CHAPTER 1: THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL POWER

A. THE AUTHORITY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW· Marbury establishes the authority for judicial review1 of both federal executive

and legislative acts. (In other words: it creates the authority for judicial review of executive actions.) Also, establishes that Article III is the ceiling of federal court jurisdiction.

· A writ of mandamus is a petition to a court asking it to order a government officer to perform a duty. (In other words: A writ requiring a lower court or government official to perform some duty or act.)

Marbury v. Madison (1803)Facts: Marbury (P) was a last-minute judicial appointee of outgoing President Adams,

whose commission was not delivered to him before Adams left office; Jefferson, the incoming President, declined to deliver the commission.

Issue: (1) Does Marbury (P) have a right to the commission? YES(2) If so, and if that right has been violated, does Marbury (P) have a legal remedy? YES(3) Is the legal remedy a writ of mandamus issuing from the Supreme Court? NO

Rule: Where the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, conflicts with the laws or actions of the other branches of government, the Supreme Court may declare such laws or actions unconstitutional and invalid.

Case Vocabulary:vested right: a right that is unconstitutional, that cannot be taken away from a party.

AUTHORITY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF STATE JUDGMENTS· Marbury establishes only the authority for judicial review of federal executive

and legislative actions.· The authority for judicial review of state court decisions was established in two

decisions: Martin v. Hunter’s Lesee and Cohens v. Virginia.

Martin v. Hunter’s Lesee (1816)The U.S. Supreme Court may review decisions of the state courts for the purposes of establishing uniform interpretations of federal law and the U.S. Constitution and to achieve substantial justice.

Cohens v. Virginia (1821)State criminal defendants may seek review by the U.S. Supreme Court of the constitutionality of judgments of the highest court in a State.

B. LIMITS OF THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL POWER· Three limits exist of judicial power:

1A court’s power to review the actions of other branches or levels of government; esp., the court’s power to invalidate legislative and executive actions as being unconstitutional. The constitutional doctrine providing for this power. A court’s review of a lower court’s or an administrative body’s factual or legal findings.

1) interpretive limits: raise the question of how the Constitution should be interpreted

2) congressional limits: ability of Congress to restrict federal court jurisdiction3) justiciability limits: a series of judicially created doctrines that limit the types of matters that federal courts can decide

1. Interpretive Limits· Originalism : the view that judges deciding constitutional issues should

confine themselves to enforcing norms that are stated or clearly implicit in the written Constitution.

· Non-originalism : the view that courts should go beyond that set of references and enforce norms that cannot be discovered within the four corners of the document.

· Often, the Supreme Court has looked to tradition in deciding whether a right is protected by the Constitution.

HOW SHOULD THE CONSTITUTION BE INTERPRETED?: THE SECOND AMENDMENT AS AN EXAMPLE· 2nd Amendment: well-regulated militia and right of the people to keep and bear

arms

United States v. Emerson (1999)Facts: The U.S. indicted a man for possessing a firearm while under a state restraining

orderIssue: Does the 2nd Amendment create a right for individuals to possess firearms? YESRule: A federal statute that made it illegal for a person to possess a firearm while under a state restraining order not based on particular finding violated the 2nd Amendment right of individuals to bear arms.Analysis: Although the court in Emerson decided that the 2nd Amendment created a right for individuals, other experts argued that the right to bear arms was given only to the States since the Framers would have understood militias to be quasi-official bodies and would have considered “bear arms” as a specifically military term.Case Vocabulary:Original intent: the attempt by the courts and scholars to determine what the Framers of the Constitution intended as the meaning and scope of various Constitutional provisions.

2. Congressional Limits· Article III provides that the Supreme Court shall have appellate

jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

– What does the language in Article III mean when it says that Supreme Court jurisdiction exists subject to such “exceptions and regulations” as Congress shall make?

On one side of the debate are those who believe that this provides Congress with broad powers to remove matters from the Supreme Court’s purview. The argument is that the framers of the Constitution intended such congressional control as a check on the judiciary’s power.

