition 2 is declared unconstitutional. Here, to have standing, the pastor would need to have some personal, legally cognizable interest in defending the enforcement of Proposition 2 that is distinguishable from the general interest of every other citizen who wants the laws enforced. However, the pastor wants to intervene simply because he wants to defend Proposition 2, not because he has suffered any concrete injury or has any personal, legal right at stake in the case. Being an official proponent of the law does not mean that having the law declared unconstitutional would harm any of the pastor's own legal rights. Rather, although being an official proponent of the law makes the pastor a very concerned bystander, he is still just a bystander without any of his own legal rights at stake. Consequently, the pastor cannot satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement for this dispute and does not have standing to intervene in the case. Quimbee Quiz - Article III Standing

The United States Supreme Court concluded that indefinite detention of nonresident aliens violated the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. A group of senators from border states met about how to overrule the Court and enable immigration authorities to hold nonresident aliens indefinitely. By which of the following mechanism or mechanisms may the senators undo the Court's precedent? a. The senators may pass a law enabling immigration authorities to hold nonresident aliens indefinitely. b. The senators may lobby to amend the Constitution. c. The senators may urge the president to pass an executive order permitting indefinite detention. d. The senators may pass a law enabling indefinite detention or lobby to amend the Constitution.

b. The senators may lobby to amend the Constitution. The United States Supreme Court's interpretation of what the United States Constitution requires can be undone or otherwise changed only through one of two mechanisms: (1) a subsequent decision from the Court overruling the earlier interpretation or (2) an amendment to the Constitution. Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 437-38 (2000). Here, the Court's ruling on indefinite detention was grounded in its interpretation of the Constitution. The mechanism that best enables the senators to undue the ruling is by arguing for an amendment to the Constitution. Quimbee Quiz - The Supreme Court and the Constitutional System

A woman sued a casino in state court claiming violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), a federal act that targeted large criminal organizations. The woman and the casino were both citizens of the same state. The casino filed a motion to dismiss the case, claiming that the state court had no jurisdiction to hear the claim. The woman argued that RICO contained no express statement or legislative history giving federal courts exclusive jurisdiction over claims arising under the law, and that the state court was generally competent to resolve these claims. The casino responded that RICO did not expressly grant jurisdiction to state courts. Does the state court have jurisdiction to hear the woman's RICO claim? a. Yes, because the state has jurisdiction to hear the claim under the provisions of the Eleventh Amendment. b. Yes, because state courts have concurrent jurisdiction and are considered generally competent to hear federal law claims, and RICO contains no specific jurisdictional limitation. c. No, because the woman's claim arises from a federal law and federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over all federal-law claims. d. No, because Congress must specifically give state courts jurisdiction to hear federal-law claims, and RICO does not contain language expressly granting jurisdiction to state courts.

b. Yes, because state courts have concurrent jurisdiction and are considered generally competent to hear federal law claims, and RICO contains no specific jurisdictional limitation. Following the Madisonian Compromise, state courts are considered generally competent to resolve claims arising under federal law. This means that, unless Congress clearly indicates otherwise, state courts have concurrent jurisdiction with the federal courts to hear federal-law claims. Congress may eliminate state-law jurisdiction over a specific federal claim through an express statutory directive, an unmistakable implication from the law's legislative history, or a clear incompatibility between state-court jurisdiction and federal interests. See Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U.S. 455 (1990). For example, Congress has clearly indicated that state courts do not have jurisdiction over lawsuits seeking coercive relief from a federal officer. Therefore, the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over those specific claims. Here, because RICO contains no jurisdictional restriction, the state court has concurrent jurisdiction to hear claims arising under this federal statute. Thus, the state court has jurisdiction to hear the woman's RICO claim against the casino. Quimbee Quiz - Congress' Power Over Federal Jurisdiction

The United States House of Representatives and Senate passed a law requiring that the United States Supreme Court contain 13 justices. An advocacy group challenged the law in federal district court, arguing that it was unconstitutional. Is the law likely to survive the group's constitutional challenge? a. Yes, because the Constitution requires that the Supreme Court have at least nine justices. b. Yes, because the Constitution requires that the Supreme Court have at least one justice. c. No, because the Constitution vests the power to determine the size of the Supreme Court solely with the president. d. No, because the Constitution sets the size of the Supreme Court at exactly nine justices, which cannot be modified.

