LECTURE #2: The Judicial Concepts Presented by Derrick J. Johnson, MPA, JD Honors Constitutional...

LECTURE #2: LECTURE #2: The Judicial ConceptsThe Judicial Concepts

Presented byPresented by

Derrick J. Johnson, MPA, JDDerrick J. Johnson, MPA, JD

Honors Constitutional Law,Honors Constitutional Law,

School for Advanced StudiesSchool for Advanced Studies

Federalism and Judicial Review

Federalism is defined as the division of Federalism is defined as the division of power and the relationship between the power and the relationship between the state government and the federal state government and the federal government.government.

The Supreme Court has often assumed The Supreme Court has often assumed the role of umpire between the federal the role of umpire between the federal government and the states by utilizing government and the states by utilizing its power of judicial review.its power of judicial review.


The supremacy of the federal judiciary over the state The supremacy of the federal judiciary over the state courts can be traced to the early days of the Marshall courts can be traced to the early days of the Marshall Court.Court.

Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee (1816)(1816) The state of Virginia granted the same tract of land to the The state of Virginia granted the same tract of land to the

Appellee, Hunter, that a federal treaty give to the Appellant, Appellee, Hunter, that a federal treaty give to the Appellant, Martin. The Supreme Court of the United States declared that Martin. The Supreme Court of the United States declared that Appellant was so entitled, but the Virginia Court of Appeals, to Appellant was so entitled, but the Virginia Court of Appeals, to which the case was remanded, refused to carryout the Supreme which the case was remanded, refused to carryout the Supreme Court’s judgment.Court’s judgment.

The United States Constitution (Constitution) and the laws of the The United States Constitution (Constitution) and the laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme United States made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land and the judges in every state shall be bound law of the land and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby.thereby.

It’s important to recognize that this case pertains to the power It’s important to recognize that this case pertains to the power of the federal courts to review decisions by state courts. In of the federal courts to review decisions by state courts. In Marbury v. Madison, at issue was as a federal court’s power to Marbury v. Madison, at issue was as a federal court’s power to review an act by another branch of the federal government.review an act by another branch of the federal government.


The Court has also assumed the role of champion The Court has also assumed the role of champion of he rights of the citizen against the state of he rights of the citizen against the state government.government.

Moore v. City of East Cleveland Moore v. City of East Cleveland (1977)(1977) A Cleveland, Ohio housing ordinance limited occupancy of A Cleveland, Ohio housing ordinance limited occupancy of

a dwelling unit to members of a single family. a dwelling unit to members of a single family. The ordinance defines “family” as including only a few The ordinance defines “family” as including only a few

categories of related individuals. The Appellant, Inez categories of related individuals. The Appellant, Inez Moore challenged the constitutionality of the ordinance Moore challenged the constitutionality of the ordinance because her family failed to meet the legal definition of because her family failed to meet the legal definition of family under the Cleveland ordinance. (She lived with her family under the Cleveland ordinance. (She lived with her two grandsons who where only first cousins). two grandsons who where only first cousins).

The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. The The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. The Ohio Supreme Court denied review of the judgment.Ohio Supreme Court denied review of the judgment.

The U.S. Supreme Court held that related individuals have The U.S. Supreme Court held that related individuals have a fundamental right to live with one another.a fundamental right to live with one another.


However, there are limitations to this power. Congress However, there are limitations to this power. Congress has the power, through Article III to limit the scope of has the power, through Article III to limit the scope of the Court’s appellate powers:the Court’s appellate powers:

Ex Parte McCardle (1869)Ex Parte McCardle (1869) McCardle, a newspaper editor, was arrested for McCardle, a newspaper editor, was arrested for

writing articles critical of Reconstruction, writing articles critical of Reconstruction, petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States (United States) for a writ of habeas corpus. (United States) for a writ of habeas corpus. McCardle argued the Military Reconstruction Act McCardle argued the Military Reconstruction Act (the Act) and his prosecution were unconstitutional.(the Act) and his prosecution were unconstitutional.

Congress, by repealing the United State Supreme Congress, by repealing the United State Supreme Court’s (Supreme Court) appellate review of writs Court’s (Supreme Court) appellate review of writs of habeas corpus, effectively took jurisdiction over of habeas corpus, effectively took jurisdiction over McCardle’s case away from the Supreme Court.McCardle’s case away from the Supreme Court.

