FEDERAL COURTS – OUTLINE – FALL 2003

PROFESSOR SIEGAL

THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION

Marbury v. Madison – the very essence of civil liberty is the notion of: “Where there is a right, there is a remedy”

-Under the Judiciary Act, the Supreme Court could issue Marbury’s mandamus – but the Judiciary Act conflicts with the Constitution

  • The Constitution tells us that the Supreme Court can hear cases of original jurisdiction only under specific circumstances – the Judiciary Act said that issuing the writ could be under original jurisdiction – but this was not an issue that was included in the Constitution as being one of original jurisdiction for the Supreme Court

-If the Constitution and an Act of Congress conflict, the Constitution trumps the Act

  • The people (principal) adopted the Constitution that the Framers (agents) developed – the command of the principal is superior to that of its agents

-Marshall declared that the court’s job is to decide cases and controversies under Article III

  • We decide cases according to the law – deciding cases requires courts to be able to say what the law is
  • Jurisdiction = power to say what the law is
  • This case gives the courts the power of judicial review over actions taken by the legislative and executive branches of government

-Two Critical Points

  • The courts have the power to say what the law is ONLY in connection with a case – courts cannot intrinsically issue statements of law
  • If the court has a case before it, the court is empowered to decide ALL questions of law that are necessary to decide the case

Concepts of Retroactivity and Prospectivity

-Almost all decisions made by the Supreme Court are retroactive

  • Courts are supposed to decide cases as they pertain to the parties before them, not prescribe rules for the future – prospective rulemaking is the job of the legislature

PRIVATE RIGHTS MODEL VS. PUBLIC RIGHTS MODEL

Private Rights Model – the court’s job is to decide only the case before it and not prescribe laws for the future or attempt to reform society

-Courts tend to adhere to this model

-Private Rights reading of Marbury

  • The province of the court is to solely decide the rights of individuals, not enforce the laws
  • In the course of deciding a case, a court may be called on to enforce the law, but this function is only incidental to deciding cases

-Consequnces: no prospective decisions, no advisory opinions

Public Rights Model – the court’s job is to decide questions of law, there should be less emphasis on the specific case

-Reasoning – we have more laws and government seems to be more focused on groups over individuals

  • The court’s job is to reform society and ensure that government behaves responsibly

-Public Rights reading of Marbury

  • The province of the court is to say what the law is – we should allow courts to decide cases only as a mechanism of enforcing the laws

Because courts adhere to the private rights model, we can only promote issues by creating a CASE

What constitutes a “CASE”?

-Very early on, courts made it clear that when a court articulates law, it can only be done in the context of a case – courts are not permitted to answer purely abstract questions with advisory opinions

  • No advisory or prospective opinions will be issued by the court

-Consequences:

  • Hayburn’s Case – statute instructed courts to hear pension claims following the Revolutionary War
  • The Attorney General was not permitted to bring suit ex officio challenging the validity of the statute – he had no client, thus he was asking the court to issue an advisory opinion
  • The statute allowed the Secretary of War final discretion over whether a soldier received his pension – essentially the Secretary acted as an appellate court over the federal court’s decision
  • RULE – this was not allowed; a case is not a case unless the judicial decision is the FINAL, definitive decision
  • Lobue v. Christopher – concept of extradition
  • A judge must examine three extraditability requirements – if all requirements are met, the judge must sign a certificate of extraditability
  • The Secretary of State then has the discretion to extradite a person
  • This scheme does not violate Hayburn – the court definitively decides whether a person is extraditable or not, and the Secretary considers things that a judge cannot take into account (i.e. diplomatic matters)
  • Ironically - Courts often decide cases – leaving another decision to someone else
  • LoDuca v. United States – court rules the extradition statute is okay because the power to issue the certificate is given to a JUDGE, not a court
  • Only courts are bound by Article III – not judges acting as commissioners
  • Judges can act in an executive capacity sometimes without violating the Incompatability Clause (only applies to Members of Congress)
  • Acting as a commissioner must be optional – judicial integrity and independence would be undermined if Congress could mandate them acting as commissioners
  • Congress cannot, via statute, circumvent the prohibition against advisory opinions

STANDING TO SUE

Frothingham v. Mellon – plaintiff challenging the constitutionality of the Maternity Act – states that it violates the 10th Amendment because Congress is spending money on an issue that is traditionally a state, not a federal, concern

-Supreme Court dismisses the case –

  • Plaintiff’s claim rested on her status as a taxpayer – her grievance is too generalized and attenuated
  • Even if one could trace how much of the plaintiff’s money went to the federal program, it would be a very small amount
  • If court allowed this case – people would flood the courts with constitutional questions
  • Also, Article III requires standing – courts given limited power to only decide cases and controversies

-Requirements to bring a case –

  • Injury
  • Personal Stake
  • Less attenuated claim

-If we assume the Maternity Act is unconstitutional, why couldn’t the court have said so in this case?

