|
|
|||||
|
|
|
I. Themes
a) Themes 1. Article III Section 2 is the primary source of power for the federal courts. 2. All fed cts are empowered by constitution, but not necessarily Article III. There are 2 types of Fed. Cts: (1) Article III cts. Federal cts shall have judicial power over all “cases and controversies”: a) Arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of U.S.; b) of admiralty or maritime jur.; c) In which the U.S. is a party; d) Between 2 or more states; e) Between a state and citizens of another state; f) Between citizens of different states; g) Between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states; h) Between a state or citizens and foreign states, citizens, or subjects. (2) Article I cts. Article I cts are cts created by Congress to implement legislative powers (ex: tax ct). LIMITATION: Congress may not take cases traditionally heard by Article III cts and assign them to Article I cts. 3. Even if a fed ct has jur. over the subject matter of a case, it still might refuse to hear the case. This depends on whether a ‘case or controversy’ is involved, and whether other limitations on jurisdiction are present. 4. No one can be labeled as liberal or conservative. We’re all one way or another depending on the topic. 5. Massey: “The only thing constant in life is change.”
II. Article III of U.S. Constitution
a) Hodgson v. Bowerbank (U.S. 1809) (pg. 7) 1. Facts: ∏’s were English citizens and sued Maryland ∆’s. But, the ∏’s did not mention the citizenship of ∆’s in the declaration (complaint). 2. Issue: Was there federal jurisdiction? 3. Holding: John Marhsall says no because on the face of Art. III Section II, jurisdiction is only granted to citizens of different states. 4. LESSON: (1) A statute cannot extend fed ct jurisdiction beyond that given by the Constitution [See also Marbury v. Madison]. (2) Demonstrates that one must state in the complaint the citizenship of both ∏ and ∆. 5. #1—This is not absolute. Although the Constitution does not provide for Removal, the First Judiciary Act granted it and it was upheld under “necessary and proper clause.”[1441] Also, some matters that are ‘supplemental’ may be heard in fed ct out of procedural convenience [1367]. Finally, there are arguments that the power Congress confers to fed cts is not limited to Art. III, but also includes Art. I. 6. #2—Does this relate to well-pleaded complaint rule?
b) Sheldon v. Sill (U.S. 1850) (pg. 8) 1. Facts: NY citizen (Sill) sues Michigan citizen (Sheldon) in Michigan to recover a bond and mortgage. ∆ claims that there’s no diversity jur. because the Judiciary Act limited jurisdiction so cts should not recognize suits to recover promissory notes in favor of the assignee (Sill). 2. Holding: Ct holds that there is no fed jur b/c Congress implements judicial power and can decide to what extent it shall be implemented. It does not have to implement all the power granted to Congress by Constitution. 3. LESSON: Although Congress is bound by the standards of judicial power set forth in Article III as to subject matter, parties, and ‘case or controversy,’ Congress has the power to delineate jurisdictional limits.
c) Test to Determine Jurisdiction: 1. Is the jurisdiction clear in the language of the Constitution? (Hodgson) 2. Once the jurisdiction exists, did Congress choose to implement it/limit it in the federal cts? (Sheldon v. Sill)
III. Justiciability
a) Justiciability is the ct’s way of deciding which cases are appropriate for the Supreme Ct to hear. It also conserves resources.
b) ***There are 4 kinds of cases that are non-justiciable are: (1) standing, (2) ripeness [not ready], (3) mootness [already decided], (4) political Question.
c) Standing requirements: (1) Case or Controversy, (2) Personal Stake, (3) Fairly traceable causal connection→conduct, (4) Redressibility
d) Baker v. Carr (U.S. 1962)—Political Question (pg. 14) 1. This case is the quintessential case on political question. 2. Facts: ∏’s bring suit about the re-apportionment of their voting districts and how they violated 14A. The Ct finds the matter justiciable b/c the case is not a political question—it’s a political case. This case deal with #4 of the non-justiciability categories. 3. *The Ct determines justiciability largely based on the complaint. Pleadings and justiciability are soul-mates (Aetna Life v. Haworth) 4. **To determine if the case is non-justiciable as a political Q, the ct looks at: (1) Where Constitution has vested the power to decide the question in another branch of gov’t, (2) There are no clear legal standards for deciding the dispute, (3) when deciding the case would intrude upon policy decisions and show a lack of respect to other branches of gov’t. 5. These are constitutional and Congress cannot override them. 6. Holding: Apportionment cases are justiciable. However, the case was not decided for the ∏’s; rather, the case was reversed and remanded so the merits of the case could be heard for the 1st time. The ∏ still had a difficult chance to win, but argued that the citizens had a right to vote free of arbitrary impairment by the state. 7. This case was important b/c legislation had changed the make-up of state legislatures and had ended the dominance of rural districts who were only 1/10 the population of urban districts. This led to the notion of “one man, one vote.” Tennesse wanted to keep 60-year old voting districts to keep voting power in rural areas and to ignore rising cities, where minorities lived. This case allowed the gov’t to truly be run by the people. 8. Within the 1st year of the result of the case, lawsuits to challenge legislative districts had been brought in 30 states. The dissent, who predicted destruction if the cts ventured into the field of legislative districting, was wrong. The case allowed a peaceful transition of democracy.
e) Craig v. Boren (U.S. 1976)—Personal Stake (pg. 22) 1. This case is about the limitations of 3rd party standing. 2. By the time this case was heard, the ∏ would be 21 and the ruling would no longer apply to him. So instead, the beer vendor brought the suit. The ct allowed it b/c the ∏ could show actual economic injury.
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||