b. Yes, because the Constitution requires that the Supreme Court have at least one justice. Quimbee Quiz - The Supreme Court and the Constitutional System

During a closely contested election for a state's governor, the different parties claimed instances of voter fraud, voter suppression, misuse of campaign funds, and political sabotage. After this contested election, a third-party candidate from The Party to Smash All Parties ended up victorious with 10 percent of the vote. This particular third-party candidate was the only candidate to have a simple majority in the race, which was all that was required under the state's election laws to secure the position of governor. The stated goal of the Party to Smash All Parties was to dismantle the state's government based on anarchistic principles. The victorious gubernatorial candidate immediately appointed members of his own party to multiple high-ranking positions in the state government, essentially giving the Party to Smash All Parties control of the state government. The other political parties sued in federal court, arguing that the Party to Smash All Parties was not the proper government for the state because it's stated goal was to dismantle the state government. The Party to Smash All Parties moved to dismiss, arguing that the suit presented a nonjusticiable political question. In support of its position, the Party to Smash All Parties pointed out that the Guarantee Clause in Article IV of the United States Constitution gives Congress the power to determine whether a state government has been lawfully established. In response, the other parties admitted that is what the Guarantee Clause says, but argued that the federal courts are allowed to determine constitutional issues. Does the lawsuit present a nonjusticiable political question? a. Yes, because the Party to Smash All Parties was a recognized political party in the state. b. Yes, because the text of the U.S. Constitution commits the authority to decide the legitimacy of a state's government to the legislative branch. c. No, because there are sufficient judicial standards for determining the legality of the election. d. No, because federal courts have jurisdiction over all constitutional issues.

b. Yes, because the text of the U.S. Constitution commits the authority to decide the legitimacy of a state's government to the legislative branch. Quimbee Quiz - The Political Question Doctrine

Which of the following would be least likely to be held a political question by a reviewing Court? a. A suit by members of Congress alleging that the President's commitment of military forces overseas without a congressional declaration of war was unconstitutional. b. A suit by the President against members of the Senate whose refusal to hold confirmation hearings on judicial nominees has resulted in the inability of the President to fill vacancies in the federal judiciary. c. A suit alleging that a federal hate crimes law exceeded the scope of Congress's powers under Article I, § 8 brought by a criminal defendant charged with violating the law. d. A suit by a judge who was impeached and removed from office for alleged sexual harassment of lawyers and court staff, who claimed his impeachment and removal were unconstitutional because his offenses did not rise to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors."

c. A suit alleging that a federal hate crimes law exceeded the scope of Congress's powers under Article I, § 8 brought by a criminal defendant charged with violating the law. Textbook - Justiciability

U.S. military commitments have taxed the armed forces to the point that Congress revives the draft. Now men 18 to 25 are chosen by lottery to serve for at least two years in the armed forces. Under the lottery system, lower numbers are called up first; higher numbers, if needed, will be called up in the future. Which of the following plaintiffs would likely be found to have standing if any files suit challenging the legality of the draft? a. Parents of a 17-year-old male alleging that the draft is unconstitutional in the absence of a congressional declaration of war. b. A 19-year-old female who argues that the draft violates the Thirteenth Amendment's ban on involuntary servitude. c. An 18-year-old male who drew a low lottery number and has received instructions to report for a physical. d. Any of the above.

c. An 18-year-old male who drew a low lottery number and has received instructions to report for a physical. Textbook - Justiciability

In Planned Parenthood v. Casey's 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that states could not unduly burden a woman's right to choose to abort a nonviable fetus. The Court concluded that allowing a government to unduly burden a woman's right to choose abortion would violate her fundamental rights guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment. After the five justices in the Casey majority were no longer on the Court, Congress considered legislation that would overrule Casey. May Congress overrule Casey by passing a law banning abortion in all cases, regardless of viability? a. Yes, because Casey was decided by only a 5-4 majority. b. Yes, because the justices in the Casey majority no longer sit on the Court. c. No, because the Court's decision in Casey was based on interpreting and applying the U.S. Constitution. d. No, because Congress may never legislate contrary to a decision issued by a majority of the Court.