Adequate and Independent State Grounds Doctrine

The adequate and independent state ground doctrine The adequate and independent state ground doctrine states that when a litigant petitions the U.S. Supreme states that when a litigant petitions the U.S. Supreme Court to review the judgment of a state court which Court to review the judgment of a state court which rests upon both federal and non-federal (state) law, rests upon both federal and non-federal (state) law, the U.S. Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction the U.S. Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction over the case if the state ground is over the case if the state ground is (1) “adequate” to support the judgment, and (1) “adequate” to support the judgment, and (2) “independent” of federal law.(2) “independent” of federal law.

Michigan v. Long Michigan v. Long (1983)(1983) David Long was convicted for possession of David Long was convicted for possession of

marijuana found by police in the passenger marijuana found by police in the passenger compartment and trunk of the automobile that he compartment and trunk of the automobile that he was driving. Long filed a motion to suppress the was driving. Long filed a motion to suppress the marijuana taken from his vehicle.marijuana taken from his vehicle.

Adequate and Independent State Grounds Doctrine

If there is not a plain statement that a lower If there is not a plain statement that a lower state court’s decision rests upon adequate and state court’s decision rests upon adequate and independent state grounds and when the state independent state grounds and when the state appears to have rested its decision primarily on appears to have rested its decision primarily on federal law, the Supreme Court will assume federal law, the Supreme Court will assume that the decision is in fact based on federal that the decision is in fact based on federal law..law..

Bush v. Gore Bush v. Gore (2000)(2000)

Facts:Facts: The 2000 presidential election was a close race The 2000 presidential election was a close race between Texas Governor George W. Bush and Vice-between Texas Governor George W. Bush and Vice-President Al Gore. On election night, the results were President Al Gore. On election night, the results were inconclusive. Gore had won the popular vote, but neither inconclusive. Gore had won the popular vote, but neither candidate had won the electoral vote. The election candidate had won the electoral vote. The election outcome depended on Florida. After a series of challenges outcome depended on Florida. After a series of challenges in the state courts, the Florida Supreme Court ordered a in the state courts, the Florida Supreme Court ordered a manual recount for voter’s cards to determine what manual recount for voter’s cards to determine what ‘hanging chads’ meant; there were a bunch of votes that ‘hanging chads’ meant; there were a bunch of votes that didn’t count that Gore wanted to be counted. However, didn’t count that Gore wanted to be counted. However, there were different methods for doing the recount all there were different methods for doing the recount all across the state. Bush argued that this is unconstitutional across the state. Bush argued that this is unconstitutional because it violated the Equal Protection and Due Process because it violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses.Clauses.

Issue:Issue: Did the FL SC establish new standards for Did the FL SC establish new standards for resolving Presidential election contests violating resolving Presidential election contests violating Art 2, § 1, cl.2 of Constitution and also 3 USC § 5? Art 2, § 1, cl.2 of Constitution and also 3 USC § 5? Does the use of standardless manual recounts Does the use of standardless manual recounts violate the Equal Protection and Due Process violate the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses?clauses?

Holding: Holding: The Court held that it did violate the The Court held that it did violate the Equal Protection only. The failed to address the Equal Protection only. The failed to address the Due Process issue. Due Process issue.

Reasoning:Reasoning: “When the state legislature vests the “When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, this right right to vote for President in its people, this right becomes fundamental and one source of its becomes fundamental and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter.” A person’s vote cannot be given to each voter.” A person’s vote cannot be given disparate or diluted treatment.disparate or diluted treatment.

Bush v. Gore Bush v. Gore (2000)(2000)

The problems with counting the votes in Florida during the 2000 presidential election led to widespread criticism of a long accepted tradition in American politics: local control of the voting process.

It was on this basis that many criticized the Court’s decision for violating the adequate and independent state grounds doctrine.

Eleventh Amendment

““The Judicial power of the United States shall The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.”or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.” It is the 11It is the 11thth Amendment that grants sovereign Amendment that grants sovereign

immunity to states. It was passed as a measure to immunity to states. It was passed as a measure to overturn the Chisholm v. Georgia case which allowed overturn the Chisholm v. Georgia case which allowed a citizen to sue a state. a citizen to sue a state.

Eleventh Amendment Ex Parte YoungEx Parte Young (1908) (1908)

Minnesota Attorney General Minnesota Attorney General Edward T. Young refused to Edward T. Young refused to enforce an injunction against a enforce an injunction against a state law that sought to limit state law that sought to limit what railroads could charge.what railroads could charge.

The Supreme Court provided The Supreme Court provided an important exception to the an important exception to the 11th Amendment sovereign 11th Amendment sovereign immunity States enjoy: the immunity States enjoy: the Stripping Doctrine. The Stripping Doctrine. The Stripping Doctrine is a legal Stripping Doctrine is a legal fiction which allows injunctive fiction which allows injunctive relief against what are relief against what are essentially state actions. essentially state actions.