On the other side are those who believe that Congress is limited in its ability to control Supreme Court jurisdiction.Alternatively, it is argued that even though Congress is given authority to limit Supreme Court jurisdiction under the text of Article III, this power – like all congressional powers – cannot be used in a manner that violates the Constitution.

Ex Parte McCardle (1868)Facts: While appeal of habeas corpus petition was pending on the Supreme Court’s docket, Congress passed legislation eliminating the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction in habeas corpus cases.Issue: May Congress repeal the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction? YESRule: Although the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction is derived from the Constitution, Congress has the power to make exceptions and regulations to this jurisdiction.Case Vocabulary:habeas corpus: A judicial mandate to a prison official ordering that an inmate be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody. A habeas corpus petition is a petition filed with a court by a person who objects to his own or another’s detention or imprisonment. Latin for “you have the body.”NOTES: Congress may create exceptions and regulations to Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction.

Felker v. Turpin (1996)Facts: A death row inmate challenged a federal statute limiting prisoner’s rights to file a second habeas corpus petitions on the grounds that it unconstitutionally limited the appellate jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court.Issue: Did a federal statute making unreviewable courts of appeals’ decisions on prisoners’ second habeas corpus petitions violate the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction? NORule: A federal statute that made final and not appealable courts of appeals’ decisions to grant or deny a prisoners’ motion for leave to file a second habeas corpus motion did not unconstitutionally restrict the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction.NOTES: Federal statute limiting Supreme Court’s review of second habeas corpus petitions does not violate the court’s appellate jurisdiction.

SEPARATION OF POWERS AS A LIMIT ON CONGRESS’S AUTHORITY· The constitutional separation of powers creates a limit on Congress’s

authority to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

United States v. Klein (1871)Facts: Congress passed a law terminating federal court jurisdiction in cases in which a claim was made for recovery of property seized by the U.S. during the Civil War and where the claimant used a presidential pardon to show he had not aided the enemy.

Issue: Did Congress surpass its Constitutional authority when it enacted a law dismissing federal court jurisdiction on claims against the government supported by presidential pardons? YESRule: Congress violated the separation of powers by passing a law rescinding the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction in claims cases supported by a presidential pardon and by infringing the president’s exclusive power to pardon.NOTES: Congressional limitations on jurisdiction are unconstitutional if they violate the separation of powers by, for example, dictating how the courts must decide cases.

3. Justiciability Limits· Article III, Section 2 : Defines the power of federal judiciary as the power

to decide certain “cases and controversies.”· There are 5 justiciability limitations :

. Advisory opinions

. Standing

. Ripeness

. Mootness

. Political Questions· It has developed the principle that the courts will not decide cases

on constitutional grounds if other grounds for decision exist.

a. Prohibition of Advisory Opinions· Federal courts are not empowered by the Constitution to give

advisory opinions, but only to decide “cases and controversies.”

Opinion of the Justices (1996)NOTES: The court articulated the prohibition against advisory opinions quite early in the nation’s history when it declined to offer an opinion on legal questions in a letter from President Jefferson.

Hayburn Case (1792)NOTES: A federal law that provided for the Secretary of War to disregard the recommendations of federal courts regarding veterans’ claims cases was unconstitutional because it effectively made the courts’ decisions “advisory.”

Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc. (1995)Facts: Congress passed legislation allowing cases on which the federal courts had rendered final decisions to be reopened in some situations.Issue: Does legislation that requires the federal courts to reopen cases upon which the courts have rendered a final decision violate the separation of powers doctrine? YESRule: Legislation that directs the federal courts to reopen cases on which the

courts have passed final judgments unconstitutionally violates the separation of powers.

Case Vocabulary:

advisory opinions: A decision by a court that is not binding on the parties to the case or that may be ignored by those charged with enforcing the decisions.NOTES: The basic problem is that the courts’ final decisions were subject to revision. Thus, the courts’ decisions effectively become advisory opinions. The federal courts are forbidden from issuing advisory opinions because the federal courts are empowered only to decide “cases and controversies.” Legislation requiring federal courts to reopen final judgments violates the separation of powers doctrine.