c. No, because the Court's decision in Casey was based on interpreting and applying the U.S. Constitution. Congress cannot pass a federal statute that overrules the U.S. Supreme Court's decision interpreting and applying the U.S. Constitution in Casey. See Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 437-38 (2000) (concluding that Congress could not legislatively supersede the Court's decisions interpreting and applying the Constitution). Supreme Court constitutional interpretations can be undone through only one of two mechanisms: (1) a subsequent U.S. Supreme Court decision overruling the earlier interpretation or (2) a constitutional amendment. Quimbee Quiz - The Supreme Court and the Constitutional System

3. City police officers stopped a man for speeding. When the man stepped out of his car, the officers seized him and applied a chokehold that rendered the man unconscious and damaged his throat. The man filed a lawsuit in federal district court seeking an injunction against the city police to bar the use of similar chokeholds in all stops in the future. The city police moved to dismiss the claim, arguing that the man did not have standing to pursue this type of injunctive relief. Does the man likely have standing to pursue the claim for injunctive relief? a. Yes, because the man had suffered a concrete and particular physical injury. b. Yes, because an injunction would prevent the city police from choking the man if he was stopped in the future. c. No, because the man was not in real and immediate danger of having the police use the same chokehold on him again in the future. d. No, because the man had not claimed a violation of his equal-protection rights.

c. No, because the man was not in real and immediate danger of having the police use the same chokehold on him again in the future. Here, the man suffered a physical injury during the stop. This past injury could give the man standing to pursue some sort of compensatory damages to redress that injury. However, the relief the man was seeking here was not compensatory damages. The man was seeking an injunction to prevent future use of the same chokehold. This requested, future relief would not redress the man's past injury. To seek future, injunctive relief, the man would need to establish a different, imminent future injury to him personally that could be redressed or avoided through the requested injunction. Specifically, the man would need to show that he was likely to be stopped and choked again in the future. If the man could show that, then an injunction barring all future use of the chokehold would prevent this man from that specific danger. However, because the man cannot reasonably show that he is personally in imminent danger of suffering that specific conduct again in the future, the man lacked standing to pursue a claim for the requested injunctive relief (i.e., enjoining the officials from using that chokehold in the future). Quimbee Quiz - Article III Standing

Congress passed a law giving federal tax funds to states for the purpose of implementing programs to reduce infant mortality. State participation in the program was optional. However, if the state chose to accept federal funds from the program, then the state had to report on the state's compliance with the program requirements. The law authorized the withholding of the program's funds to any state that was not in compliance with the program. A state filed a lawsuit in federal court, claiming that the law imposed on the state's sovereignty and presented an unconstitutional use of federal taxpayer funds. The United States moved to dismiss, arguing that the state did not have standing to sue because the state had not actually suffered any injury. Does the state likely have standing to sue? a. Yes, because the state's citizens include federal taxpayers who are harmed by the program's unconstitutional use of federal tax funds. b. Yes, because the law authorizes withholding program funds to the state if the state is not complying with the program. c. No, because the statute does not cause any injury to the state that may be redressed by the lawsuit. d. No, because a state does not have standing to sue the federal government to enforce its own interests.

c. No, because the statute does not cause any injury to the state that may be redressed by the lawsuit. The injury-in-fact element must be an injury suffered by the complaining party personally. See id. General grievances suffered by broad portions of the public do not typically satisfy this element. Further, although a state has standing to sue the government to enforce its own interests if there is an actual case or controversy, a state may not sue solely to protect its citizens' personal rights. See Massachusetts v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007). Here, the state's participation in this federal program is optional. Thus, because the state can simply choose to not participate in the program, the federal law does not cause any actual injury to the state. This is true even if the program withholds program funds for noncompliance if a state chooses to participate in the program. The state has the choice of not participating in the program. Further, even if the state's citizens are somehow injured by the program, the state has no power or duty to enforce the individual rights of its citizens in relation to the federal government. Quimbee Quiz - Article III Standing

