I.

FEDERAL POWERS A. Judicial Powers Marbury v. Madison: Congress does not have authority to expand the Supreme Court's jurisdiction so court does not have jurisdiction over the case. Article 3 only grants original jurisdiction "i[n] all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state is a party." 1a. The Constitution is supreme law of the land - Supremacy Clause Art IV 1 2a. It is the role of the judiciary to interpret the Constitution. Court can review acts of Congress at issue before them and see if they violate the Constitution. 3a. Marbury establishes the power of the judiciary to review the constitutionality of executive actions. (Reaffirmed in United States v. Nixon) 4a. However, court does not have jurisdiction to review a political right something within the presidents discretion. 5a. Congress cannot increase the Supreme Court's Original Jurisdiction. Cooper v. Aaron: Supreme Court is supreme interpreter of the Constitution. The Supreme Courts interpretation of the Constitution is binding on state legislatures and executive and judicial officers. Dickerson v. United States: Expands Marbury by saying that not only can court rule on whether or not law is unconstitutional but that Congress cannot overturn a Court ruling on a constitutional decision by a mere act; but can only overturn a Court ruling on constitutional decision by amending the Constitution through Art. 5 procedures. So together Cooper and Dickerson stand for the view that neither Congress nor the states can act to overturn a decision of the Supreme Court on an issue of Constitutional Law. Rule of Judicial Review from Marbury, Cooper, and Dickerson: 1. Constitution is supreme law of the land. 2. Court is supreme and ultimate interpreter of the Constitution. 3. Neither Congress nor the states can overturn Court ruling on constitutional decision without Constitutional Amendment. Ex Parte McCardle: Congress does have some power to limit the Courts jurisdiction. Supreme Court is conferred with such exceptions and under such regulations as Congress shall make. However, they do not have unlimited power to tamper with Supreme Courts appellate jurisdiction. (Congress has some power to control the boundaries of the Supreme Courts appellate jurisdiction.) i. Standing ***Standing: To have standing, a plaintiff must have (1) an injury-in-fact or suffer imminent injury, (2) the injury must be fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant (causation), and (3) Redressable by a favorable decision of the court.*** Constitutional Limits: The court has interpreted the Cases and Controversies Clause of Art 3 2 and the structure of the Constitution to limit the federal courts powers to hear certain disputes. minimum required by Constitution A. Injury (in fact or imminent, personal) B. Causation (fairly traceable) C. Redressability (likely) Prudential Limits: Where the court is not expressly limited by the Constitution but will not hear a case because it would be unwise. A. Third party standing (must assert own legal right) B. Generalized Grievances (shared in substantially equal measure by many) C. Zone of Interest (must fall within it) Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992): "Case or Controversy" Requirements; To establish standing, a plaintiff must show injury-in-fact, causation, and redressability, and Congress may not create a right of standing based on a generalized grievance against government.

Maj: Scalia w/ Thomas, Rehnquist, White | Con: Kennedy w/ Souter, Stevens | Dis: Blackmun, OConnor Massachusetts v. EPA (2007): "Case or Controversy Requirements; A plaintiff has standing if it demonstrates a concrete injury that is both fairly traceable to the defendant and redressable by judicial relief. Majority: Stevens w/ Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer, Kennedy | Dissent: Roberts w/ Scalia, Thomas, Alito Raines v. Byrd (1997): Court held that legislators have no standing to bring suit over deprivations of legislative prerogatives (rights) injury is wholly abstract and widely dispersed (appellees claimed that their votes on future appropriations bills will be less effective than before) ii. Political Question Doctrine Equal Protection Clause: Claims of violation of the equal protection clause have been found justiciable: Baker v. Carr: The Equal Protection Clause makes cases of legislative districting justiciable. This is the lead case in the Political Question Doctrine area. The Court has rarely found cases nonjusticiable because of the political question doctrine since Baker. (Equal Protection) The factors to be considered by the court in determining whether a case presents a political question are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. (CC= Constitutional Commitment) Is there a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department (i.e. foreign affairs or executive war powers)? (LJD) Is there a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving the issue? (ND)The impossibility of deciding the issue without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion. (R)The impossibility of a courts undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government. (A) Is there an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made? (E) Would attempting to resolve the matter create the possibility of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question?

iii. Advisory Opinions 1. Federal Courts are not allowed to give advisory opinions. 2. Advisory opinions opinions on the legality of executive of legislative action that do not involve an actual case iv. Mootness Mootness Doctrine: requires that an actual controversy must be extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed. Exceptions: 1) There is a continuing harm to the plaintiff. 2) There is a likelihood of recurrence of past harm, either to the plaintiff personally or to the group he represents. 3) The probability that some of the cases in the future will evade judicial review. v. Ripeness Ripeness Doctrine: seeks to prevent premature adjudication. It involves situations where the dispute is insufficiently developed so that it is too remote or speculative to warrant judicial action. II. LEGISLATIVE POWER A. Federalism McCulloch v. Maryland (1819): 1. Certain federal powers, which give Congress the discretion and power to choose and enact the means to perform the duties imposed upon it, are to be implied from the Necessary and Proper Clause. 2. The federal Constitution and the laws made pursuant to it are supreme and control the constitutions and the laws of the states.

U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton (1995): Maj: Stevens v/ Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer | Con: Kennedy | Dis: Thomas w/ Rehnquist, OConnor, Scalia