Term
| Political Question Doctrine |
|
Definition
Baker v. Carr:
1. A textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to coordinate political department
2. Lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it;
3. The impossibility of deciding w/o an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion
4. The impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution w/o expressing lack of respect due coordinate branches of gov’t
5. An unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made
6. The potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Guarantee Clause not a sound basis for challenging a state or federal action in this kind of context
• Guaranty Clause confers certain powers and expectations on political branches
o Imposes obligation but doesn’t give court power to hear challenges to its power
o If you think it violates the Guaranty Clause, don’t take judicial action, just vote the politicians out of office |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Es Parte McCardle: Court said they couldn’t hear the case b/c they were a court of limited jurisdiction subject to Congress and they redefined it so they can’t hear it |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
In reviewing Article III challenges, courts weigh 4 factors to determine the practical effect that the congressional action will have on the constitutionally assigned role of the federal judiciary:
• 1. The extent to which the essential attributes of judicial power are reserved to Article III courts
• 2. The extent to which the non-Article III forum exercises the range of jurisdiction and powers normally vested only in Article III courts
• 3. The origins and importance of the right to be adjudicated, and
• 4. The concerns that drove Congress to depart from the requirements of Article III |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Court has est. 2 conditions for Case to be Ripe:
• 1. Consider the hardship/harm imposed if the case is not heard
o Abbott Labs case (prudential concerns)
• 2. Are the issues now fit for judicial determination
o UVW v. Mitchell case = not ready for remedy b/c harm hadn’t took place |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
If moot, means there is no longer an active case or controversy, the injury is no longer happening, so court shouldn’t hear the case
Claim needs to be ripe and a claim must NOT be moot
• Injury has to have happened and must not be over
- Changes throughout the course of litigation can be ripe when started
*** Exceptions to Mootness:
• 1. Voluntary cessation by party causing the injury
• 2. Repetition of injuries/claims Harms likely to repeat but will regularly be beyond review
• 3. Decertification of a P in a class action: If you have a class action and the named person ceases to be part of the class, the class action can still go forward
• 4. Collateral Injuries initial injury is now moot but there are related/connected injuries so case can con’t |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Kid sue for not being admitted to law school, was about to graduate by the time the case came up so the injury was moot. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Basic Requirements (Constitutional Requirements):
• 1. The plaintiff must be injured
• 2. The injury was caused by the defendant, and
• 3. The injury is redressable by the court
Prudential Requirements:
• 1. No 3rd party standing
o Party can’t sue on behalf of person who has been injured
- Exceptions: Parents suing for children; Organizations can have standing if harm has been done to their members; First Amendment
• 2. No standing for generalized grievance (sometimes citizen suit)
o Party can’t sue for harms done to others/based on thought the person is acting wrong
o There are exceptions
• 3. No tax-payer standing (citizen suit)
o The fact that you pay taxes does not give you standing to challenge the government’s actions
o Government’s use of your tax money is NOT an injury/basis to claim standing
4. No agency/organization suing on behalf of members
- Exception: If there is a close relationship between the injury of the members and the org./agency |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Havens Realty Court v. Coleman |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Shifting cases that can be heard to agency courts. |
|
|