A woman was pregnant with her third child and wanted to have an abortion. Due to a state zoning law, the woman could find no abortion provider in her state. The woman sued the state in federal district court to challenge the zoning law. While her case was pending, the woman had the child and gave the child up for adoption. The state moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the woman's claim was moot. Must the federal district court dismiss the case as moot? a. Yes, because the woman gave birth to the child at the center of her action and is no longer pregnant. b. Yes, because the woman did not begin her challenge to the law during her earlier pregnancies. c. No, because the term of a pregnancy is often much shorter than a complete trial and appeal. d. No, because the woman was challenging a state zoning law.

c. No, because the term of a pregnancy is often much shorter than a complete trial and appeal. If a claim is moot, then it is not justiciable and Article III prohibits judicial review of the issue. A case becomes moot if there is no longer a live dispute for the federal courts to resolve. In those circumstances, judicial resolution of the claim would be essentially the same as issuing an advisory opinion, and, under Article III, federal courts are not allowed to issue advisory opinions. However, if a particular claim is "capable of repetition, yet evading review," then a court will not necessarily dismiss an otherwise moot claim. A claim is capable of repetition, yet evading review if something about the type of claim makes it likely to become moot before being decided, making it possible that the specific type of claim could be brought repeatedly but then repeatedly mooted without the issue ever being reviewed. Thus, in those situations, even if the claim becomes moot, courts may still hear the otherwise moot claim to ensure that the legality of the claim is reviewed at some point. See S. Pac. Terminal Co. v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n, 219 U.S. 498 (1911). Quimbee Quiz - Other Justicibility Doctrines

The IRS issues a revenue ruling that granted favorable tax treatment to nonprofit hospitals that offered only emergency room care to indigent patients, as opposed to offering both free emergency and nonemergency care. Indigent plaintiffs and organizations that advocate for the poor challenge the ruling, claiming that it violates both the Internal Revenue Code and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), which governs the issuance of regulations by administrative agencies like the IRS. If the court dismisses the suit for lack of standing, it would likely do so because: a. The plaintiffs have suffered no harm. b. The injury is not imminent. c. The lack of free, nonemergency care is not fairly traceable to the revenue ruling. d. The plaintiffs are not in the zone of interest of the APA or the Code.

c. The lack of free, nonemergency care is not fairly traceable to the revenue ruling. Textbook - Justiciability

Due to an unmanageable case load in the District of Columbia (a federal territory), Congress established an entirely new court system to decide controversies arising under local (territorial) civil and criminal laws. The new system did not include any Article III courts. Instead, the new system created non-Article III courts that were similar to the local court systems found in the 50 states and that would work alongside the federal district courts. The judges sitting on these new courts would not have the salary and tenure protections provided to judges sitting on Article III federal courts. One of these new courts convicted a man of the unlawful possession of a firearm in violation of the local criminal law. The man appealed, arguing that Congress had unlawfully created the new court system. Did Congress have authority to create the new court system? a. No, because Article III of the United States Constitution prohibits Congress from creating non-Article III courts. b. No, because every judicial proceeding that implicates a charge, claim, or defense based on an act of Congress or a law made under its authority must be presided over by an Article III judge. c. Yes, because Congress may establish non-Article III courts to resolve disputes in federal territories. d. Yes, because Congress has broad power to establish non-Article III courts based upon judicial need and economy.

c. Yes, because Congress may establish non-Article III courts to resolve disputes in federal territories. In addition to Article III courts, the Constitution also gives Congress the authority to establish non-Article III courts to resolve disputes in the federal territories, resolve offenses arising out of the military, or for the protection of certain public rights. See Wellness Int'l Network, Ltd. v. Sharif, 135 S.Ct. 1932 (2015); Solorio v. U.S., 483 U.S. 435 (1987); Palmore v. U.S., 411 U.S. 389 (1973). Quimbee Quiz - Congress' Power Over Federal Jurisdiction

David is being held at a military base without charges on suspicion of conspiring to commit acts of terrorism in the United States. David's father, Arthur, seeks to challenge his son's confinement in federal court, because David himself has not been permitted access to a lawyer. Would Arthur have standing to challenge his son's incarceration? a. No, because Arthur has suffered no harm. b. No, because Arthur may not assert the rights of third persons. c. Yes, because David is unable to assert his own rights. d. Yes, because parents may always assert the rights of children.

