Judicial Power
1. Jurisdictional
Limits
A. US
v. Klein (1872) Congress cannot alter the Court’s appellate jurisdiction under
the Exceptions Clause simply to circumvent the Court’s earlier holdings.
B. Justiciability
C. Advisory
opinions
D. Mootness
E. Ripeness
F. Political
Question
A. Facts
1. TN
apportionment resulted in far more representatives per citizen in rural
counties than in
2. Urban
voters in
B. Issue
1. Does
the suit raise a non-justiciable political question?
C. Holding:
1. The
apportionment challenge in this case is not a political question
D. Reasoning
(Brennan):
1. TN
argues this is a political question similar to the Art. IV
Guaranty Clause apportionment cases
2 Such
cases are political questions, according to Brennan, because:
a. There
is a constitutional commitment to other branches of the issue of whether a
state’s government is republican
b. Unambiguous
recognition of the proper government by the president
c. Need
for finality
d. Lack
of judicial factors to determine whether a government is republican
3. Must
have textually demonstrable commitment of the issue to another branch, or
a. lack
of judicial standards
b. policy
discretion of a non-judicial nature
c. Unusual
need for unquestioning adherence to pronouncement by other branch
4. This
case is not political:
a. Compliance
with constitution judicial function
b. No
risk of embarrassment or disturbance
c. Judicial
standards on Equal
Protection are well developed
1 Would
not rule if there were any other recourse available to the citizens of TN
F. Frankfurter,
Harlan
(diss.)
1. This
is a Guaranty Clause case masquerading as a Eq. Prot. Cls case.
2. Changing
the constitutional label does not make a case justiciable
3. Any
allocation of power results in inequities, and this has been the complaint of
those challenging apportionment under the Guarantee Clause.
4. Equal
protection provides no clearer guide
3. Nixon
v. U.S. (1993)
A.
Facts
1. Nixon,
a federal judge on a D.Ct in Miss., was investigated for receiving access to a
stock deal in exchange for intervening on behalf of the deal’s son who was
indicted for drug trafficking.
2. Charged
with accepting an illegal gratuity, and perjury
3. Convicted
of lying to a grand jury
4. Maintained
innocence, continued receiving a salary
5.
The Judicial Council recommended the House impeach Nixon
6. After
an investigation by the Judiciary Committee the House voted to impeach Nixon
417 - 0.
7. The
Senate invoked impeachment Rule XI, under which the presiding officer appoints
a committee to receive evidence
and take testimony.
8. A
bi-partisan 12 member committee was appointed
a. Rec’d
briefs, heard testimony from 10 witnesses
b. Nixon
made personal appeal
c. After
four days of hearings the Committee recommended removal
9.
The
Senate voted 89-8 and 78-19 to convict Nixon on two articles of impeachment,
lying to the Grand Jury.
10. Nixon
claimed that Rule XI violated the Art. I,
Sec. 3, Cls 6 of the constitution by allowing a committee and not the full
senate to try the impeachment.
B. Issue
C. Holding
D. Reasoning
(Rehnquist)
1. Nixon
argues:
a. Art.
I, Sec. 3, Cls 6 states that the senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments.
b. “Try”
means more than just decide, it means to hear evidence etc.
c. Without
judicial review of impeachments congress may use the power to usurp judicial
power
2. Older
dictionaries define “try” as “to examine,” others define it as “to examine as a
judge, to bring before a judicial tribunal.”
3. The
constitution is written in general terms, in order to allow the legislature to
fill in the blanks on how things are actually done.
4.
“Sole” means that only the senate, and
not the house or the court have the authority to convict or exonerate.
5. The
constitution protects against congress using the impeachment power to usurp the
judiciary’s power
a. Power
split between the two houses
b. Super-majority
needed
6. Need
for finality of impeachments especially if president were impeached.
E. Souter
(concurring)
1. Political
question doctrine protects separation of powers
2. Restricts
courts from inappropriate interference with the work of other political
branches
3. Factors
in this case:
a. Need
for finality
b. Unusual
need for unquestioning adherence
c. Potential
embarrassment
4. Could
interfere if the senate acted far beyond the scope of its constitutional
authority such that the integrity of the result were threatened.
4. Flast
v. Cohen (1968)
A. Facts
1. Taxpayers
challenged expenditures made under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
on Establishment Clause grounds.
2. D.Ct
dismissed action ruling that because plaintiffs did not suffer an injury they
did not have standing.
B. Does
the taxpayer status of these plaintiffs give them standing to challenge federal
expenditures?
C. Holding:
The plaintiffs in this case have established the requisite connection between
their status and the law challenged, and therefore have standing.
D. Reasoning
(Warren)
1. Standing
is amorphous
2. Includes
subtle pressures that blend policy considerations with constitutional
limitations.
3. Depends
on the party not the issue
4. Party
must allege such a personal state in the outcome as to assure concrete
adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court
depends for illumination.
5. Is
the plaintiff the proper litigant to request adjudication
6. Taxpayers
may or may not have standing – no absolute bar
7. Is
there a logical nexus between the status asserted and the claim
8. Two
aspects
a. Status
and type of legislation challenged – must be passed under the taxing and
spending power, and . . .
b. Must
show that enactment exceeds specific constitutional limitations.
9. Plaintiffs
have established nexus
a. They
challenge substantial spending under Art. I, Sec. 8
b. Challenge
is based upon specific limits in the First Amend.
Practice Hypothetical
Practice Hypothetical
In what court should Skinner and
Krabaple file their suit?
Once in the Supreme Court, how
will the justices settle the Skinner/Krabaple case?
5. Hamdan
A. Facts
B. Issue: Whether the Ct has
jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
C. H: It
does
D. Reasoning
1. Detainee
Treatment Act 2005
2. Precedent
of waiting until mil ct resolution is reached
a. Need
for mil discipline
b. Comity
– respect for parallel system of mil justice established by congress.
c. Neither
of these exists here.
3. Hamdan
argues:
a. Removing
the Ct’s appellate juris over an original writ would unconstitutionally weaken
the writ.
b. Suspension
of the writ unconstit
4. Court
finds it unnec to address either
5. Congress
applied a different provision of the DTA to pending cases but rejected attempts
to apply the habeas section to pending cases.