JUSTICIABILITY

Question 1

• Art. III, § 2 authorizes the feral courts…

Answer 1

to hear “cases & controversies” thus limiting judicial power

Question 2

•5 Justiciability Doctrines - Constitutional Limits

Answer 2

1. Prohibition of Advisory Opinions
2. Ripeness
3. Mootness
4. Political Question
5. Standing

Question 3

• Principle of Avoidance – To ensure constitutional questions will only be reached if necessary.

1. Courts will not_ _ constitutional questions
2. Court will not formulate constitutional law_ _
3. Court will not question the constitutionality of a statute without_ _
4. Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has_ _
5. Court will construe acts of congress as_ _

Answer 3

1. Court will not anticipate constitutional questions
2. Court will not formulate constitutional law broader than the necessity of deciding it
3. Court will not question the constitutionality of a statute without an injury that has occured
4. Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of the benefits
5. Court will construe acts of congress as constitutional if possible before invalidation

Question 4

• Prohibition of Advisory Opinions

What are advisory opinions?

&

Two requirements for a federal court to hear a case

Answer 4

Advisory Opinions: Case or controversies that do not include a posture, where the court would simply be giving their opinion

In order for the federal courts to hear the case:

• (1) Actual dispute between adverse litigants must exist,
• (2) Where a Federal court decision will bring about some impact in the real world

Question 5

Ripeness:

A. Case must be

B . Two prong test:

Answer 5

A. Case must be a “live” case or controversy and not premature. Ripeness question arises when plaintiff wants to challenge a law that they haven’t violated yet, but one they think they inevitably will.

B. Two Prong Test:

• 1. Hardship to the Parties by withholding consideration

o Direct
o Immediate
o Likelihood

•2. Fitness of the issues for judicial consideration

o Purely legal issue, suggests ripeness and is more likely to be considered
o All parties agreeing to what the issue is, more likely to be considered

Question 6

Ripeness Cases:

• Abbot Laboratories v. Garner

Fitness? Hardship? Likelihood?

Answer 6

o Fitness: Parties agreed that the issue tendered was a purely legal one

• The regulations in issue were reviewable as a “final agency action” under the Administrative Procedure Act

o Hardship: The regulations would have a direct day-to-day impact on the operation of the companies, who either had to incur huge costs to comply with the regulations’ requirements or risk prosecution.

o Likelihood: Law was effective on publishing, so very high likelihood of hardship & not speculative

Question 7

J.2

Mootness

Answer 7

The controversy must be ongoing during the time of the case.

In mootness the case has already passed the ripeness stage; the injury has already occurred or was determined to very likely occur.

Question 8

Case fails mootness when:

Answer 8

the controversy/issue has already been resolved in some way such that the courts decision will have no effect and is therefore like an advisory opinion.

Question 9

Exclusions from Mootness Limitation #1

1. Wrongs capable of repetition, but evading review

(Roe v. Wade)

What is it and what is the test?

Answer 9

Some injuries (pregnancy) are of such short duration, that they become relieved before a court can adjudicate it.

Test for this exclusion:

i. The injury is of an inherently limited duration, such that it will always be moot before adjudication
ii. The injury has to be of the type that is likely to happen to that specific plaintiff again

Question 10

Mootness

Voluntary Cessation

Answer 10

When the defendant has ceased the allegedly improper behavior, but is free to return to it at any time

Question 11

Mootness

Class Action Lawsuits

Answer 11

Even if the named parties are rendered moot, the class is not moot

Case can proceed even after the named plaintiff’s individual claim is over. (US Parole Board v. Geraghty)

Question 12

Mootness

Collateral Injury

Answer 12

A case is not moot where collateral injuries remain, even though the primary injury has ended

(i.e., Getting new employment does not moot a wrongful termination suit)

Question 13

Mootness Cases

• Friends of the Earth, Incorporated v. Laidlaw Environmental Services

Hint: exception involved

Answer 13

Pollution Permit Violators

Exception - Voluntary Cessation

Defendant was violating mercury discharge limits of the Clean Water Act

Defendant argues that the suit is moot either because it achieved substantial compliance with the permit guidelines by August 1992 or because of its shutdown of the facility in question.

• Does not give legal certainty that the wrongful conduct will not reoccur
• Only closed the facility in question after a loss in appellate court
• Burden is high on the party asserting mootness, must be absolutely clear it will not occur again

Question 14

Mootness Cases:

• Moore v. Ogilvie

Hint: theres an exception involved

Answer 14

Law requiring signatures for candidate nomination for general election

Election was over by the time the case was heard, but not moot
Exception: “Wrong capable of repetition but evading review”

It was a structural problem, likely that any candidate would have the same problem, not that since the election is passed it could be corrected for the next election by starting earlier

Question 15

Political Questions

What are they?

When they get turned down, what happens to them?

Answer 15

• There is a group of cases the court will not adjudicate, that are left to the political process

Cases where all requirements are met, but the supreme court will not decided because it hinges on a political question

• When the Supreme Court characterizes an issue as a non-justiciable political question, it declines to review and leave the matter to be resolved in the politically accountable branches of the government.

Question 16

Mootness Cases:

• United States Parole Commission v. Geraghty

Yeah…there’s a fuckin exception. Which is it.

Answer 16

Exception – Class Action Suits

• The purpose of the “personal stake” requirement is “to assure that the case is in a form capable of judicial resolution.”
• The members of the proposed class still have a live controversy

Question 17

Standing Doctrine

What does it ask?

