Interpretive and Congressional Limits
List at least 3 of the 6 major interpretive theories
Originalism/interpretivism, Modified/abstract originalism, Original meaning, Tradition, Process-based theory, and Aspirationalism
How will the court handle a case with one Constitutional and one non-Constitutional issue?
What are the three Constitutional requirements of standing?
1. Plaintiff must allege that they have suffered or imminently will suffer an injury
2. Plaintiff must allege that the injury is traceable to the defendant's conduct
3. Plaintiff must allege that a favorable federal court decision is likley to redress the injury
What was the issue in the chokehold case with the injury, City of Los Angeles v Lyons?
The injury was something that had happened in the past but the individual was suing to "prevent it from happening again" and enjoin use of chokeholds which was not a real and immediate threat of an injury that he would be guaranteed to suffer again
The plaintiff still must have standing (a harm that has occurred or will imminently occur) but also
1. Fitness of the issue for judicial decision: A purely, distilled legal issue that can be resolved where no delay would be of benefit because it has a direct and immediate impact
2. Hardship to the parties if consideration/review is withheld: Would we be forcing someone to "suffer" an injury to get their case heard?
What is the major difference between originalists and nonoriginalists in interpreting the Constitution?
Originalists: Court should find a right to exist in the Constitution only if it is expressly stated in the test or was clearly intended by the framers.
Nonoriginalists: It is permissible for the Court to interpret the Constitution to protect the rights that are not expressly stated or clearly intended
What is an advisory opinion and why are they not justiciable?
An advisory opinion has no practical affect on any case because there isn't a case--its a declaratory judgment not pertaining to a real controversy. We want people to only come to the court with real issues that need to be resolved once and for all
What exactly is meant by the concept of standing?
Making sure the right person is before the court because we believe the person who suffered an injury and thus would be redressed has the best incentive to litigate strongly and has better development of facts. Further, we avoid intermeddlers who do not have a stake in the case.
Contrast the ruling in Massachusetts v EPA with that in Lujan v Defenders of Wildlife
In Lujan, the court found that the injury was not an injury to the individuals bringing the claim but to a general cognizable interest that was too far in the future and too speculative to be "imminent"
What is the goal of the Ripeness Doctrine?
Seeks to separate matters that are premature for review because the injury is too speculative and never may occur from those cases that are appropriate for federal court action. We want to prevent litigation that is premature or speculative.
Explain the significance of Marbury v Madison on federal court jurisdiction.
Article III of the Constitution is a ceiling on federal court jurisdiction. Congress may not expand that through any laws, however, it is less clear whether the court may restrict it.
The court will narrowly construe the Constitution to keep it as simple as possible.
What are the major prudential standing principles?
1. A party generally may assert only his or her own rights and cannot raise the claims of third parties before the court
2. A plaintiff may not sue as a taxpayer who shares a grievance in common with all other taxpayers
Speculative or "maybe" injuries are not certainly impending. You cannot argue that you have an injury because you took steps and suffered expenditures to prevent a harm that might not have happened.
United Public Workers challenged the Hatch Act preventing federal employees from taking part in political campaigns. Susan B. Anthony challenged a statute threatening arrest for participating political campaigns. Why was the former not successful and the latter was?
The plaintiff in the first was seeking an advisory opinion based on a hypothetical threat which is not ripe versus a threat of arrest, prosecution, or other enforcement action that is a credible threat of enforcement and is ripe.
How does Separation of Powers limit Congress's authority to regulate the judicial branch?
Article III bars Congress from telling the court how to apply preexisting laws. The counter to this is that Congress may then go and modify the law.
Why is there a prohibition on advisory opinions?
Separation of powers; ultimately this would be making law which is not the court's job and it would not bring about a resolution of a claim for anyone which is the actual job of the court.
How does the court view prudential principles as different from the requirements for standing?
Congress by statute could overrule the prudential requirements because they are not derived from the Constitution, but rather from the court's view of "prudent judicial administration" so they could be removed overtime without input from the Court.
Linda R. S. v Richard D. and Warth v Seldin both had issues at redressability. Explain how and why redressability must be shown.
Redressability is shown by demonstrating clearly how what the court is being asked for fixes the plaintiff's injury. The specific plaintiff must be able to be remedied showing that the relief directly benefits the plaintiff. This is to ensure that the court is handing down decisions that directly correct controversies. Win the battle of characterization by characterizing the injury as something that can be fixed by what you are asking for
Ripeness seeks pre-enforcement review of a statute or regulation. What are the parties seeking and why do we allow this?
Parties are seeking a Declaratory Judgment on the grounds that there is an unfairness in requiring a person to violate a law and be prosecuted before challenging that law.
Explain how the Exceptions and Regulations clause has been interpreted by Congress as affecting justiciability?
There are conflicting views. Some believe this clause gives Congress broad power to remove matters from Supreme Court purview. Others believe the clause only limited the Supreme Court's ability to overturn findings of fact by lower courts.
Why does the court attempt to avoid Constitutional Law?
The Court likes to decide as little Constitutional law as possible because it borders on making law.
Define standing.
The determination of whether a specific person is the proper party to bring a matter to the court for adjudication--is this litigant entitle to have the court decide the merits of the dispute
Explain how causation affects redressability?
If the claim is too speculative about who is responsible for the injury, it is unclear that a victory for the plaintiff would actually redress the injury. If you can't clearly point to the actor, there is no guarantee that anything offered by the court can correct the problem.
How do the following timing issues affect ripeness?
Regional Rail: Statute has not come into affect yet, but it will inevitably operate against an individual
Lake Carriers: Statute is in effect, but enforcement will not take place until years in the future
Both of these cases are ripe. If something is inevitable be it statutory enactment or statutory enforcement a case is considered to be ripe.