Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Con Law I Outline

Con Law I Outline

Ratings: (0)|Views: 54|Likes:
Published by Douglas Kopf
Outline Friedman Hofstra Con Law I
Outline Friedman Hofstra Con Law I

More info:

Published by: Douglas Kopf on Jan 29, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





 Judicial Review***********************
Mandamus – “
We command you”a.A writ commanding someone to do his or her duty. Someone is requestingthe judge to order someone to do his or her duty. The problem w/ mandamusis that it has TWO meanings
28 USC §1361
Executive Dept. Mandamus
i.District courts shall have original jdx in any action in the nature omandamus to compel an officer or any agency to perform a duty to P.a.Note – “officer or employee of US” is always in the executive,NOT judiciary
ii.28 USC §1651(a) Judicial Mandamus
1.The SC and all other courts est. by Congress may issue writsnecessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jdx and agreeable tothe usage and principles of lawa.Allows higher court judges to correct something that a lowercourt has done before final judgment 
Marbury v. Madison
(establishing federal courts have the power of judicialreview)
a.RULE – No legislative act contrary to the Constitution can be valid
Facts –
 John Adams name 42 justices of the Peace for DC, includingMarbury. Commissions signed by Sec. of State Marshall. But commissionswere not delivered that day and Jefferson did not honor undeliveredappointments. Marbury brought
writ of mandamus
to compel Jefferson’ssec. of state, Madison, to deliver.
§13 of the Judiciary Act –
gives SC power to issue writs of mandamus toany person holding office, under authority of US.
Issue –
Does the Constitution give SC the authority to review acts of Congress and declare them, if repugnant to the Constitution, to be void?
Unclear whether the Judiciary Act gave SC
original jurisdiction
inmandamus cases b/c the statute said SC shall ALSO have appellate jurisdiction from the circuit courts and courts of several states.2.If §13 grants appellate jdx then Marbury’s case had to be dismissedb/c he didn’t have original jdx to sue in the SC.
Held –
Where the Const. as interpreted by the SC, conflicts with the lawsenacted by Congress, the SC may declare such law unconstitutional andinvalid pursuant to its judicial review power1.If the SC identifies a conflict between a Const. provision andCongressional statute, the Court has the authority and duty to declarestatute unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it.
Reasoning –
Art III §2, cl. 1 – no Fed court, including SC, may hear a caseor controversy that does not fall within the scope of the Federal judicialpower.
1.Art III § 2 cl. 1 – Divides judicial power into original andappellate
1.Appellate jurisdiction under Art IIIa.All cases arising under laws, Const, and treatiesb.Cases of admiraltyc.Controversies where US is party
d.Diversity jdxe.Citizen of same state claiming land in another statef.Citizen of a state v. foreign country2.Original Jurisdiction under Art IIIa.Cases affecting ambassadorsb.Controversies bwteen 2 statesc.State v. citizen of another stated.State v. foreign countrye.Affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls inwhich the state shall be a party
Exceptions Clause Art III, §2 cl. 2 –
permits transfer of casesbetween Court’s original and appellate jdx. “in all other cases, the SCshall have appellate jdx, with
such exceptions
under such regulations asCongress shall make1.Permits Congress to exchange between Appellate and Original jdx.2.Justic Marshall rejected this clause – framers would not havebothered to define SC’s original and appellate jdx if the categories weresubject to alteration at congress’s will.a.b/c this is exactly what §13 of Judiciary act deemed to do, theCourt held the statute unconstitutional and dismissed Marbury’s suitfor lack of jdx.3.Marbury did not have the right to bring his case in Original Jdx b/chis suit arose under the law of the US, which gave him appellate jdx.
3.Martin v. Hunter’s Lesseea.RULE – US SC may determine that a state court has reached adecision that is not in conformity with the constitution (FederalQuestion arising under the Const.), but may NOT review state courtdecisions that merely adjudicate questions of state law.
Facts –
Revolutionary war, Lord Fairfax owned land in VA and fled. Landseized by VA and given to Hunder. Meanwhile, 2 treaties enacted in whichFed. Govt. agreed to return ownership to original owners who fled. However,now Hunter owns title per Bill of Sale provided by VA. Action for trespasscommences
Proc history –
VA SC says land belongs to Hunter’s lessee1.SC says no, it belongs to Fairfax – reversed and remanded relyingon the treaty2.On remand- VA court ruled that Judiciary Act’s extension of SCappellate jdx to state courts - unconstitutional
Issue –
Can the US SC review decisions of the highest court in a particularstate? Can federal courts hear appeals brought from state court decisions?
e.Held YES
1.Art III grants appellate jdx to the SC where it does not have original Jdx except in those instances where Congress has limited fed jdx.
1.There is need for uniformity in decisions through the nationinterpreting the constitution1.Appellate power of SC not limited by terms of Art III to anyparticular courts – it is the CASE, not the COURT that gives SC its jdx
2.§25 of Judiciary Act states that if a state court examines the validityof a treaty or a state law in conflict w/ the constitution, then SC mayreview it
1.If state courts had final say on Federal Questions under therationale of “separate sovereign spheres” then there would be 50separate interpretations of what Federal law 4 times in history that Constitution has been amended
Chisolm v. Ga –
amendment –
overruled Dred Scott decision which said that slaves had norights
Pollock v.
Framers –
Case involving income tax, SC said that Art I prohibitedincome tax but 13
amendment imposed federal tax
Voting rights by 18 year old was passed by 26
 Judicial Exclusivity on ConstitutionalInterpretation – Supremacy Clause Art VI,Paragraph 2 **************************
1.Cooper v. Aaron
Facts –
Gov and legislature of Arkansas acted upon premise that there isno duty on state officials to obey federal court orders resting on SCinterpretations of the Const. The actions were suspension of desegregationplan for public schools. State officials claimed they had a right to disobey theorder until the decision in Brown was further challenged.
Issue –
May state officials refuse to obey federal court orders resting onconstitutional grounds?
Held –
NO – Const. is the supreme law of the land. No state legislature orexecutive or judicial officer can refuse to obey a federal court order based ona federal interpretation of the constitution without violating the duty tosupport the const.
Constitutional and prudential limits on ConstitutionalAdjudication: “Case or Controversy” requirements.************************
Art III § 2 –
provides that the “judicial power shall extend to” certainenumerated categories of “cases” and “controversies”, meaning that an Art. IIIcourt (Federal court) may only exercise jurisdiction over those matters:
a.In which there is an ACTUAL DISPUTE involving the LEGALRELATIONS of the partiesb.For which the judiciary can provide some type of EFFECTIVERELIEF
1.Advisory opinionsa.Mass. Supreme court gives Advisory opinions all the time. However, theUS supreme court does not give advisory opinions b/c the constitution saidthat there should be some cases in controversy or conflict. There must be aREAL case that affects a result, it should not be hypothetical.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->