Justiciability Chart

  Generally Lujan Allen v Wright Sierra Club v Lyons Mass. V EPA

Morton

Injury- in Fact  Does not  Concrete  Injury too  Suffered   -Harms of global
  have to be and abstract personally by warming were actual
economic particularlized ( P's didn't allege that plaintiff and imminent
 Can be  Affect their children were
aesthetic plaintiff in specific victims of
personalized and harm caused by
direct ways private schools = no
personal injury)

Injury- actual and    P's had no      Injury 

imminent; not firm plans to must be actual
conjectural or travel to Africa in and imminent,
hypothetical near future not
 Injury too hypothetical
speculative  Injury of
being choked
before lacked
imminence of
being choked
again

Injury- Generalized  Injury        

Grievance caused by
  knowledge
that
government is
not following
the law

Causation  P's must  The aid that  Court found the    

 allege facts P's challenging inability for P's
that D's, and made up limited children to attend an
not some third percentage of integrated public
party not overseas projects school to be fairly
involved in the that were said to traceable to IRS
litigation are harm certain
responsible for endangered
the harm species; not proof
suffered... that but for US
money, the
projects would
not go forward

Redressability ..and it will be         -incrmental reduction

alleviated in greenhouse gas
through emissions enough for
successful redressability
litigation
Commerce Clause Charts
Modern: Congress can regulate any activity that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce
Modern CC Lopez
Relationship to Relationship between guns in
Interstate school and interstate commerce
Commerce "tangential and uncertain". No
substantial relationship.
 
Interpretation of Article I limits congressional
Article I powers by those that are express
or implied in constitution.
*narrow*
Congress Possession of gun near school may
Justification for result in violent crime that can
Authority adversely effect the economy.
Proof? Congressional Findings can help,
but not a guaranteed win for
congress
Test Substantially Related (articulation
of three part test; either channels,
instrumentalities, or substantial
relationship)
My Thoughts? Majority BS; this case changed 60
years of precedent . Return to
rational basis test?
Morrison
-Cumulative Substantial
-Congress cannot regulate a
noneconomic activity if by finding
that, looked at cumulatively, it has a
substantial effect on interstate
commerce.
More narrow than Lopez; cumulative
findings of substantial effects doesn't
count. Noneconomic activity is state
turf, not congress
Violence against women has
substantial effect on national
economy
TONS of congressional findings, but
court found them inadequate
Substantial Effect; "but-for" causal
chain not good enough.
Majority BS, should use rational basis,
violence against women has huge
impact on national economy
Pierce County v Guillen
-Channels of interstate commerce
= road safety. Findings by feds
non-discoverable
Congress has broad authority to
regulate channels
 
 
 
Gonzales v Raich
-Cumulative Substantial: Cultivation and
distribution of marijuana for medicinal use has
a cumulative substantial effect on interstate
commerce
-Instrumentalities:
Substantial Effect; express/implied power
 -Federal Scheme to regulate drugs
Intrastate production of a commodity sold in
interstate commerce is economic activity, thus
the substantial effect can be based on
cumulative impact on interstate commerce
BS;
10th Amendment Chart
Gregory v Ashcroft (1991)
Case Facts Missouri law required
mandatory retirement age-
Violation of Federal Age
Discrimination Employment
Act?
Pro-Feds or Pro-States Pro States;
-no clear statement in Act
Test Clear statement from
congress that the law was
meant to apply to the states
10th Amendment Used as rule of construction
Application
Political Process
Who Protects: -state autonomy important to
Judiciary or Political protect against tyranny
Process?
New York v US Printz Reno v Condon
-Radioactive waste case; -Brady Handgun Violence -Driver’s license
states must provide safe Prevention Act required information Protection Act
disposal of radioactive state and local police
waste generated w/in their officials to conduct
borders background checks
Pro States Pro States Pro Feds
-congress can regulate -congress cannot compel -
disposal of radioactive states to implement
waste, but cannot force federal program
states to accept ownership
of waste
Feds cannot compel states -compels state officers to - compelling states NOT to
to enact or administer a act do something different
federal regulation program from affirmative action
-BUT they can attach money
and other incentives and set
standards
teeth teeth Valid exercise of congress’
commerce power
Political Process Political Process Judiciary
-allowing congress to
require states to “take title”
undermines government
accountability because
states would be help
responsible for a decision
that was not theirs