c. Yes, because David is unable to assert his own rights. Textbook - Justiciability

A prisoner facing the death penalty appealed to the state supreme court to stay the prisoner's execution based on a claim about the unconstitutionality of the execution method. The prisoner lost the appeal. Because no higher court was available, the prisoner asked the United States Supreme Court to hear an appeal from the state supreme court's decision denying the stay of the prisoner's execution. The prisoner's lawyers claimed that the execution would violate two provisions of the United States Constitution: the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment and the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case, and denied the prisoner's petition for certiorari. May the U.S. Supreme Court refuse to hear the prisoner's case? a. No, because the prisoner might be executed using a method that violates the U.S. Constitution. b. No, because states could end up with differing rules regarding the death penalty and the U.S. Constitution without federal guidance. c. Yes, because the U.S. Supreme Court has discretion about whether or not to hear most appeals even if it has jurisdiction over the case. d. Yes, because absolutely all the U.S. Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction is discretionary.

c. Yes, because the U.S. Supreme Court has discretion about whether or not to hear most appeals even if it has jurisdiction over the case. Quimbee Quiz - Article III and Federal Jurisdiction

A group of employees sued an online retailer in federal district court, arguing that one of the retailer's new employment policies violated federal law because it required the employees to work without the possibility of overtime. The district court ruled in the retailer's favor, and the employees appealed to the court of appeals. While the appeal was pending, the retailer voided the new policy and again let its employees earn overtime. The retailer then filed a motion asking the court of appeals to dismiss the employees' appeal. The court of appeals dismissed the employees' appeal for mootness. The employees requested that the appellate court also vacate the district court decision that was issued in favor of the retailer's position. May the appellate court vacate the federal district court decision that was issued in favor of the retailer? a. No, because the retailer may reenact the challenged policy. b. No, because the retailer voluntarily changed its policy. c. Yes, because the district court's decision is being kept from appellate review. d. Yes, because there is no longer a live action or controversy.

c. Yes, because the district court's decision is being kept from appellate review. Answer option D is also incorrect because, by itself, the fact that there is no longer a live case or controversy on appeal does not necessarily mean that it is appropriate to vacate the district court's decision. Here, if the appeal had become moot for reasons unrelated to the retailer's own actions (e.g., the case settled by agreement of both sides), then there would no longer be a live case or controversy on appeal; however, that would not mean that the federal appellate court should necessarily vacate the district court's decision. Here, it is the potential for gamesmanship by the retailer that warrants vacating the district court's decision. Quimbee Quiz - Other Justicibility Doctrines

Several private parties petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to issue regulations governing greenhouse gas emissions. The EPA declined these petitions and did not issue the requested regulations. A state joined with a group of private plaintiffs whose regulation requests had been declined. The state and the group then sued the EPA, seeking declaratory relief about the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. The EPA argued that the state did not have standing to be a plaintiff in the lawsuit. The state argued that it had standing because: (1) greenhouse gases exacerbated global warming and (2) if the EPA did not regulate those emissions soon, then the unregulated gases being released now would ultimately cause the state to lose coastal lands, including some land in a state park. Does the state likely have standing to sue? a. No, because states do not have standing to sue the federal government to enforce their own interests. b. No, because although the danger to the state from the unregulated gases was imminent, the state had not yet suffered a concrete injury. c. Yes, because the state itself would suffer environmental damage from unregulated greenhouse gases. d. Yes, because the state was seeking to protect the rights of its coastal citizens.

c. Yes, because the state itself would suffer environmental damage from unregulated greenhouse gases. A state has standing to sue the government to enforce its own interests if there is an actual case or controversy. See Massachusetts v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007). To establish standing, the complaining party must: (1) suffer an injury-in-fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the other party's allegedly unlawful conduct, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by the requested relief. A complaining party can satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement by demonstrating that the party has suffered a concrete and particularized injury that is either actual or imminent. See id. Here, the state claimed that it would lose coastal lands currently in a state park if the EPA did not regulate emissions now. The potential loss of coastal lands belonging to the state is a particularized injury to the state. Further, because this injury will occur if the gases are not regulated soon, the danger of the concrete injury is imminent. Finally, this injury is fairly traceable to the allegedly wrongful conduct by the EPA, and it is likely to be redressed by the requested relief. Accordingly, the state had standing to sue. Quimbee Quiz - Article III Standing

