Mootness
What is a collateral injury and why does it keep a case from being moot?
The primary injury that gave rise to the controversy ended, but there is a new injury that sprang from the primary injury. The controversy between the parties still exists, so it is not moot because there are still injuries, even if they have changed.
Why was Roe v. Wade not considered moot even though the woman was no longer pregnant at the time the case was heard?
What is the defense behind the political question doctrine?
Separation of Powers to minimize judicial intrusion into the operations of other branches of government. We want to separate practical politics from the specialized role of the judiciary.
What are the main caselaw arguments against the political question doctrine?
Define federalism.
Having the same physical territory under two different governments so there is a federal government and a state government designed to work cooperatively yet separately.
Why does a court have to declare a case moot if the injury goes away?
The actual controversy dies meaning that the court would now be issuing an advisory opinion.
In Moore v Ogilvie, why was a law requiring petitions for new political party candidates not considered moot even though the election was over?
Cases are not moot if laws are still in effect and could create a future case or controversy based on the law.
How do we determine if an issue is a political question? What are the 6 characteristics?
1. Textually demonstrable constitutional commitments of the issue to a coordinate political department
2. Lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving the issue
3. Impossibility of deciding the issue without an initial non-judicial policy determination
4. Court can't independently consider without disrespecting another branch
5. An unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a prior political question
6. The potential of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question
Why was Baker v. Carr considered to be justiciable even as a gerrymandering?
It was brought as a violation of Equal Protection and did not depend on or implicate the Guaranty Clause.
What are the main functions of the United States Constitution?
2. Determine the relationship between the federal government and the states
3. Limit government power and protect individual rights and liberties
What are the four exceptions to the mootness doctrine?
Wrongs capable of repetition but evading review, voluntary cessation, collateral injuries, and class action suits as long as there are plaintiffs other than those named that still have active injuries
In the class action Geraghty case involving misconduct by the parole board, why was the case not moot even though Geraghty's claim no longer existed due to his release from parole?
What types of cases have been deemed nonjusticiable for political question?
Gerrymandering cases, challenges on the president's conduct in foreign policy, challenges on the impeachment process
What are the main arguments that gerrymandering should be justiciable?
The court is refusing a remedy for an injury; this is complacency in a critical area to the functioning of government--free and fair elections; its a Constitutional violation of equal representation and the court must remedy these.
Describe Article I of the Constitution. What does it do and identify Article I, Section 8(3) and Article I, Section 8(18)
Article I creates Congress with legislative power and vests it with all powers "herein granted". Any powers not granted are reserved to the states. (3) Is the power to regulate interstate commerce and (18) is the necessary and proper clause
Why does voluntary cessation not render a case moot? When might it?
Does not when the party is free to return to the improper behavior at any time.
The claim will be moot when there is no reasonable chance that the defendant can return to the offending behavior and no reasonable chance to resume the activity.
DeFunis v. Odegaard involved denial of a white male student to a law school based on affirmative action. Why was his case deemed moot.
There was no actual controversy based on the passage of time and lack of potential future harm to the acting plaintiff
What is the Guaranty Clause and why does it render cases nonjusticiable?
The clause guaranteeing to every state a republic form of government. This is nonjusticiable because it is for Congress to decide whether states have established a proper "republican government" so individuals can't challenge Congressional authority to determine the validity of their state's republic government.
1. Text committing the power to another branch of government
2. Lack of judicially discoverable/manageable standards for resolving the issue so it is given to law-makers
3. The impossibility of deciding without making a non-judicial policy determination
4. Whether the court can consider the case independently without disrespecting another branch
5. The potential for embarrassment from producing conflicting law with the political branches.
What does Article II of the Constitution do? What does Article II, Section 3 cover?
Creates the presidency with executive power by defining the office, establishing qualifications, providing for elections, and defining powers. Section 3 requires the Executive to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.
What types of things should you look for when examining if a case qualifies as not moot because it is a wrong capable of repetition but evading review?
1. An injury that would be of a short duration every time it occurred in that it would be over before federal court proceedings could be completed
2. Cases that have a clock that is running faster than the system
3. A chance for the person to suffer the same injury again (injuries capable of repetition to the same person in the same way)
Why was Friends of the Earth considered not moot even though Laidlaw Environmental Services ceased operation of their facility during the litigation and substantially complied with their permits?
The company could voluntarily reopen the facility so there was a fact issue about whether or not the permit violations would reoccur.
How is it possible to argue a gerrymandering case in a way that makes it justiciable?
Argue that it is a violation under the Equal Protection Clause, which then means it is a charge that the law is being breached by gerrymandering rather than arguing that politicians shouldn't be allowed to gerrymander.
Why did the court ultimately decide that gerrymandering was not justiciable in Rucho v. Common Cause?
What does Article III of the Constitution do? What is covered in Section 2(1) and Section 2(2) and how Marbury v Madison interpreted 2(2)?
Creates a Supreme Court with the judicial power and authorizes Congress to create lower federal courts. Provides information about the positions of federal judges. 2(1) lists all cases with general federal jurisdiction, 2(2) defines which cases have original SC jurisdiction and which have only appellate--remember, under Marbury v Madison this cannot be altered.