Eleventh Amendment While the 11th Amendment immunizes States While the 11th Amendment immunizes States

from actions by private parties, the Stripping from actions by private parties, the Stripping Doctrine argues that when a state officer takes Doctrine argues that when a state officer takes an unconstitutional action, she acts beyond the an unconstitutional action, she acts beyond the scope of her authority, as no State could have scope of her authority, as no State could have authorized her to act unconstitutionally. authorized her to act unconstitutionally.

When acting outside such authority the officer When acting outside such authority the officer was "stripped" of her official power and cannot was "stripped" of her official power and cannot invoke the State's immunity, although she invoke the State's immunity, although she remains subject to the consequences of her remains subject to the consequences of her official conduct. official conduct.

Eleventh Amendment Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida (1996)Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida (1996)

The Seminole Tribe of Florida, sued the The Seminole Tribe of Florida, sued the Respondents, the State of Florida and its Respondents, the State of Florida and its Governor, alleging that the Respondents had Governor, alleging that the Respondents had refused to enter into any negotiation for refused to enter into any negotiation for inclusion of gaming activities in a tribal state inclusion of gaming activities in a tribal state compact, thereby violating the requirement of compact, thereby violating the requirement of good faith negotiation contained in the federal good faith negotiation contained in the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (the Act).Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (the Act).

Even when the United States Constitution vests Even when the United States Constitution vests in Congress complete law-making authority over in Congress complete law-making authority over a particular area, the Eleventh Amendment of a particular area, the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution prevents congressional the Constitution prevents congressional authorization of suits by private parties against authorization of suits by private parties against unconsenting states. unconsenting states.

Justiciability

Justiciability concerns the limits upon legal Justiciability concerns the limits upon legal issues over which a court can exercise its issues over which a court can exercise its judicial authority.judicial authority.

Justiciability in American law seeks to address Justiciability in American law seeks to address whether a court possesses the ability to whether a court possesses the ability to provide adequate resolution of the disputeprovide adequate resolution of the dispute

Where a court feels it cannot offer such a final Where a court feels it cannot offer such a final determination, the matter is not justiciable.determination, the matter is not justiciable.

Justiciability Criteria Justiciability is important because it is Justiciability is important because it is

one of several criteria that the U.S. one of several criteria that the U.S. Supreme Court use to grant a writ of Supreme Court use to grant a writ of certiorari.certiorari.

The justiciability criteria is as follows:The justiciability criteria is as follows: 1.) The petitioner must have standing1.) The petitioner must have standing 2.) The case must be a live case and 2.) The case must be a live case and

controversycontroversy 3.) No Advisory Opinions3.) No Advisory Opinions 4.) No Political Questions4.) No Political Questions

StandingStanding

Standing is the term for the ability of a Standing is the term for the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case.that party's participation in the case.

ElementsElements Discrete and Palpable InjuryDiscrete and Palpable Injury Caused by Defendant's (alleged) ActionCaused by Defendant's (alleged) Action Remediable by CourtRemediable by Court Plaintiff's personal rights at stakePlaintiff's personal rights at stake

HOLDINGHOLDING It is speculative whether plaintiffs’ claim of It is speculative whether plaintiffs’ claim of

injury arising from their children’s diminished injury arising from their children’s diminished ability to receive an education in a racially ability to receive an education in a racially integrated school.integrated school.

It fails because the alleged injury is not fairly It fails because the alleged injury is not fairly traceable to the Government conduct that is traceable to the Government conduct that is challenged as unlawful.challenged as unlawful.

To recognize respondents’ standing to seek a To recognize respondents’ standing to seek a restructuring of the apparatus established by restructuring of the apparatus established by the Executive Branch to fulfill its legal duties the Executive Branch to fulfill its legal duties would be contrary to the idea of separation of would be contrary to the idea of separation of powers that underlies standing doctrine.powers that underlies standing doctrine.

Allen v. WrightAllen v. Wright (1984)(1984)

Flast v. Cohen Flast v. Cohen (1968)(1968) FACTSFACTS

Flast brought suit, claiming Flast brought suit, claiming standing solely as taxpayers, standing solely as taxpayers, seeking to enjoin expenditure seeking to enjoin expenditure of federal funds on religious of federal funds on religious schools. schools.

Appellant claimed such Appellant claimed such expenditures violated the expenditures violated the Establishment and Free Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the First Exercise clauses of the First Amendment of the United Amendment of the United States Constitution.States Constitution.

