8/2/2019 ConLaw Rules

1/3

I. FEDERAL POWERSA. Judicial Powers

Marbury v. Madison: Congress does not have authority to expand the Supreme Court's jurisdiction so court

does not have jurisdiction over the case. Article 3 only grants original jurisdiction

"i[n] all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state is a

party."

1a. The Constitution is supreme law of the land - Supremacy Clause Art IV 12a. It is the role of the judiciary to interpret the Constitution. Court can review acts of Congress at issue before them

and see if they violate the Constitution.

3a.Marbury establishes the power of the judiciary to review the constitutionality of executive actions. (Reaffirmed

in United States v. Nixon)

4a. However, court does not have jurisdiction to review a political rightsomething within the presidents

discretion.

5a. Congress cannot increase the Supreme Court's Original Jurisdiction.

Cooper v. Aaron: Supreme Court is supreme interpreter of the Constitution. The Supreme Courts interpretation

of the Constitution is binding on state legislatures and executive and judicial officers.

Dickerson v. United States: Expands Marbury by saying that not only can court rule on whether or not law is

unconstitutional but that Congress cannot overturn a Court ruling on a constitutional decision by a mere act; but canonly overturn a Court ruling on constitutional decision by amending the Constitution through Art. 5 procedures.

So together Cooper and Dickerson stand for the view that neither Congress nor the states can act tooverturn a decision of the Supreme Court on an issue of Constitutional Law.

Rule of Judicial Review fromMarbury, Cooper, and Dickerson:1. Constitution is supreme law of the land.

2. Court is supreme and ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.

3. Neither Congress nor the states can overturn Court ruling on constitutional decision without Constitutional

Amendment.

Ex Parte McCardle:Congress does have some power to limit the Courts jurisdiction. Supreme Court is conferred

with such exceptions and under such regulations as Congress shall make. However, they do not have unlimited

power to tamper with Supreme Courts appellate jurisdiction. (Congress has some power to control the boundariesof the Supreme Courts appellate jurisdiction.)

i. Standing***Standing: To have standing, a plaintiff must have (1) an injury-in-fact or suffer imminent injury, (2) the injury

must be fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant (causation), and (3) Redressable by a favorable

decision of the court.***

Constitutional Limits: The court has interpreted the Cases and Controversies Clause of Art 3 2 and the structure

of the Constitution to limit the federal courts powers to hear certain disputes. minimum required by Constitution

A. Injury (in fact or imminent, personal)

B. Causation (fairly traceable)

C. Redressability (likely)

Prudential Limits: Where the court is not expressly limited by the Constitution but will not hear a case because it

would be unwise.

A.Third party standing (must assert own legal right)B. Generalized Grievances (shared in substantially equal measure by many)C. Zone of Interest (must fall within it)

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife(1992): "Case or Controversy" Requirements; To establish standing, a plaintiff

must show injury-in-fact, causation, and redressability, and Congress may not create a right of standing based on a

generalized grievance against government.

8/2/2019 ConLaw Rules

2/3

Maj: Scalia w/ Thomas, Rehnquist, White | Con: Kennedy w/ Souter, Stevens | Dis: Blackmun, OConnor

Massachusetts v. EPA (2007): "Case or Controversy Requirements; A plaintiff has standing if it demonstrates a

concrete injury that is both fairly traceable to the defendant and redressable by judicial relief.

Majority: Stevens w/ Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer, Kennedy | Dissent: Roberts w/ Scalia, Thomas, Alito

Raines v. Byrd (1997): Court held that legislators have no standing to bring suit over deprivations of legislative

prerogatives (rights) injury is wholly abstract and widely dispersed (appellees claimed that their votes on future

appropriations bills will be less effective than before)

ii. Political Question DoctrineEqual Protection Clause: Claims of violation of the equal protection clause have been found justiciable:

Baker v. Carr: The Equal Protection Clause makes cases of legislative districting justiciable. This is the lead case

in the Political Question Doctrine area. The Court has rarely found cases nonjusticiable because of the political

question doctrine sinceBaker. (Equal Protection)

The factors to be considered by the court in determining whether a case presents a political question are:

1. (CC= Constitutional Commitment) Is there a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issueto a coordinate political department (i.e. foreign affairs or executive war powers)?

2. (LJD) Is there a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving the issue?3. (ND)The impossibility of deciding the issue without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for

nonjudicial discretion.

4. (R)The impossibility of a courts undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respectdue coordinate branches of government.

5. (A) Is there an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made?6. (E) Would attempting to resolve the matter create the possibility of embarrassment from multifarious

pronouncements by various departments on one question?

iii. Advisory Opinions1. Federal Courts are not allowed to give advisory opinions.

2. Advisory opinionsopinions on the legality of executive of legislative action that do not involve an actual case

iv. MootnessMootness Doctrine: requires that an actual controversy must be extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time

the complaint is filed. Exceptions:

1) There is a continuing harm to the plaintiff.

2) There is a likelihood of recurrence of past harm, either to the plaintiff personally or to the group he

represents.

3) The probability that some of the cases in the future will evade judicial review.

v. RipenessRipeness Doctrine: seeks to prevent premature adjudication. It involves situations where the dispute is

insufficiently developed so that it is too remote or speculative to warrant judicial action.

II. LEGISLATIVE POWERA. Federalism

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819): 1. Certain federal powers, which give Congress the discretion and power to

choose and enact the means to perform the duties imposed upon it, are to be implied from the Necessary and Proper

Clause.

2. The federal Constitution and the laws made pursuant to it are supreme and control the constitutions and the laws

of the states.

8/2/2019 ConLaw Rules

3/3

U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton (1995):

Maj: Stevens v/ Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer | Con: Kennedy | Dis: Thomas w/ Rehnquist, OConnor, Scalia