Busy. Please wait.
or

show password
Forgot Password?

Don't have an account?  Sign up 
or

Username is available taken
show password

why


Make sure to remember your password. If you forget it there is no way for StudyStack to send you a reset link. You would need to create a new account.
We do not share your email address with others. It is only used to allow you to reset your password. For details read our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.


Already a StudyStack user? Log In

Reset Password
Enter the associated with your account, and we'll email you a link to reset your password.

Remove ads
Don't know
Know
remaining cards
Save
0:01
To flip the current card, click it or press the Spacebar key.  To move the current card to one of the three colored boxes, click on the box.  You may also press the UP ARROW key to move the card to the "Know" box, the DOWN ARROW key to move the card to the "Don't know" box, or the RIGHT ARROW key to move the card to the Remaining box.  You may also click on the card displayed in any of the three boxes to bring that card back to the center.

Pass complete!

"Know" box contains:
Time elapsed:
Retries:
restart all cards




share
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.

  Normal Size     Small Size show me how

CON - Judicial Power

Constitutional Law

QuestionAnswer
Cases and controversies (8 items) 1. Constitution, laws or treaty 2. Admirality and maritime 3. US a party 4. Btwn 2 or more states 5. Btwn a state and citzn of another state 6. Btwn citizens of diff states 7. Claim of land under grant of diff state 8. State/citzn v. foreign state
Marbury v. Madison - Judicial review of other branches of the federal gov't established - The Constitution is "law" and it is the province and duty of the judiciary to declare what the law is
CAUTION States have limited power to regulate INTERSTATE COMMERCE while the federal gov't has plenary power to do so. Thus, a decision that a state lacked the power to enact a regulation of commerce does NOT prevent Congress from adopting a similar regulation.
Federal review of state acts Exists in the Supremacy Clause of Art VI which states that the Constitution, laws and treaties of the US take precedence over state laws and judges of state courts must follow federal law
Two types of Federal Courts 1. Article III courts 2. Article I courts
Article III Courts - established by Congress - Congress has power to delineate the jurisdictional limits - cannot require advisory opinions or perform administrative tasks or nonjudicial functions
Article I Courts - judges do not have life tenure or protections from salary decrease - sometimes vested with administrative as well as judicial functions
Jurisdiction of Supreme Court 1. Original (Trial) jurisdiction 2. Appellate jurisdiction
Supreme Court: Original Jurisdiction (Part One) - in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party
Supreme Court: Original Jurisdiction (Part Two) - SELF EXECUTING: Congress may neither restrict nor enlarge the Sup Ct's original jurisdiction, but Congress may give concurrent jurisdiction to lower federal courts (except cases btwn states)
Two methods for invoking Supreme Court Appellate jurisdiction 1. Appeal (jurisdiction is mandatory) 2. Certiorari (jurisdiction w/i Court's discretion)
Cases that may be heard by certiorari 1. Cases from highest state courts where: a. constitutionality of a fed statute, fed treaty or state statute is called into question b. state statute allegedly violates fed law 2. all cases from Federal Court of Appeals
Cases that may be heard by Supreme Court by appeal available only as to decisions made by three judge federal district court panels that grant or deny injunctive relief
Limitations on Congress' regulation of Supreme Court Appellate Jurisdiction (possible Due Process Violation) 1. Congress may eliminate specific avenues for Sup Ct review as long as it does not eliminate all venues 2. Congress may eliminate Sup Ct review of certain cases w/i fed judicial power, BUT it must permit jurisdiction to remain in SOME lower fed courts
Federal Courts: Advisory Opinions - no advisory opinions - will not render decisions in moot cases, collusive suits, or cases involving challenges to gov't legislation or policy whose enforcement is neither actual or threatened
Federal Courts: Declaratory Judgments - will hear actions for declaratory relief - case or controversy will exist if there is an actual dispute between parties having adverse legal interests
Declaratory Judgment requirements - must show they engaged in specific conduct & the challenged action poses real & immediate danger to interests - fed ct WILL NOT determine constitutionality of a statute if it has never been enforced and there is no real fear that it ever will be
Ripeness federal court will NOT hear a case unless the plaintiff has been harmed or there is an immediate threat of harm
Mootness real, live controversy must exist at ALL STAGES OF REVIEW, not merely when the complaint is filed
Mootness - Exception - Reasonable expectation that same complaining party will be subjected to same action again & be unable to resolve b/c of short duration of the action Ex: 1. events of short duration (pregnancy) 2. Def stops offending practice but free to resume
Mootness - Class Actions - A class representative may continue a class action even though the representative's controversy has become moot, as long as the claims of others in the class are still viable
Ripeness v. Mootness - Ripeness bars consideration of claims BEFORE they have been developed - Mootness bars consideration of claims AFTER they have been resolved