Flast v. Cohen Flast v. Cohen (1968)(1968) Taxpayer standing is appropriate when Taxpayer standing is appropriate when

the plaintiff challenges an enactment the plaintiff challenges an enactment under the taxing and spending clause of under the taxing and spending clause of the Constitution and the enactment the Constitution and the enactment exceeds specific constitutional exceeds specific constitutional limitations on taxing and spending.limitations on taxing and spending.

ISSUEISSUE Have the Appellants established Have the Appellants established

standing to bring suit in an Article III standing to bring suit in an Article III court?court?

Flast v. Cohen Flast v. Cohen (1968)(1968) RULE OF LAWRULE OF LAW

Taxpayer standing is appropriate when Taxpayer standing is appropriate when the plaintiff challenges an enactment the plaintiff challenges an enactment under the taxing and spending clause of under the taxing and spending clause of the Constitution and the enactment the Constitution and the enactment exceeds specific constitutional limitations exceeds specific constitutional limitations on taxing and spending.on taxing and spending.

DISSENTDISSENT Justice John Marshall Harlan argues that Justice John Marshall Harlan argues that

the two requirements outlined by the the two requirements outlined by the majority do not establish that P has a majority do not establish that P has a personal stake in the outcome.personal stake in the outcome.

Warth v. Seldin Warth v. Seldin (1975)(1975) FACTSFACTS

Numerous parties in Penfield, New York Numerous parties in Penfield, New York (Penfield) contested the town’s zoning rules. (Penfield) contested the town’s zoning rules. Those parties argued that the rules were Those parties argued that the rules were enacted to restrict the building of low to enacted to restrict the building of low to moderate income housing. moderate income housing.

The four main categories of parties were: The four main categories of parties were: 1) low-income persons seeking affordable 1) low-income persons seeking affordable

housing, housing, 2) taxpayers from neighboring cities, claiming 2) taxpayers from neighboring cities, claiming

the lack of housing in Penfield caused their the lack of housing in Penfield caused their cities to provide tax incentives for the cities to provide tax incentives for the construction of similar housing, increasing construction of similar housing, increasing the neighboring cities’ tax burdens, the neighboring cities’ tax burdens,

Warth v. Seldin Warth v. Seldin (1975)(1975) 3) Metro-Act, a local action group, claiming 3) Metro-Act, a local action group, claiming

that the refusal to build low income housing that the refusal to build low income housing prevented those with low to moderate incomes prevented those with low to moderate incomes from living in the town of Penfieldfrom living in the town of Penfield

4) real estate developers who missed out on 4) real estate developers who missed out on projects for the construction of low to projects for the construction of low to moderate income housing because of the moderate income housing because of the zoning rules.zoning rules.

ISSUEISSUE Have the zoning rules in Penfield, NY caused Have the zoning rules in Penfield, NY caused

the injuries of which these plaintiffs complain the injuries of which these plaintiffs complain and if so, what is the remedy?and if so, what is the remedy?

Warth v. Seldin Warth v. Seldin (1975)(1975) HELDHELD

None of the plaintiffs have standing to bring this None of the plaintiffs have standing to bring this action against the city of Penfield, NY. None of the action against the city of Penfield, NY. None of the plaintiffs provided evidence sufficient to show that plaintiffs provided evidence sufficient to show that “but for” the city’s zoning rules, their respective “but for” the city’s zoning rules, their respective injuries would not have occurred. Further, any injuries would not have occurred. Further, any redress of potential injury was too vague and not redress of potential injury was too vague and not sufficiently concrete to meet the applicable standing sufficiently concrete to meet the applicable standing requirements.requirements.

The Supreme Court applied a two-part test in The Supreme Court applied a two-part test in analyzing the standing doctrine’s causation analyzing the standing doctrine’s causation requirement when pursuing a claim against a requirement when pursuing a claim against a government entity. government entity.

First, the moving party must demonstrate that “but First, the moving party must demonstrate that “but for” the challenged action, there would not have for” the challenged action, there would not have been an injury.been an injury.

Warth v. Seldin Warth v. Seldin (1975)(1975) Second, the plaintiff(s) must show that a Second, the plaintiff(s) must show that a

decision by the Court will redress the injury. decision by the Court will redress the injury. Whether the probability of redress must be Whether the probability of redress must be reasonable or substantial is determined on a reasonable or substantial is determined on a case by case basiscase by case basis


FACTSFACTS The Internal Revenue Service denied tax-The Internal Revenue Service denied tax-

exempt status to racially discriminatory exempt status to racially discriminatory private schools and established guidelines for private schools and established guidelines for determining whether particular schools were determining whether particular schools were racially nondiscriminatory. racially nondiscriminatory.