NOTES ON ADVISORY OPINIONS· The Supreme Court said that suits for declaratory judgments are

justiciable so long as they meet the requirements for judicial review.· Case is justiciable so long as the case retains the essentials of an adversary

proceeding, involving a real, not a hypothetical controversy.

b. Standing· The Court has called the “standing requirement” the doctrine that

the person before the court must be the proper party to bring a case, the most important of the justiciability limitations.

· Standing is whether the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues.

· There are several requirements that must be met in order for a plaintiff to have standing. All are judicially created. Some are based on interpretation of Article III and thus are constitutionally required, while others are prudential.

·· Three Constitutional standing requirements :

15144. Plaintiff must allege that he or she has suffered or imminently will suffer an injury; (injury)15145. Plaintiff must allege that the injury is fairly traceable to the defendant’s conduct; and (causation)15146. Plaintiff must allege that a favorable federal court decision is likely to redress the injury. (redressability)

· There are two major prudential standing principles: (Congress may override prudential limits by statute)1. Third party standing is not allowed.

a. Def: Plaintiff must assert own injuries. b. Ex: A party generally may assert only his or her own

rights and cannot raise the claims of third parties not before the court;

2. Prohibition of generalized grievances.a. Def: A general grievance is presented when a plaintiff

does not claim an injury to a personal right, but instead objects as a taxpayer or as a citizen to a government policy.

b. Ex: A plaintiff may not sue as a taxpayer who shares a grievance in common with all other taxpayers.

i. Constitutional Standing Requirements

Allen v. Wright (1984)Facts: Black parents sued the IRS for granting tax-exempt status to discriminatory private schools and thereby interfering with the desegregation of their public schools.Issue: Did parents of minority children who attended public schools have standing to challenge IRS regulations for denying tax-exempt status to private schools that discriminated against racial minorities? NORule: Standing requires a plaintiff to allege a personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.Case Vocabulary:Mootness Doctrine: Prohibits courts from deciding issues that are only abstract and do not involve a real dispute, or which have already been resolved.Political Question Doctrine: Requires courts to refrain from deciding issues which are more properly resolved by the other branches of government.Ripeness Doctrine: Requires courts to decide only issues which involve a real dispute and an actual injury, and not merely potential speculative harm.Standing: The status of being qualified to assert legal rights in court because one has a sufficient stake in the outcome of the controversy.NOTES: A party who does not allege direct injury or who alleges a cause of injury too attenuated from the actions of defendants does not have standing to bring his case in federal court.

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992)Facts: When Congress passed a statute protecting endangered animals, it authorized any person to sue the administrative agency for violating it. When wildlife activists sued, the agency claimed they lacked standing.Issue: Does the Constitution authorize Congress to pass legislation that creates “citizen suits” that confer standing on citizens who would not otherwise be able to allege “injury in fact?” NORule: Congressional statutes cannot confer standing to plaintiffs who suffered no “actual” “injury in fact.”Case Vocabulary:Citizen Suit (Provision): Statutory provision allowing citizens injured by violations of a statute to sue.Generalized Grievances (Doctrine): Judicial “standing” doctrine, which hold that, when government action affects (too) many people, no one person has standing to sue the government, because the proper remedy is to petition Congress to change the law.

Injunction: Court order requiring/prohibiting an action.Procedural injury: Apparently, the disregard of a statutory procedure, which affects the plaintiff.

NOTES: Congress cannot confer standing to bring a case in federal court to a person not actually injured in fact.

NOTES ON CONSTITUTIONAL STANDING REQUIREMENTS: INJURY, CAUSATION, AND REDRESSABILITY

Injury· To have standing in federal court, plaintiff must allege a direct,

personal injury. (Injury is a core requirement of Article III in order for there to be a case or controversy.)

City of Los Angeles v. Lyons (1983)NOTES: Supreme Court rejected on the basis of standing. Plaintiff failed to show personal injury suffered. Plaintiff who brought suit against police for illegal “chokeholds” did not have standing because he made no showing that he was likely to be put in a “chokehold’ in the future.