Answer 17

Asks whether a particular person is the proper party to present particular issues to the court for determination.

Does a particular person have enough stake in the controversy to present and create, sharp and adversarial presentation, of particular issues to the court?

Question 18

Standing Doctrine

Three Constitutional Requirements

Answer 18

Constitutional Requirements: Standing requires a personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant’s conduct that is likely redressable from a federal court decision

•1. Injury – Cannot be abstract, hypothetical, or too speculative

• Concrete
• Personally experienced or likely enough to be personally experienced, not exclusive

•2. Causation / Traceability – Injury suffered must stem from the defendant’s wrongful (illegal) conduct (Fairly Traceable)

•3. Redressability – The court must be able to provide relief for the actual injury, but does not have to be complete relief (Likely Redressable)

Question 19

Standing

• Allen v. Wright

(IRS granting tax-exempt status to private racially segregate schools)

Injury, Causation, Redressability

Answer 19

_1. Injury: _ Harm from supporting discriminatory schools & stigmatizing from segregation
• Failed to show evidence of the direct injury
• “Abstract stigma” is too speculative and hypothetical for standing

2. Causation: Not traceable to the government, the link between the asserted injury and wrongful conduct cannot be too speculative
• Speculative if the funding has an effect on the segregation policies of private schools

3. Redressability: Not redressable
• Violation of the Separation of Powers would be required
• Judiciary cannot regulate the IRS, which is function of the executive branch

Question 20

Standing

• Massachusetts v. E.P.A

(E.P.A is not enforcing the Clean Air Act, State has quasi-sovereign interest)

Cause of Action, Injury, Causatin, Redressability

Answer 20

Cause of Action: Massachusetts has given up sovereign rights as a member of the U.S. and the federal government has ordered the EPA to protect the state to the prescribed environmental standards
• Congress recognizes the “concomitant” procedural right to challenge the rejection of its rulemaking petition as arbitrary & capricious

Injury: Concrete injury of losing coastal property as the water rises
• Does not need to be an exclusive injury, just bc injury is felt by many people doesnt exclude it

Causation: Mass injury can be traced to EPAs failure to regulate. Although the contribution is small not large does not break the chain of causation

Redressability: Regulate or provide a reason to not regulate
• If the EPA regulates emissions from cars, that will help the issue of global warming in the State of Massachusetts.

Question 21

Standing

City of Los Angeles v. Lyons

(Unnecessary Chokehold Policy of the L.A.P.D.)

Answer 21

o Past illegal conduct, by itself, is insufficient to establish an actual case or controversy for injunctive relief.

o Speculative Lyons would be placed in a chokehold again, therefore injunction would not clearly redress any potential injury

o New Application of Standing: Plaintiff must show injury, causation and redressability at the level of relief they seek

(Relief must correspond with the injury or potential for injury in terms of an injunction)

Court holds there is no standing: P has not established a real and immediate/imminent threat that he himself will be stopped and put in a chokehold – its too speculative.

Takeaway: Preliminary injunctions extremely hard for plaintiff’s to succeed in getting due to standing requirements.

Question 22

Standing

• Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (Secretary of State, you must enforce ESA internationally)

Answer 22

Scalia holds that P’s has to show that they are directly harmed by def.’s conduct – and here the crocs are being harmed not the p’s.

Takeaway: When a statute authorizes ppl to bring legal action (cause of action) – does not mean there is automatic standing. – Cause of Action v. Standing.

There are however some statutes that create interests/rights as well as authorization for cause of action, therefore satisfying standing requirements automatically. (ex: fair housing act).

Question 23

Standing

vs.

Cause-Of-Action:

Both required, but different how?

Answer 23

Cause-of-Action - Congress can create define injuries and articulate changes of causation that will give rise to a case or controversy where none existed before

• Unless congress makes it a cause-of-action, the court will unlikely listen to citizens suing for the improper administration of laws

Statutes may create obligations but do not give individuals the right to sue to enforce the obligations, even if an individual has been harmed

• Injury without cause-of-action, no standing

o A procedural right to sue is not enough for standing, a personal injury is required

• Cause-of-action without injury, no standing
• When congress has authorized a right to sue, a standing inquiry must still be performed

Question 24

What are the two Prudential Standing Principles

Answer 24

1. Party generally may assert only his or her own rights and cannot raise the claims of third parties not before the court
2. P cant sue a tax payer who shares a grievance in common with all other tax payers

Question 25

Cause of Action: How is it created?

Answer 25

Congress makes it clear any individual can sue. Occasionally court can read a statute and realize the explicit language is missing but it is apparent congress meant to include that or implied that. ) Even where congress has authorized suit, we still need to show concrete injury. When congress has authorized suit, don’t stop there. Show: injury, redressability.

Question 26

Judicial Review Why start with judicial role when drafters included it last?

Answer 26

• We need to know if the court is acting consistent with article three

Question 27

Mootness Cases • DeFunis v. Odegaard

Answer 27

Bitchy kid denied law school admission Moot - Could happen again, but he will never go through law school again and he will have graduated by the time it is complete No issue capable of repetition, to injure him, as he is concerned

Question 28

• Baker v. Carr 6 Political Question Factors

Answer 28

o _Constitutional Commitment_: A textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department o _Lack of standards_: A lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving the question o _Impossibility of deciding the question_ without making an initial policy determination of a kind clearly inappropriate for judges to make o _Lack of Respect:_ The impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due to coordinate branches of the government o _An unusual need for questioning_ adherence to a political decision already made o _The potential embarrassment_ from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question