Allen v. WrightAllen v. Wright (1984): (1984):

BackgroundBackground Wright and other parents (P) of black children Wright and other parents (P) of black children who were attending public schools who were attending public schools undergoing desegregation brought a undergoing desegregation brought a nationwide class action lawsuit against the nationwide class action lawsuit against the IRS and certain private schools in federal IRS and certain private schools in federal district court, seeking declaratory and district court, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. injunctive relief.

Wright alleged that the IRS had not adopted Wright alleged that the IRS had not adopted standards and procedures sufficient to satisfy standards and procedures sufficient to satisfy its obligation to deny tax-exempt status to its obligation to deny tax-exempt status to racially discriminatory private schools, racially discriminatory private schools, thereby harming the plaintiffs directly and thereby harming the plaintiffs directly and interfering with their children’s opportunity to interfering with their children’s opportunity to attend desegregated public schools. attend desegregated public schools.

Allen v. WrightAllen v. Wright (1984): (1984):

BackgroundBackground Wright also alleged that many racially Wright also alleged that many racially segregated private schools had been created segregated private schools had been created or expanded while the public schools were or expanded while the public schools were undergoing desegregation, and that these undergoing desegregation, and that these private schools had received tax exemptions private schools had received tax exemptions despite the IRS policy. There was no despite the IRS policy. There was no allegation that the children of the plaintiffs allegation that the children of the plaintiffs had ever or would ever apply for admission to had ever or would ever apply for admission to any private school.any private school.

The District Court permitted intervention as a The District Court permitted intervention as a defendant by petitioner Allen. The District defendant by petitioner Allen. The District Court dismissed the complaint for lack of Court dismissed the complaint for lack of standing. The Court of Appeals reversed and standing. The Court of Appeals reversed and the Supreme Court granted cert.the Supreme Court granted cert.

ISSUEISSUE Did Wright have standing to Did Wright have standing to

bring suit against the IRS for bring suit against the IRS for failing to deny tax exempt failing to deny tax exempt status status [501(c)(3)][501(c)(3)] to racially to racially discriminatory private schoolsdiscriminatory private schools


HOLDINGHOLDING The plaintiffs’ claim that they are The plaintiffs’ claim that they are

harmed directly by the mere fact of harmed directly by the mere fact of Government financial aid to Government financial aid to discriminatory private schools fails discriminatory private schools fails because it does not constitute because it does not constitute judicially cognizable injury.judicially cognizable injury.

An asserted right to have the An asserted right to have the Government act in accordance with Government act in accordance with law, without more, is not sufficient law, without more, is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction on a federal to confer jurisdiction on a federal court.court.


MootnessMootness

Plaintiff must have live controversyPlaintiff must have live controversy when complaint filed, ANDwhen complaint filed, AND at all stages of litigationat all stages of litigation burden on Defendant to establish burden on Defendant to establish

mootnessmootness Case can become mootCase can become moot

Parties die, events occur or lapseParties die, events occur or lapse Controversy is settledControversy is settled

Exceptions to mootnessExceptions to mootness Voluntary cessation of harmVoluntary cessation of harm Capable of repetition yet evading reviewCapable of repetition yet evading review

Capable of Repetition w/o Capable of Repetition w/o ReviewReview

Moore v. OgilvieMoore v. Ogilvie (1969) (1969) Election controversies are usually Election controversies are usually

over by the time case can be resolvedover by the time case can be resolved Strict mootness doctrine would Strict mootness doctrine would

preclude reviewpreclude review Roe v. WadeRoe v. Wade (1973) (1973)

Pregnancy usually over before case Pregnancy usually over before case decideddecided

Defunis v. OdegaardDefunis v. Odegaard (1974)(1974)

FACTSFACTS Petitioner DeFunis, a white applicant to the Petitioner DeFunis, a white applicant to the

University of Washington law school, sued the Board University of Washington law school, sued the Board of Regents of the University of Washington in state of Regents of the University of Washington in state court after he was denied admission. court after he was denied admission.

DeFunis alleged that the law school discriminated DeFunis alleged that the law school discriminated against applicants of certain races and ethnicities, against applicants of certain races and ethnicities, including whites, by admitting minority applicants including whites, by admitting minority applicants with significantly lower undergraduate grades and with significantly lower undergraduate grades and LSAT scores. LSAT scores.


