Standing
Phrased as a one-word question, what does standing ask?
Who?
Phrased as a one-word question, what does ripeness ask?
When?
Phrased as a one-word question, what does mootness ask?
Live?
Phrased as a one-word question, what does political question ask?
Subject?
What case set forth the factors that determine whether a political question exists?
Baker v. Carr
What three requirements must be met for a plaintiff to have standing?
1. Injury
2. Causation
3. Redressability
What is the purpose of ripeness?
To bar premature claims due to the alleged injury potentially not even occurring
How can you know a case is moot?
Further legal proceedings would not help the parties
Does a claim being exempted by the political question doctrine mean there is no constitutional issue?
NO, just that the political process is more appropriate to resolve the issue (even if it is constitutional in nature).
Name the Baker factors. (There are six.)
1. Textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department
2. A lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving the dispute
3. Need for an initial policy determination calling for a political decision
4. The Court’s independent resolution will show a lack of respect owed to the other branches of government
5. The need to adhere to a political decision already made
6. There is potential of embarrassment resulting from conflicting decisions by various branches of government
Why is it ideal for a plaintiff to have a personal stake in the litigation?
They're more likely to vigorously represent their interests.
What is required to overcome a ripeness challenge?
Either that the injury has already happened or is imminent
What is the simplest and most common reason a case becomes moot?
A party dies
Under Rucho v. Common Cause, is gerrymandering considered a political question?
Uh doyeee
In Powell v. McCormack, the case where Congress attempted to halt the confirmation of a slimy rep by adding new membership restrictions, the Court found there was no political question. Which Baker factor did they use to come to this conclusion?
The first: "textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department." The Constitution limits what restrictions Congress can place on membership and the new restrictions went beyond what was enumerated. Therefore, no PQ protection.
In Allen v. Wright, the racist school tax exemption case, the Court found there was no standing because which two of the three requirements were not met?
Injury and causation. The injury (discriminatory private schools getting tax breaks) was “highly indirect and result[ed] from the independent action of some third party not before the court.”
What other justiciability doctrine does mootness greatly overlap with?
What are the exceptions to mootness? (There are three, think about repetition and Mark Lanier.)
1. The wrong is capable of repetition even if it has been resolved
2. The actor causing the harm has voluntarily ceased but has the capacity to start again
3. Class actions. The named plaintiff's claim could be moot while other members have claims that are still live.
In Goldwater v. Carter, the China treaty case, how did the Court come to the conclusion there was a nonjusticiable political question?
Baker factor 1: Textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of foreign affairs to the President, no mention of the Court playing a role in treaties.
Baker factor 6: There is potential of embarrassment resulting from conflicting decisions by various branches of government. It is important for the U.S. to present a unified front when it comes to foreign relations.
In Goldwater v. Carter, the Court found a non-justiciable political question. However, what other justiciability doctrine could have been applicable?
Ripeness. The Court did not want to interfere before an impasse had been reached by the political branch. The injury was also arguably speculative at the time the suit was filed.
In Massachusetts v. EPA, the climate change case, the court found standing, but Watts found the dissents very persuasive regarding which of the three requirements?
Injury. Loss of coastal lands due to global warming could possibly be a speculative injury, not "imminent" enough to meet the injury requirement.
What are the most common situations for ripeness challenges to occur? (Think about the other branches of government, specifically the legislature and administrative state, and what they do.)
Pre-enforcement of a statutes or regulations
Why was Roe v. Wade not found to be moot even though Roe carried her baby to term and gave birth?
The injury (pregnancy) was capable of repetition. Roe could get pregnant again.
In Zivotofsky v. Clinton (the Jerusalem on the passport case), there was a foreign affairs element, but a majority of the Court found there was not a political question. Why?
Even though the controversy implicated foreign relations, at its core it was about the constitutionality of a statute which is "what courts do." Marbury.
In Nixon v. United States, why did the Court find the question of whether the Senate could create a special subcommittee for an impeachment hearing to be a nonjusticiable political question?
Baker factor 1: “textually demonstratable…” applied. Senate has "sole" power to try all impeachments.