United States v. Hayes (1995)NOTES: Supreme Court rejected on the basis of standing. Plaintiff failed to show personal injury suffered. Plaintiffs who challenged the constitutionality of a state voting apportionment scheme did not have standing because they did not live in the district where the violation allegedly occurred.

Federal Election Commission v. Akins (1998)NOTES: Court found standing. Plaintiffs who challenged a Federal Elections Commission ruling that American Israel Political Action Committee was not an election committee had standing based on claim that they were denied information that election committees were statutorily required to reveal.

Causation and Redressability:· Two other constitutional requirement for standing:

· 1) the plaintiff must allege and prove that the defendant caused the harm, and

· 2) so that it is likely that a favorable court decision will remedy the injury.

· If a federal court decision will have little effect, if it will not redress the injuries, then it is an advisory opinion.

Lecture notes: Causation is a probability calculation; shows that conduct connects to the

injury.

You can have injury to:-a common law right (anything that’s based on precedence)-a constitutional right

Linda R.S. v. Richard D. (1973)NOTES: Court found no standing. Plaintiff mother who alleged injury from not receiving child support did not have standing to sue for enforcement of a state “dead-beat dad” statute because it was not likely that jail time for the father would remedy plaintiff’s injury. (redressability issue)

Warth v. Seldin (1975)NOTES: Court found no standing. Plaintiffs who alleged injury from lack of low-income housing did not have standing to challenge restrictive zoning regulations because it was not likely that absence of regulations would cause contractors to build low-income housing. (no redressability; so, no standing)

Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Organization (1976)NOTES: Court found no standing. Plaintiffs, indigent individuals who alleged injury from unavailability of health care procedures from hospital, did not have standing to challenge the IRS’s revenue ruling on the hospital.

Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc. (1978)NOTES: Court found standing. Plaintiffs who opposed construction of a nuclear facility had standing to bring challenge to a statute limiting liability for nuclear accidents although no accident had occurred because but for the statute, utility would not have built the nuclear plant.

Lecture notes: Same rules/concepts could have been used to come up with a different decision. Talk about everything to support answer.

ii. Prudential Standing Requirement· Two major prudential standing requirements: · 1) prohibition of third party standing; and · 2) prohibition of generalized grievances. · Third prudential standing requirement that arises

almost exclusively in the administrative law context: the rule that the plaintiff seeking standing must be within the zone of interests protected by the statute in question.

· Prudential standing requirements are judicially

created.· Difference is that Congress can overrule the

prudential requirements because they are not derived from the Constitution, but instead from the Court’s view of prudential judicial administration.

THE PROHIBITION OF THIRD-PARTY STANDING· As a general rule, a person does not have standing to bring suit to

enforce the rights of a third-party. · There are exceptions:

· 1. Doctor-patient relationship for termination of pregnancy· 2. School-student· 3. Bartender-customer· 4. If there’s a tax clause that favors the establishment of a

religion

Singleton v. Wulff (1976)Facts: Abortion doctors sued to receive Medicaid payments through the state for abortions they had performed that were not “medically indicated.”Issue: May physicians who performed abortions that were not compensated by the state sue to challenge the Medicaid statute that excluded abortions that are not “medically indicated?” YESRule: Persons may sue to protect a third party’s right only when:(1) the relationship between the parties is such that the person suing may advocate effectively for the right and (2) there are genuine obstacles to the third party asserting the right in court.NOTES: A person may sue to protect the rights of a third party when the interests of the parties are sufficiently close and there are obstacles to third party asserting her rights.

Barrows v. Jackson (1953)NOTES: Court found standing. A white person who was party to a restrictive covenant had standing to bring suit alleging discrimination on behalf of blacks who were not (and could not become) parties to the covenant.

Craig v. Boren (1976)NOTES: Court found standing. Bartender had standing to challenge law establishing different legal drinking ages for female and male customers on behalf of the male potential customers.

Gilmore v. Utah (1976)NOTES: Court found no standing. Mother of a death-row inmate did not have standing to petition for a stay of execution on behalf of her son, who

had knowingly waived his right to appeal.