DeFunis maintained that his rejection was predicated DeFunis maintained that his rejection was predicated on racial discrimination in violation of the Equal on racial discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The District Court granted DeFunis injunctive relief The District Court granted DeFunis injunctive relief and ordered the law school to admit him. and ordered the law school to admit him.

When DeFunis was in his second year of law school, When DeFunis was in his second year of law school, the Supreme Court of Washington reversed, holding the Supreme Court of Washington reversed, holding that the admissions policy was not unconstitutional. that the admissions policy was not unconstitutional.

The case came before the Supreme Court of the The case came before the Supreme Court of the United States for a full hearing when DeFunis was in United States for a full hearing when DeFunis was in his final year of law school. Although the law school his final year of law school. Although the law school assured that it would allow DeFunis to graduate assured that it would allow DeFunis to graduate regardless of the Court’s decision, both parties regardless of the Court’s decision, both parties contended that mootness did not exist to block formal contended that mootness did not exist to block formal adjudication of the matter.adjudication of the matter.


Law School usually over by time case is finalLaw School usually over by time case is final But dispute not capable of repetition But dispute not capable of repetition for himfor him

Thus, he might not have requisite stake in Thus, he might not have requisite stake in outcomeoutcome

Should case have been filed as class action?Should case have been filed as class action?

ISSUEISSUE Does an actual controversy exist between the parties, Does an actual controversy exist between the parties,

capable of redress by the United States Supreme Court capable of redress by the United States Supreme Court (Supreme Court)?(Supreme Court)?


HELDHELD The Court ordered the parties to address the issue of The Court ordered the parties to address the issue of

mootness before they proceeded to any other claims in mootness before they proceeded to any other claims in the petition. the petition.

The Court reasoned that “federal courts are without The Court reasoned that “federal courts are without power to decide questions that cannot affect the rights power to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of litigants in the cases before them.” This requirement of litigants in the cases before them.” This requirement stems from Article III of the Constitution, under which stems from Article III of the Constitution, under which the exercise of judicial power depends upon the the exercise of judicial power depends upon the existence of a case or controversy. existence of a case or controversy.

No amount of public interest would be sufficient to No amount of public interest would be sufficient to create an actual case or controversy, and the case was create an actual case or controversy, and the case was rendered moot because DeFunis was going to graduate rendered moot because DeFunis was going to graduate from the law school regardless of the Court’s ruling. from the law school regardless of the Court’s ruling.

RipenessRipeness Principle: avoidance of premature litigationPrinciple: avoidance of premature litigation

Premature if harm lies in future without fair Premature if harm lies in future without fair degree of certainty that it will occurdegree of certainty that it will occur

Premature if facts are yet to gel, such that Premature if facts are yet to gel, such that precise contours of controversy are unknown precise contours of controversy are unknown

Retrospective relief (damages)Retrospective relief (damages) All facts lie in the past; no conjecture necessaryAll facts lie in the past; no conjecture necessary

Prospective relief (injunction; decl. relief)Prospective relief (injunction; decl. relief) Some (all) facts lie in the future; speculative?Some (all) facts lie in the future; speculative?

City of Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles v. LyonsLyons (1983) (1983)

FACTSFACTS Adolph Lyons was pulled over by a Los Angeles Adolph Lyons was pulled over by a Los Angeles

police officer for a traffic violation. He offered police officer for a traffic violation. He offered no resistance, and without provocation, the no resistance, and without provocation, the police officer seized Lyons and placed him in a police officer seized Lyons and placed him in a chokehold, rendering Lyons unconscious.chokehold, rendering Lyons unconscious.

Lyons sued the municipality and sought Lyons sued the municipality and sought damages and injunctive relief in District Court damages and injunctive relief in District Court for the Central District of California. He asked for the Central District of California. He asked the court to issue an injunction preventing the the court to issue an injunction preventing the police department from using chokeholds in the police department from using chokeholds in the future unless circumstances were to result in future unless circumstances were to result in death or serious bodily injury if force was death or serious bodily injury if force was withheld. withheld.


ISSUESISSUES Does this case present Does this case present

an “actual case or an “actual case or controversy” that can controversy” that can be determined by the be determined by the Supreme Court?Supreme Court?

If so, does Lyons have If so, does Lyons have standing to seek standing to seek injunctive relief injunctive relief against the against the municipality of Los municipality of Los Angeles?Angeles?


HELDHELD This case does not present an “actual case or This case does not present an “actual case or

controversy” as required in the Constitution controversy” as required in the Constitution under Article III. Past illegal conduct, by itself, under Article III. Past illegal conduct, by itself, is insufficient to establish an actual case or is insufficient to establish an actual case or controversy for injunctive relief.controversy for injunctive relief.

