Constitutional Law || with Errorless Solutions 100%.
6 views 0 purchase
Course
Constitutional Law
Institution
Constitutional Law
Federal Judicial Power - Cases & Controversies correct answers There must be a real, live controversy between the parties.
Federal Judicial Power - Cases & Controversies Elements correct answers A case or controversy will exist if:
(1) there is an actual dispute between parties
(2) having...
Constitutional Law || with Errorless Solutions 100%.
Federal Judicial Power - Cases & Controversies correct answers There must be a real, live
controversy between the parties.
Federal Judicial Power - Cases & Controversies Elements correct answers A case or controversy
will exist if:
(1) there is an actual dispute between parties
(2) having adverse legal interests.
Complainants must show that they have engaged in (or wish to engage in) specific conduct and
that the challenged action poses a real and immediate danger to their interests.
Federal Judicial Power - Cases & Controversies - Declaratory Judgment correct answers A suit
seeking a declaratory judgment can meet the case or controversy requirement.
Federal Judicial Power - Cases & Controversies - Class Actions correct answers A class action
suit in which the named representative's claim is moot can still be a case or controversy if some
class members' claims are viable.
While federal courts generally will not hear a case if it is moot, if class members' claims are still
viable, the suit will not be considered moot even though the claim of the class representative is.
Justiciability Requirements correct answers (1) Standing
(2) Ripeness
(3) Mootness
(4) No Political Questions
Standing correct answers Whether P is a proper party to bring the matter to court:
(1) Injury in fact
(2) Causation & Redress-ability
(3) No third party standing
(4) No generalized grievances
Standing - Injury in Fact correct answers P must allege and prove that he or she has been injured
or will be imminently injured.
No ideological objections. Abstract or hypothetical injury is not enough.
Standing - Injury in Fact Examples correct answers (1) Plaintiffs only may assert injuries that
they personally have suffered
(2) Plaintiffs seeking injunctive or declaratory relief must show a likelihood of future harm
,Standing - Causation correct answers P must allege and prove that the D caused the injury
Standing - Redress-ability correct answers A favorable court decision can remedy the harm
If a federal court ruling would have no effect then it is merely an advisory opinion
Standing - No Third Party Standing correct answers In general, a P cannot bring a claim on
someone else's behalf.
Standing - Third Party Exceptions correct answers Third party standing allowed if:
(1) Close relationship (doctor/patient; NOT non-custodial parent).
(2) Injured party is unlikely to assert their own rights (e.g. jury discrimination)
(3) Organization
Standing - Organizations correct answers An organization may sue for its members if:
(1) individual members would have standing
(2) the interests are germane to the organization's purpose
(3) neither the claim nor relief requires the participation of individual members.
Standing - No Generalized Grievances correct answers P must not be suing solely as a citizen or
tax payer
Standing - Generalized Grievances Exceptions correct answers (1) Taxpayers have standing to
challenge the government expenditures pursuant to federal statutes as violating the Establishment
Clause.
(2) Citizen has standing to allege federal action that violates the 10th Amendment by interfering
with the powers reserved to the states so long as there is injury in fact and redressability.
Standing Examples correct answers (1) A court is likely to find standing in a suit by a business
owner against the federal government, claiming that the government's failure to conform to a
statute has reduced the profitability of his business.
(2) A plaintiff who has been injured by the government's failure to conform its conduct to the
requirements of a specific federal statute has the required stake in the outcome necessary to find
standing.
(3) A citizen's interest in seeing that the government acts constitutionally is too remote an
interest on which to base standing.
,Standing - Federal Agency correct answers A suit alleging that P was harmed by the agency's
failure to act pursuant to the statute creating the agency and seeking to force compliance is
justifiable and will not be dismissed for lack of standing.
A P can have standing to require government actors to conform to a federal statute if the
plaintiff's injury is within the "zone of interest" meant to be protected by the statute. Because P's
harm stems from the agency's failure to act, P appears to meet the zone of interest requirement.
Standing - Organization correct answers An organization has standing to challenge government
actions that cause an injury in fact to its members if the organization can demonstrate the
following three facts:
(i) An injury in fact to the members of the organization that would give individual members a
right to sue on their own behalf;
(ii) The injury to the members must be related to the organization's purpose; and
(iii) Neither the nature of the claim nor the relief requested requires the participation of the
individual members in the lawsuit.
A suit alleging that agency action harms members of plaintiff's organization, member
participation in the suit is not needed, and the agency action interferes with the goals of the
organization is justiciable.
An organization may challenge a government action on behalf of its members even if the
members are unable to participate in the lawsuit.
Standing - Establishment Clause Exception for Taxpayer Standing correct answers While
generally, there is no federal "taxpayer standing" because a federal taxpayer's interest is too
remote, the Supreme Court has carved out an exception for cases where the claim is that a
congressional spending measure violates the Establishment Clause.
Standing - Assignee's Claim Against the Federal Government correct answers A court is likely to
find standing in a suit by an assignee of a claim against the federal government for which
sovereign immunity has been waived, claiming as the only injury a share of any recovery.
Assignees of claims have a sufficient stake in the outcome of the claim.
Ripeness correct answers Ripeness is the question of whether a federal court may grant pre-
enforcement review of a statute or regulation.
Considerations:
(1) the level of hardship that will be suffered without pre-enforcement review
, (2) the fitness of the issues in the record for judicial review (i.e. is there something to be gained
by waiting for an actual prosecution)
(Exam Tip: If the question includes a request for declaratory judgment, analyze ripeness)
Mootness correct answers P must present a LIVE CONTROVERSY
If events after the filing of a lawsuit end P's injury, the case must be dismissed as moot.
However, a non-frivolous money damages claim will keep the case alive
Mootness - Exceptions correct answers (1) The alleged action is capable of repeated harm but
escapes judicial review because of its inherently limited time duration (e.g. abortion)
(2) Voluntary Cessation - If the defendant voluntarily halts the offending conduct but is free to
resume it at any time, the case will not be dismissed as moot (i.e. voluntarily giving up a
discriminatory hiring practice).
(3) Class action suits (If the named P's claim becomes moot, the case continues so long as one
member still has an ongoing injury.)
Political Question Doctrine correct answers The political question doctrine refers to
constitutional violations that the federal courts will not adjudicate.
Cases that are dismissed as non-justiciable political questions:
(1) Guarantee each state a republican form of government (guarantee clause)
(2) President's foreign policy
(3) Impeachment and removal process
(4) Partisan gerrymandering
Political Question Examples correct answers A political question is an issue committed to
another branch of the federal government, and a federal court will not review such an issue.
Political questions also include issues inherently incapable of resolution and enforcement by the
judicial process.
Examples:
(1) A question of whether presidential papers are necessary to the continuation of a criminal
proceeding is justiciable and not a political question.
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller FullyFocus. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $13.29. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