A summer of heavy flooding impacted the route of a river and some associated waterways that were used by two neighboring states. The two states disagreed about the effect of these changes on their respective rights, including some water rights under a federal law. Eventually, one state sued the other state in federal district court to try to enforce its claimed rights. The second state moved to dismiss the lawsuit, claiming that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. Does the federal district court have jurisdiction to hear the case? a. No, because the second state is protected by sovereign immunity. b. No, because the federal government has taken no official action in regard to the dispute. c. Yes, because the suit is between two states. d. Yes, because the claim involves a dispute about state's rights.

c. Yes, because the suit is between two states. The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits a federal court from hearing claims against a state government brought by a private party or a foreign government. See Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890). However, the Eleventh Amendment's right of sovereign immunity does not bar actions against a state brought by another state or the United States government. See U.S. v. Texas, 143 U.S. 621 (1892). Here, because one state is suing another, the action is not barred by sovereign immunity. Quimbee Quiz - Article III and Federal Jurisdiction

A federal district court judge was convicted of perjury and sent to prison. However, the judge refused to resign his commission even after being incarcerated, and the United States House of Representatives began impeachment proceedings against him. The matter was then referred to the United States Senate. The U.S. Senate appointed a special committee to receive evidence and hear testimony in the case and then to report the committee's findings to the full U.S. Senate. The district court judge filed a lawsuit in federal court to stop the proceedings on the grounds that the creation of the special committee exceeded the U.S. Senate's constitutional authority to conduct impeachment proceedings. The government moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that it presented a nonjusticiable political question. Specifically, the government argued that the text of Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 of the United States Constitution gives sole power to the Senate to try all impeachments. Although the judge could not dispute this, the judge responded that that the federal courts still had the authority to determine whether the U.S. Senate was using its impeachment power constitutionally. Does the judge's lawsuit present a nonjusticiable political question? a. No, because whether the U.S. Senate was using its exclusive impeachment power constitutionally is a justiciable question that may be decided by a federal court. b. No, because the U.S. Senate gave its impeachment authority to a lesser government body when it created the committee. c. Yes, because the text of the U.S. Constitution gives the Senate the exclusive authority to determine the rules of impeachment proceedings. d. Yes, because the federal district judge facing impeachment was appointed by the president of the United States.

c. Yes, because the text of the U.S. Constitution gives the Senate the exclusive authority to determine the rules of impeachment proceedings. There are six different factors for courts to consider to determine whether a particular dispute presents a non-justiciable political question: (1) the existence in the United States Constitution of a textually demonstrable commitment of the issue to a different political department, (2) a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving the issue, (3) the impossibility of deciding the issue without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion, (4) the impossibility of judicially resolving the issue without disrespecting other branches of the government, (5) an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made, or (6) the possibility of embarrassment from multiple pronouncements by various departments on one question. See Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962). The first two factors carry the most weight. However, if one or more of any of these factors indicates that a dispute presents a political question, then the dispute is not justiciable, and the federal courts should dismiss the case. Here, Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 of the U.S. Constitution gives sole power to the Senate to try all impeachments. See Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993). This means that the text of the U.S. Constitution contains a demonstrable commitment of the issue to a different branch of the government (i.e., the legislative branch), which is the first factor in the list above and carries significant weight. Because of this, any dispute about how the U.S. Senate exercises its exclusive authority to conduct impeachment proceedings is a nonjusticiable political question incapable of resolution by the courts. Thus, the U.S. Senate has complete discretion in how to conduct impeachment proceedings and in determining the rules by which those proceedings are conducted. Answer options A and B are incorrect because the U.S. Constitution gives the Senate complete discretion to determine how it conducts impeachment proceedings. Thus, any dispute about the specifics of those proceedings also belongs solely to the U.S. Senate, not the federal judiciary. This is true even if the complaint or dispute is that the specifics being used violate a different provision in the U.S. Constitution or that the U.S. Senate improperly delegated its authority; the entire area is inappropriate for judicial interference. Quimbee Quiz - The Political Question Doctrine