THE PROHIBITION OF GENERALIZED GRIEVANCES· The prohibition of generalized grievances, sometimes called

“taxpayer standing” is usually regarded as a prudential requirement, although some argue that Lujan elevated it to constitutional status.

· The prohibition against generalized grievances prevents individuals from suing if their only injury is as a citizen or a taxpayer concerned with having the government follow the law.

United States v. Richardson (1974)Facts: A taxpayer sued to compel the CIA to release details of its expenditures pursuant to Article 1, § 9 of the Constitution.Issue: Does an individual’s status as a taxpayer give him standing to challenge the constitutionality of a statute regulating the CIA’s financial accounting and reporting? NORule: Taxpayer status is not sufficient to confer standing to challenge the constitutionality of federal action unless the taxpayer alleges direct injury from the practice and not generalized grievances common to all members of the public.NOTES: Absent direct injury, taxpayer status does not confer standing on an individual to challenge the constitutionality of actions of the federal government.

· The Supreme Court has recognized only one exception where taxpayer standing is permitted: to challenge government expenditures as violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, the provision that prohibits Congress from making any law respecting the establishment of religion.

Flast v. Cohen (1968)Facts: Taxpayers challenged federal funding for academic instruction, books and materials in private religious schools.Issue: Does an individual’s status as a taxpayer give that person standing to challenge Congressional expenditures in violation of the First Amendment Establishment and Free Exercise clause? YESRule: Taxpayer status is sufficient to confer standing of an individual to bring suit in federal court to challenge the constitutionality of federal spending in violation of the First Amendment Free Exercise and Establishment clauses.Case Vocabulary:Establishment: actions by the government to recognize or aid a particular religion; the establishment of religion is barred by the First Amendment.Free Exercise: The ability of a person to hold (or not hold) whatever religious beliefs and engage (or refrain from engaging) in whatever

religious practices she chooses; the First Amendment bars government action that would infringe on an individual’s free exercise.NOTES: Taxpayer status confers standing to challenge Congressional authorization of expenditures that violate separation of church and state.

Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United For Separation of Church and State (1982)Facts: A taxpayer group challenged a donation of land to a Christian College authorized under a federal surplus property statute.Issue: Does a group of taxpayers have standing to bring suit in federal court alleging that a transfer of surplus government real property to a religious college violated the Establishment Clause? NORule: Taxpayer status does not confer standing to challenge in federal court the constitutionality of actions taken pursuant to Congress’s power over federal property.NOTES: Taxpayer status dose not confer standing to challenge the constitutionality of a donation of property authorized under Congress’s “Property Power.”

c. Ripeness· The doctrine of “ripeness” determines when a case

is appropriate for resolution by the federal courts.· Ripeness and mootness determine when that

litigation may occur.· Ripeness doctrine seeks to separate matters that are

premature for review because the injury is speculative and never may occur.

· In order for a case to be ripe, the plaintiff must show that review is not premature; that is, the plaintiff must demonstrate a harm has occurred or imminently will occur.

· “What makes something ripe is the possibility of prosecution.”

Poe v. Ullman (1961)Facts: A doctor and some of his patients challenged a Connecticut law that forbade medical personnel from disseminating information about contraception.Issue: Does a declaratory judgment in state court that a state criminal statute would apply to a class of individuals make the issue of the statute’s constitutionality ripe for federal court determination when the individuals in question have not been prosecuted under this statute? Holding: No.Rule: The declaratory judgment of a state court upholding a statute on the books does not make the issue of that statute’s constitutionality ripe for federal court determination when the state has not and likely will not

prosecute under the statute.Case Vocabulary:declaratory judgment: a court decision that state the rights or duties of parties, but does not provide for enforcement or remedy.Ripeness: The point in a dispute where the facts and adversity of the parties allow a court to render a meaningful resolution to the conflict; many courts decline to hear issues that are not “ripe” for their resolution.NOTES: Absent state prosecution, the existence of a statute does not make a case challenging the statute’s constitutionality ripe for federal court review.