Standing 1. injury in fact 2. causation 3. redressability
Congressional Conferral of Standing Congress has no power to completely eliminate the case or controversy requirement, because the requirement is based in the Constitution. However, a federal statute may create new interests, injury to which may be sufficient for standing.
Standing to enforce government statutes "Zone of Interests" - If Congress intended the statute to protect such persons, and intended to allow private persons to bring federal court actions to enforce the statute, the courts are likely to be lenient in granting standing to those persons.
Standing to assert rights of others - Plaintiff must himself have suffered an injury and: 1. 3rd parties find it difficult to assert their own rights -or- 2. The injury suffered by the plntf adversely affects his relationship w/ 3rd parties
Standing of an organization challenging actions that cause an injury to its MEMBERS 1. Injury in fact to the members 2. Injury related to the organization's purpose 3. Neither the nature of the claim nor the relief requested requires participation of the individual members Example: ADA representing dentists
Standing as citizens People have no standing merely "as citizens" to claim that gov't action violates federal law or the Constitution. Congress cannot change this rule by adopting a statute to the contrary.
Standing -10th Amendment Violation Claims- A person can have standing to allege that federal action violates the 10th Amendment by interfering with the powers reserved to the states, assuming the person can show injury in fact and redressability.
Taxpayer Standing People generally do not have standing as taxpayers to challenge the way tax dollars are spent by gov't because their interest is too remote.
Taxpayer Standing -Exception- A federal taxpayer has standing to challenge federal appropriation and spending measures if she can establish measure: 1. Was enacted under Congress' taxing and spending power; and 2. Exceeds some specific limitation on the power (Establishment Clause)
Legislator's Standing Legislators may have standing to challenge the constitutionality of government action if the have sufficient "personal stake" in the dispute and suffer sufficient "concrete injury."
Assignee Standing An assignee of a legal claim has standing even if the assignee has agreed to remit any proceeds recovered from the litigation back to the assignor, if this is done pursuant to an ordinary business agreement made in good faith.
Adequate and Independent State Grounds The Sup Ct will hear a case from a state court only if the state court judgment turned on federal grounds. The Court will refuse jurisdiction if it finds ADEQUATE AND INDEPENDENT nonfederal grounds to support the state decision.
Adequate State Grounds Fully dispositive of the case, so that even if the federal grounds are wrongly decided, it would not affect the outcome of the case.
Independent State Grounds If the state court's interpretation of its state provision was based on federal case law interpreting an identical federal provision, the state law grounds for the decision are not independent.
Adequate and Independent State Grounds -Where Basis is Unclear- Court will usually assume that there is no adequate state ground unless the state court expressly stated that its decision rests on state law.
Abstention -Unsettled State Law- When a federal constitutional claim is premised on an UNSETTLED QUESTION OF STATE LAW, the federal court should abstain temporarily so as to give state courts a chance to settle the underlying state law.
Abstention -Pending State Proceedings- Generally, federal courts will not enjoin pending state criminal proceedings
Political Questions (examples pg 11) 1. Those issues committed by the Constitution to another branch of government; or 2. Those inherently incapable of resolution and enforcement by the judicial process.
Nonpolitical Controversies 1. Legislative Apportionment - "one person one vote" 2. Presidential papers and communications - question of production is justiciable and not political
Presidential papers and communications Generally considered to be privileged and protected against disclosure in the exercise of the executive power. But where these documents are NECESSARY to the continuation of CRIMINAL proceedings, the question of production is justiciable and not political
11th Amendment Limits on Federal Courts Prohibits a federal court from hearing a private party's or foreign government's claims against a state government.
11th Amendment jurisdictional bar against state government 1. For damages 2. Injunctive or declaratory relief where state is a named party 3. State officers where there will be retroactive damages or quiet title to state land 4. Against state officials for violating STATE law
State Sovereign Immunity 1. Suits against a state government in state court, even on federal claims, without the defendant state's consent 2. Adjudicative actions against states and state agencies before federal administrative agencies
What is not barred by 11th Amendment 1. Actions against local governments 2. Actions by the US Gov't or other state Gov'ts 3. Bankruptcy proceedings
Exceptions to 11th Amendment (see page 13) 1. Certain actions against state officers 2. Congressional removal of immunity under the 14th amendment
11th Amendment Key The 11th Amend prohibits federal court hearing a claim for damages against a state gov't unless: 1. State has consented; 2. Plntf is US or another state; or 3. Congress granted federal courts authority to hear specific type of action under 14th Amend
Created by: tmays000