Senator Solon is appointed to be Secretary of the Treasury. During the time Solon was in the Senate, she voted to increase the pay of several executive officials, including the Treasury Secretary. Peter, a constituent of Solon, sues, claiming the appointment violates the Emoluments Clause of Article I, § 6, clause 2, which reads that "[n]o Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time. . . . " Does Peter have standing to bring suit? a. Yes, because Peter has suffered injury by the Secretary's failure to follow the Constitution. b. Yes, because a portion of Peter's tax revenues that fund the Secretary's salary have been used to pay for an unconstitutional appointment. c. No, because the injury is not redressable by a judicial decision. d. No, because Peter has alleged a generalized grievance.

d. No, because Peter has alleged a generalized grievance. Textbook - Justiciability

Within a year of the president of the United States appointing him to the U.S. Supreme Court (with the advice and consent of the Senate), a justice was cited three times for driving while under the influence of alcohol. The justice refused to seek treatment for alcohol addiction, even after the president urged him to do so. May the president of the United States remove the justice from the U.S. Supreme Court? a. Yes, because the president appointed the justice. b. Yes, because under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, justices may only continue to hold their office during good behavior. c. No, because all justices serve for lifetime terms. d. No, because a justice may be removed only by impeachment.

d. No, because a justice may be removed only by impeachment. Quimbee Quiz - The Supreme Court and the Constitutional System

A tenant sued his landlord in federal district court. The tenant alleged that the landlord was charging him rent that was in excess of the maximum amount fixed by the federal Rent Control Act, which fixed certain rents in certain geographic areas. The landlord moved to dismiss, arguing that the act was unconstitutional. During trial, the tenant admitted that the landlord had asked him to bring the lawsuit to test the new act and the landlord's ability to charge higher rent. The tenant also said that the landlord was paying all the costs related to the litigation, including the tenant's expenses. The landlord did not dispute the tenant's statements. Instead, the landlord admitted that he had asked the tenant to sue him to give the landlord an opportunity to challenge the act in court. The landlord owned several rental properties and was planning to purchase several more if the act was declared unconstitutional. May the Article III federal court hear the tenant's claim? a. Yes, because the tenant has suffered an injury in fact due to the possible rent violation. b. Yes, because there is no indication that the tenant has moved out. c. No, because the tenant's claim is moot. d. No, because the parties are not meaningfully adverse.

d. No, because the parties are not meaningfully adverse. Article III courts (e.g., federal district courts) may review only justiciable claims that present an actual case or controversy. For there to be a justiciable case or controversy, the parties involved must be meaningfully adverse. See United States v. Johnson, 319 U.S. 302 (1943). If two parties are not truly disputing an issue that impacts both of them, then there is no actual case or controversy for the court to resolve. In that situation, the court would essentially be issuing an advisory opinion, and Article III courts are not allowed to issue advisory opinions. Quimbee Quiz - Other Justicibility Doctrines

A prison inmate was transferred from a state prison to a state mental hospital according to the state's transfer procedure. The inmate sued in state court, claiming that the transfer had violated his due process rights under the state's constitution because he had not been provided with a written statement regarding the evidence used in the transfer decision. The state's constitution had a due process clause similar to the clause contained in the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, although the two clauses were not identical. The trial court ruled that the transfer procedure did not violate the inmate's rights under state law. The inmate appealed to the state supreme court, which was the highest court in the state. The state supreme court affirmed the lower court's decision. Would the United States Supreme Court have the jurisdictional authority to hear an appeal from the state supreme court's decision in this case? a. Yes, because the U.S. Supreme Court may hear all appeals from a state's highest court. b. Yes, because the inmate is claiming a violation of his constitutional rights. c. No, because state courts have complete authority over state prison processes under the Eleventh Amendment. d. No, because the state court's decision was based on adequate and independent state-law grounds.

d. No, because the state court's decision was based on adequate and independent state-law grounds. Quimbee Quiz - Article III and Federal Jurisdiction