Even though Lyons was injured by the police Even though Lyons was injured by the police in the past, this act alone does not establish in the past, this act alone does not establish that Lyons is threatened with immediate injury that Lyons is threatened with immediate injury or that he will be pulled over and placed in a or that he will be pulled over and placed in a chokehold again.chokehold again.

Advisory OpinionsAdvisory Opinions

Before the court will hear a case, it must find that the Before the court will hear a case, it must find that the parties have a tangible interest at stake in the matter, parties have a tangible interest at stake in the matter, the issue presented must be "mature for judicial the issue presented must be "mature for judicial resolution" or ripe and a justiciable issue must remain resolution" or ripe and a justiciable issue must remain before the court throughout the course of the lawsuit. before the court throughout the course of the lawsuit. Courts must decide cases;Courts must decide cases; If those cases set up the constitution as a right or If those cases set up the constitution as a right or

defense, courts must be allowed to look to the defense, courts must be allowed to look to the constitution;constitution;

If the constitution is supreme, it must provide the If the constitution is supreme, it must provide the rule of decision in every case in which invokedrule of decision in every case in which invoked

but only when necessary to decide but only when necessary to decide actual casesactual cases

Opinion of the JusticesOpinion of the Justices (1793)(1793)

Interpretation of peace treatyInterpretation of peace treaty Why did Washington/Jefferson want a Why did Washington/Jefferson want a

judicial interpretation of the treaty & US judicial interpretation of the treaty & US obligations?obligations?

Why didn't Jay want to provide it?Why didn't Jay want to provide it? "We exceedingly regret every event that may "We exceedingly regret every event that may

cause embarrassment to your administration, cause embarrassment to your administration, but we derive consolation from the reflection but we derive consolation from the reflection that your judgment will discern what is right, that your judgment will discern what is right, and that your usual prudence, decision, and and that your usual prudence, decision, and firmness will surmount every obstacle to the firmness will surmount every obstacle to the preservation of the rights, peace, and dignity of preservation of the rights, peace, and dignity of the United States." the United States."

Opinion of the JusticesOpinion of the Justices (1793)(1793)

Advisory Opinions Advisory Opinions If not S.Ct., who gives President legal advice?If not S.Ct., who gives President legal advice?

Art. II, § 2, ¶ 1: Art. II, § 2, ¶ 1: "the President … may require "the President … may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective offices …their respective offices …““

After JayAfter Jay’’s letter, Washingtons letter, Washington’’s Cabinet s Cabinet formulated a set of "regulations" reflecting formulated a set of "regulations" reflecting executive interpretation of international law executive interpretation of international law -- for the President cannot fulfill his -- for the President cannot fulfill his obligation to take care that the law be obligation to take care that the law be executed without making a determination of executed without making a determination of what it means. what it means.

Political QuestionsPolitical Questions MarburyMarbury::

““Questions, in their nature political, Questions, in their nature political, or which are, by the constitution and or which are, by the constitution and laws, submitted to the executive, can laws, submitted to the executive, can never be made in this court.never be made in this court.””

““in cases in which the executive in cases in which the executive possesses a constitutional or legal possesses a constitutional or legal discretion, nothing can be more discretion, nothing can be more perfectly clear than that their acts perfectly clear than that their acts are only politically examinable.are only politically examinable.””

True for congress too?

Political branch must have both power and

discretion

Where Political Questions Where Political Questions AriseArise

Foreign Relations:Foreign Relations: In certain matters the US must speak with In certain matters the US must speak with

a single voicea single voice Existence of Hostilities:Existence of Hostilities:

Finality of decision and certainty requiredFinality of decision and certainty required Constitutional Amendments:Constitutional Amendments:

Need for finality and certainty about statusNeed for finality and certainty about status Guaranty clause:Guaranty clause:

Clause commits to political branch any Clause commits to political branch any question of enforcementquestion of enforcement

Spring, 2006 Con Law I - Manheim47

Baker v. CarrBaker v. Carr (1962)(1962) Claim:Claim:

Unequal apportionment of Tennessee Unequal apportionment of Tennessee legisla-ture violated:legisla-ture violated: Guaranty Clause of Art. IV, § 4Guaranty Clause of Art. IV, § 4

Rejected in Rejected in Colegrove v. GreenColegrove v. Green (1946) (1946) See also See also Luther v. BordenLuther v. Borden (1849) (1849)

Equal Protection Clause of 14Equal Protection Clause of 14thth Amendment Amendment