(Example: An old law on the books that haven’t been enforced.)

Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner (1967)Facts: Drug companies challenged a law that would have required them to print the generic name of a drug on all labels and advertisements containing the drug’s trade name.Issue: Is a case ripe for federal court determination prior to an enforcement action when it presents legal issues and the parties may suffer injury if the court fails to hear the case? Holding: YESRule: A case is considered “ripe” for federal court resolution when:(1) the issue(s) presented are appropriate for a judicial decision and (2) the parties would face hardship if the court declined to hear the case.NOTES: A case is “ripe” when it involves legal issues appropriate for the court to decide and the parties would suffer if the court declined to hear the case.

United Public Workers v. Mitchell (1947)NOTES: Case seeking a declaratory judgment that law requiring federal employees to refrain from certain political activities was not ripe because the activities were only speculative.

International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union Local 37 v. Bond (1954)

NOTES: Case was not ripe where alien residents sought assurances that they would be allowed to return to the U.S. after taking seasonal jobs in Alaska (prior to Alaska statehood) because changes to immigration law were hypothetical.

Regional Rail Reorganization Act Cases (1974)NOTES: Case was ripe where railroads challenged future conveyance of their property to Conrail because operation of the statute against the railroads was inevitable.Lake Carriers Association v. MacMullan (1972)

NOTES: Case was ripe where boat owners brought a pre-enforcement challenge to a law barring sewage discharge into lakes b/c boats would require lengthy refits to their sewage systems in anticipation of operation of the law.

d. Mootness· In general, the federal courts may not hear cases

that have become “moot” because the controversy or injury has passed.

· A plaintiff must present a live controversy at all stages of federal court litigation.

· If anything occurs while a lawsuit is pending to end the plaintiff’s injury, the case is to be dismissed as moot.

· There are 3 exceptions to the mootness doctrine one of which is for wrongs capable of repetition but evading review.

Moore v. Ogilvie (1969)NOTES: Case in which plaintiff, who desired to be a candidate for state election, challenged state’s petition requirement was not mooted by passing of election day because the case was likely to be repeatable, but avoiding review.

Roe v. Wade (1973)NOTES: Case in which plaintiff, a pregnant woman, challenged state law outlawing abortion was not mooted by end of plaintiff’s pregnancy b/c the case was likely to be repeatable, but avoiding review.

Defunis v. Odegaard (1974)NOTES: Case in which plaintiff, a law student, challenged the law school’s affirmative action policy was moot because school allowed plaintiff to attend and earn his degree during pendency of case; the court ruled that student’s situation was not repeatable.

· Second major exception to the mootness doctrine is for voluntary cessation.

· A case is not to be dismissed as moot if the defendant voluntarily ceases the allegedly improper behavior but is free to return to it at any time.

· Only if there is no reasonable chance that the defendant could resume the offending behavior is a case deemed moot on the basis of voluntary cessation.

Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (2000)

Facts: Defendant-polluter argued that its recent compliance w/ national standards and plant shutdown mooted a citizen suit alleging violations of the Clean Water Act.Issue: Does the defendant’s voluntary compliance and plant closure make moot a citizen suit alleging violations of defendant’s NPDES permit? NORule: Defendant’s voluntary cessation of actions that are subject of a Complaint does not make the lawsuit moot unless there is not reasonable chance that the defendant can return to the actions.

· Third and final exception to the mootness doctrine is for class action suits.

· A properly certified class action suit may continue even if the named plaintiff’s claims are rendered moot. (Even if plaintiff may not have a live controversy, so long as the members of the class have a live controversy the case can continue.)

