CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

• POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
• 1) est. preeminence of Constitution
• 2) judicial review => judiciary have ultimate power to interpret Constitution
• - Court have power to invalidate gov't action repugnant to the Constitution
• - it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial dept. to say what the law IS

• 1803
• Marshall

SCOTUS has the power, implied from Article VI, § 2 of the Constitution, to review acts of Congress and if they are found repugnant to the Constitution, to declare them void

• 1803
• Marshall
• JUDICIAL REVIEW RULE:
• SC has the power to review acts of Congress an if they are found repugnant to the Constitution, to declare them void

SCOTUS AUTHORITY TO REVIEW STATE CT JDGT

• 1816
• STORY

SC review of STATE action when FED Q involve.

SC’s appellate jurisdiction extends to state court judgments that involve federal law.

1958

J. WARREN

State officials may NOT disobey federal court orders that are based on SC's interpretation of Constitution

Fed judiciary is supreme in exposition of law of Constitution

SC's interpretation of Constitution is binding on State legislatures, executives, and judicial officers

SC and lower fed cts will ONLY hear justiciable cases [cases appropriate for fed adjudication on merits]

Art. III, Sec. - required case or controversy

general SC policies developed apart from Constitution

FED CTS may not issue advisory opinions

issues must arise out of an actual or current case or controversy b/t adverse litigants

adjudication of hypothetical or removed disputes would result in advisory opinions [which fed cts may not issue]

SCRIMP - Case or controversy = advisory opinion

P must have STANDING to invoke adjudicatory power of fed cts

• to establish STANDING - P must show: [CRIIA]
• 1) Causation
• 2) Redressability
• 3) Injury-in-fact
• a) that injury-in-fact is Imminent AND
• b) Actual

• Lujan v.Defenders of Wildlife
• [Scalia]
• To est. STANDING – P must show
• 1) causation
• 2) redressability
• 3) injury-in-fact.
• Injury-in-fact must be imminent or actual, if threatened harm is TOO far in future or TOO speculative STANDING will not be found.

SPECIAL DEFERENCE WHEN PLAINTIFF IS A STATE ACTING FOR ITS CITIZENS

when P is a STATE acting on behalf of its citizens – the usual rules of STANDING will apparently be relaxed

individual-harm and causation requirements are especially likely to be relaxed where the P is a state suing in an ombudsman-like manner

• taxpayer will have STANDING to challenge congressional expenditure ONLY if it meets dual-nexus test:
• 1) expenditure must b exercise of power u/ TAXING & SPENDING CLAUSE
• 2) expenditure must violate a specific constitutional provision that limits TAXING & SPENDING POWER [like prohibition against est. religion]

allows taxpayers to challenge federal program under the ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE

a case b/m moot when the controversy is resolved after the case is filed, BUT before the outcome of the case has been decided

in order for a court to decide an issue, the issue cannot be "moot" - it must be a controversy at all stages of review, not just when the complaint is filed

MOOT case is brought TOO LATE

UNRIPE case brought TOO SOON

it means that an issue presents ann immediate threat of harm

an issue must be "ripe" in order for a court to resolve it

• Issues that are considered non-justiciable b/c they are:
• 1. issues the Constitution commits to another gov'tal branch [based on separation of powers principles]

2. issues the judicial process is inherently incapable of resolving and enforcing [ex. foreign relations]

• Baker v. Carr
• 1. a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to Congress or the executive branch

2. lack of judicial discoverable and manageable standards

3. need for a single pronouncement from the branches

• 4. difficulty or impossibility of devising effective judicial remedies

1. regulating military - committed to Congress

2. impleaching President or another federal officer - committed to Congress

3. Constitutional Amendments - committed to Congress

4. disputes over war powers [b/t Congress & President]

5. foreign relations [recognizing foreign gov't]

6. republican form of gov't issues - no judicially managable stnd for determining if a form of gov't is republican

SC may NOT entertain political question cases

• Factors to be weighed in distinguishing political question cases include:
• 1) whether the issue is committed to another gov'tal branch

2) whether judicial standards exist for handling the issue

3) whether there is a great need for uniform pronouncement on the issue

1. expressed or enumerated power u/ Art. I, Sec. 8

2. implied powers [McCulloch v. Maryland] - u/ Necessary and Proper Clause Art I, Sec. 8

3. inherent powers - powers inherent in the concept of national gov't. The principal inherent powers is the foreign affairs power

PACE CRIED STABLE

• Postal
• Aliens, naturalization and citizenship
• Columbia [power to govern DC]
• Elections [Congressional]

• Civil Rights - [power to enforce 13th, 14th, 15th A]
• Interstate Commerce
• External [foreign] Affairs
• Defense

• Spending for general welfare
• Taxation
• Admiralty
• Bankruptcy
• Lands owned [federally owned lands u/ property clause]
• Eminent Domain

• SIGNIFICANCE:
• - a valid federal law must be rationally related to Congressional power OR necessary and proper to effectuate one of them
• - if Congress legislates beyond its powers, its violating the 10th A

• NOTES:
• - there is NO federal police power
• - ONLY STATES have police power

Gives CONGRESS the right to regulate interstate and international commerce [which extends to virtually ANY activity]

• Art I, Sec 8, Cl 3
• grants CONGRESS the power to regulate Commerce w/ foreign Nations and among the several states

• RATIONALE:
• - to eliminate "economic balkanization" and trade barriers among the STATES so that a truly national economy is maintained

• CC acts both as
• 1) source of Congressional authority
• 2) an implicit limitation on State power

• 1) Substantial Economic Effect:
• NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp
• As long as activity has a substantial economic effect upon interstate commerce, Congress may validly regulate that activity, even if it occurs long before OR after the actual interstate commerce occurs

• 2) Cumulative Effect:
• Wickard v. Filburn
• Congress may regulate an entire class of activity if the class as a whole would have substantial economic effect, even if a single activity, taken alone, would NOT have interstate impact

• 3) Commerce-Prohibiting Technique
• US v. Darby
• Congress may directly ban interstate transport of certain goods & services, as long as Congress has chosen a means reasonably related to a permitted end