Baker v. CarrBaker v. Carr (1962)(1962) Political Questions:Political Questions:

Textually demonstrable constitutional commit-Textually demonstrable constitutional commit-ment of issue to coordinate political departmentment of issue to coordinate political department

Baker v. CarrBaker v. Carr (1962)(1962) Political Questions:Political Questions:

Textually demonstrable constitutional commit-Textually demonstrable constitutional commit-ment of issue to coordinate political ment of issue to coordinate political departmentdepartment

Lack of judicially discoverable and manageable Lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving the issuestandards for resolving the issue

Impossibility of deciding without initial policy determination clearly for nonjudicial discretion

Lack of respect due coordinate branch of gov’t

Unusual need for unquestioned adherence to a political decision already made

Potential embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments

Powell v. McCormackPowell v. McCormack (1969)(1969) Removing a member of congressRemoving a member of congress

ExclusionExclusion (Art. I, § 2) (Art. I, § 2)““No Person shall be a Representative who shall not No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of 25 Years, and been 7 Years have attained to the Age of 25 Years, and been 7 Years a Citizen of the US, and … an Inhabitant of that State..a Citizen of the US, and … an Inhabitant of that State..””

ExpulsionExpulsion (Art. I, § 5, ¶ 2) (Art. I, § 5, ¶ 2)Each House may … punish its Members for disorderly Each House may … punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.expel a member.””

ImpeachmentImpeachment (Art. II, § 4) (Art. II, § 4)““all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment [and] Conviction...from Office on Impeachment [and] Conviction...””

Powell v. McCormackPowell v. McCormack (1969)(1969)

FACTSFACTS Powell was elected to serve in the House of Powell was elected to serve in the House of

Representatives for the 90th Congress. Representatives for the 90th Congress. However, a House resolution prevented him However, a House resolution prevented him from taking his seat. Powell challenged this from taking his seat. Powell challenged this resolution.resolution.

Claim:Claim: Exclusion from House exceeded grounds Exclusion from House exceeded grounds

specified in Art. I, § 2:specified in Art. I, § 2:““No Person shall be a Represen-tative who shall not No Person shall be a Represen-tative who shall not have attained to the Age of 25 Years, and been 7 have attained to the Age of 25 Years, and been 7 Years a Citizen of the US, and … an Inhabitant of Years a Citizen of the US, and … an Inhabitant of that State …that State …””

Powell v. McCormackPowell v. McCormack (1969)(1969)

Defense: Art. I, § 5 commits

exclusion to discretion of House“Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members”

Held: Non-justiciable political

questions will not be reviewed by the Court because the Constitution commits another branch of government to determine these issues.

Goldwater v. CarterGoldwater v. Carter (1979)(1979)

FACTS:FACTS: President Carter terminated a treaty with President Carter terminated a treaty with

Taiwan, and a few Congressional members Taiwan, and a few Congressional members felt that this deprived them of their felt that this deprived them of their Constitutional function. Constitutional function.

However, no Congressional action was ever However, no Congressional action was ever taken. The Senate considered a resolution taken. The Senate considered a resolution that would require the President to get that would require the President to get Senate approval before any mutual defense Senate approval before any mutual defense treaty could be terminated, but there was treaty could be terminated, but there was no final vote on the resolution.no final vote on the resolution.

Spring, 2006 Con Law I - Manheim54

Goldwater v. CarterGoldwater v. Carter (1979)(1979) Claim:Claim:

PresidentPresident’’s unilateral abrogation of treaty with Republic s unilateral abrogation of treaty with Republic of China violated Art. II, § 2, ¶ 2:of China violated Art. II, § 2, ¶ 2:““The President … shall have Power, by and with the Advice and The President … shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Consent of the Senate to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concurSenators present concur””

• What power has been dele-gated to the President? To the Senate?

• Are these judicial questions?

• Do they lack judicially manageable standards?

Goldwater v. CarterGoldwater v. Carter (1979)(1979) Foreign Affairs:Foreign Affairs:

Always non-justiciable Always non-justiciable political questions?political questions?

HELDYes. Whether or not a President can terminate a treaty closely involves his foreing relations authority and therefore is not reviewable by the Supreme Court.

THE END OF LECTURE #2THE END OF LECTURE #2

LECTURE #2: The Judicial Concepts Presented by Derrick J. Johnson, MPA, JD Honors Constitutional...

Documents

Transcript of LECTURE #2: The Judicial Concepts Presented by Derrick J. Johnson, MPA, JD Honors Constitutional...