A Republican woman lived in an urban area in her county. The state's constitution required that legislative districts be redrawn every 10 years to adjust for changes in population. The woman sued the state, arguing that redistricting had not actually been done for over 60 years and that the urban district had 10 times as many residents as a neighboring rural district. The woman claimed that her rights under the Equal Protection Clause in the United States Constitution were being violated because an individual rural vote effectively counted more than her individual urban vote. The state moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the woman's lawsuit was based on a nonjusticiable political question. Is the woman's lawsuit based on a nonjusticiable political question? a. Yes, because the woman's claim involves partisan gerrymandering and there is a lack of judicially discoverable standards for resolving gerrymandering issues. b. Yes, because the woman's claim involves the creation of political districts and the court would disrespect the legislative branch if it ruled on the claim. c. No, because the state violated its own constitution by not redistricting earlier. d. No, because the woman is claiming a violation of her rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

d. No, because the woman is claiming a violation of her rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Quimbee Quiz - The Political Question Doctrine

Disturbed at reports that Americans are "bowling alone," as one author put it—declining to join various civic organizations like Rotary, the Kiwanis, etc., State decides to create financial incentives to keep those groups financially solvent. State allows individuals to donate up to $1000, which may be deducted from the income on which one pays state income tax. In addition, however, the state furnishes individuals with an additional credit of up to $500 against any state income taxes owed, for donations made over $1000. Donations to places of worship and religious orders are eligible. A group calling itself Freethinkers for Fiscal Responsibility made up of state taxpayers, challenges the credit, calling it an unconstitutional state-sponsored giveaway to churches. The State, meanwhile, alleges the taxpayers have no standing to challenge the program. A reviewing court should: a. Side with the taxpayers because the scenario is covered by Flast v. Cohen. b. Side with the taxpayers because they have an interest in ensuring that tax revenues are not spent on unconstitutional programs. c. Side with the State, because taxpayers have no right to challenge the constitutionality of state spending programs. d. Side with the State, because the aid does not involve legislative appropriations to religious entities.

d. Side with the State, because the aid does not involve legislative appropriations to religious entities. Textbook - Justiciability

Congress amended the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to require prescription drug manufacturers to print the common name of their drugs on all packaging or face criminal penalties. Before the act was enforced, a manufacturer sued the commissioner responsible for enforcing the act in federal district court, arguing that enforcing the act would exceed the commissioner's authority and that the required rebranding would be unduly expensive. The government filed a motion to dismiss the manufacturer's action. The government argued that the manufacturer had not suffered any actual injury yet and, therefore, that the legality of the act was not a ripe issue that the court could review. May the Article III federal court review the manufacturer's claim about the legality of the act? a. No, because the act had not been enforced yet. b. No, because there was no indication that criminal prosecution under the act was likely. c. Yes, because the manufacturer was questioning the commissioner's official authority. d. Yes, because the manufacturer will suffer immediate and severe harm if the court does not consider this claim.

d. Yes, because the manufacturer will suffer immediate and severe harm if the court does not consider this claim. Article III courts (e.g., federal district courts) may review only justiciable claims that present an actual case or controversy. If a claim is not ripe, then it is not justiciable and Article III prohibits judicial review of the issue. Ripeness concerns the timing of a lawsuit and whether the plaintiff's action is premature. In general, if an injury is only a future, hypothetical injury, then the claim is not ripe, and a party may not bring a lawsuit for that claim unless and until an injury actually occurs. However, if a potential future injury is severe enough and likely to occur, then courts may allow a claim to go forward without forcing a party to actually suffer that injury. This means that if a party is challenging the future enforcement of a statute or regulation, courts will determine whether the challenge is ripe for review based on the hardship to the party if the court withholds consideration (and the statute or regulation goes into effect). See Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (1967). Quimbee Quiz - Other Justicibility Doctrines


संबंधित स्टडी सेट्स

Steps in the Underwriting Process

View Set

neuro, NURIV- neuro lecture practice questions, NU310: Neurologic Alterations, Prepu Neuro, cv prep u, Ch. 67: Management of Patients with Cerebrovascular Disorders, Lacharity ch. 9, 253 - Neuro Questions (51-100 with rationales and strategies), PEDS...

View Set

Chapter 12: Some Lessons from Capital Market History

View Set

BLaw Ch20 Remedies for Breach of Sales and Lease Contracts

View Set

Lifetime Fitness and Wellness Chapter 9

View Set