United States Parole Commission v. Geraghty (1980)Facts: Federal prisoners were appealing a District Court’s denial of their certification as a class when the named plaintiff’s case became moot.Issue: May an appellate court consider a challenge to a district court’s denial of class certification if the named plaintiff’s case is moot? YESRule: Appeal of a lower court’s denial of class certification does not become moot due to the mootness of the named plaintiff’s case.Case Vocabulary:Class Action: A lawsuit in which an individual (the “named plaintiff”) brings a claim on behalf of a larger group of people with the same claim.Class Certification: The legal announcement by the court that it will recognize a class of plaintiffs for a class action lawsuit; if a court declines to certify a class of plaintiffs, the individuals may pursue their own claims.NOTES: Appeal of trial court’s denial of class certification does not become moot b/c the named party’s case becomes moot.

e. The Political Question Doctrinei. The Political Question Doctrine Defined· The federal courts will not decide issues that

involve “political questions” resolution of which the Constitution confers to the other branches of government. (Some constitutional provisions are left to the political branches of government to interpret and enforce.)

· Cases brought under these provisions are dismissed as non-justiciable political questions.

WHAT IS A POLITICAL QUESTION? THE ISSUE OF

MALAPPORTIONMENT2

· Cases under the Guaranty Clause are non justiciable.

Baker v. Carr (1962)Facts: Tennessee voters seek a reapportionment of state assembly districts; the districts have not been reapportioned since 1901.Issue: Does an equal protection claim complaining of the malapportionment of a state assembly constitute a non-justiciable political question, which the federal courts may not address? NORule: The Guaranty Clause may not be used as a source of a constitutional standard for invalidating state action, but an equal protection claim may be so used where it does not implicate a political question.Case Vocabulary:Equal Protection Clause: A 14th Amendment clause providing that persons under the same circumstances shall be afforded the same constitutional rights.Guaranty Clause: A clause in Article IV, § 4, providing that “the U.S. shall guarantee to every State in the Union a Republican Form of Government.”Political Question: A question involving the use of discretionary authority by Congress or the Executive branch.NOTES: Claims that state apportionment violates the guaranty clause are nonjusticiable “political questions,” but claims based on violation of equal protection are justiciable.

· The political question doctrine has been applied in:· (1) election case; · (2) challenges to restrictions on Congressional membership –

where political question doctrine was rejected; · (3) challenges to the President’s conduct of foreign policy; and · (4) challenges to the impeachment process.

ii. The Political Question Doctrine Applied: Congressional Self-Governance

Powell v. McCormack (1969)Facts: The 90th Congress voted not to seat member-elect Powell due to his past improprieties.Issue: Does the political question doctrine bar the federal courts from deciding the question of whether Congress, by majority vote, has the discretionary authority to deny a member-elect membership? NORule: The political question doctrine does not bar the federal courts from deciding a case concerning Congress’s powers to determine its membership when the text of the Constitution does not specifically

2The improper or unconstitutional apportionment of a legislative district

commit the issue in the case to Congressional resolution.NOTES: Political question doctrine does not bar the Court from deciding whether Congress has the power to refuse to seat a member-elect.

iii. The Political Question Doctrine Applied: Foreign Policy

· In general, the federal courts will not decide foreign policy issues b/c they are political questions given to the President’s discretion under the Constitution.

Goldwater v. Carter (1979)Facts: In conjunction w/ normalizing U.S. relations with the Mainland Chinese government, President Carter terminated the U.S. treaty w/ Taiwan.Issue: Is the proper role of the Senate in the rescission of treaties a question that federal courts may resolve? NORule: The Senate’s role in the termination of treaties is a nonjusticiable political question.NOTES: Whether the Senate is authorized to approve the decisions of the President in the termination of treaties is a political question that the courts will not decide.

iv. The Political Question Doctrine Applied: Impeachment and Removal

· Challenges to impeachment and removal are not justiciable.

Nixon v. United States (1993)Facts: A federal judge, impeached by the Senate, challenged the constitutionality of the Senate’s impeachment procedure.Issue: Is a challenge to a conviction on impeachment articles by the Senate justiciable? NORule: The judiciary may not review the Senate’s trial of impeached

official.Case Vocabulary:Impeachment: The constitutional process whereby the House of Representatives may “impeach” (accuse of misconduct) high officers of the federal government for trial in the Senate.Nonjusticiable: A case that is not appropriate for judicial review.NOTES: Federal Courts are not authorized to review impeachments, which the Constitution explicitly confers to Congress.