  • This is the essence of the private rights model – the court’s role is to decide cases as they arise, not to enforce the Constitution

Four Standing Theories:

-Separation of Powers – standing limits federal courts to their proper role in a democratic society

  • We want elected officials making the most important decisions – courts should only act when necessary to protect the injured

-Instrumental Theory – we have an adversary system; standing promotes only parties who have a vested interest in vindicating their claims to litigate

  • Courts make the best decisions when parties make strong arguments
  • Courts decide cases based on who makes the best arguments – judges depend on hard work from both sides of the courtroom
  • Flast v. Cohen - The gist of standing is whether the party seeking relief has alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness
  • Taxpayer has standing to sue to overturn a federal tax or spending program that violates the Establishment Clause
  • The law must be a tax and spend law, not a regulatory law
  • Sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions

-Constitutional Theory – the Constitution tells us that courts can hear only cases and controversies; deciding cases requires parties to have standing

  • Historically, English courts only recognized plaintiffs with property injuries, torts, or breach of contract claims (called “Holfeldian Plaintiffs”)
  • Now, courts recognize a wide variety of injuries for a number of reasons:
  • Litigation is expensive, so organized money (associations, corporations) is more likely to bring suit
  • Rise of social issues
  • More laws on a variety of issues
  • Government more involved in citizens’ lives – people have more of a stake in government behavior

-Cynical Theory – no doctrine of standing; if the court likes a party’s case, it will hear it regardless of standing

Standing and Causes of Action

-Fletcher Argument – we should have a standing doctrine for each cause of action, not a blanket standing test that applies in all cases

-Other Argument – there is one test for standing, no matter what the case

  • Supreme Court supports this “one-size-fits-all” doctrine – a plaintiff must show injury-in-fact
  • If the plaintiff is injured in fact, there is standing, regardless of the merits of the claim

Standing Requirements –

-Allen v. Wright set forth six principle standing requirements:

  • Constitutional Standing Requirements
  • INJURY – plaintiff must be injured
  • CAUSATION – plaintiff’s injury must allegedly be caused by an act of the defendant
  • REDRESSABILITY – court must be able to grant relief that will redress the injury
  • Prudential Standing Requirements
  • Third-Party Claims not allowed
  • Generalized Grievances not allowed
  • Claims must fall within the ZONE OF INTEREST protected by the statute

CONSTITUTIONAL STANDING REQUIREMENTS

-INJURY

  • Old view of injury
  • Tennessee Valley Authority – power companies challenged the constitutionality of the federal government’s creation of an electric company; companies claimed injury from losing business because of the increased competition
  • Court said there was no injury because the party had no legal right to be free from competition
  • Rule for the Old View – there is only injury if the plaintiff has a legal interest or right that the defendant has invaded
  • Modern view of injury
  • ADAPSO – government changed a bank regulation, allowing banks to perform data-processing services; data processing companies challenged on the grounds that they were losing money due to increase competition
  • Court said – the plaintiff must allege an injury in fact, economic or otherwise
  • Injury in fact = merits are irrelevant; we look at whether what happened to the plaintiff is, in fact, an injury
  • In this case, losing money was recognized as an injury in fact
  • Court will recognize actual or imminent injuries to aesthetics, recreation, economy, spirit, etc.
  • Injury in fact is more of a social test – we look at whether society would regard something as an injury
  • Modern Rule – the plaintiff must allege injury in fact and that he/she is within the zone of interest that the agency is trying to protect
  • Why the change?
  • If the government is regulating, the citizens have a right to challenge the regulation if it harms them
  • Despite not needing a legal right to have standing, a party will still need a legal right to win its case
  • Sierra Club v. Morton – plaintiff asserts that the US Forest Service is violating environmental statutes by giving Disney a permit to build a resort
  • Supreme Court said no standing – Sierra Club is not injured by asserting that its injury stems from injury to the environment
  • Just having a special interest, or caring strongly about an issue, is not good enough to establish standing  the plaintiff must show injury in fact
  • However, if we view standing under the instrumental doctrine, the Sierra Club could probably make great arguments
  • US v. Richardson – plaintiff claims he cannot vote intelligently because the CIA is not publishing its budget
  • Supreme Court said no standing – plaintiff is asserting a generalized grievance that is universally shared by all; injury is too attenuated
  • Situations in which everyone is sharing the same injury are best addressed by Congress, not the courts
  • Nonetheless, it is very difficult for one person to influence Congress to change something
  • Despite the fact that the Constitution was designed to protect everyone, we cannot let everyone sue under the notion of a generalized grievances
  • Professor Fletcher would argue that the test for standing should be specific to cause of action – if the Constitution Clauses are designed to protect the public, there is standing for the public if they are not protected

-CAUSATION and REDRESSABILITY

  • Causation = some connection between the injury alleged by the plaintiff and an action by the defendant
  • Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Association – plaintiff did not get medical care from the hospital and sued, alleging that an IRS decision prevented the free medical care
  • Court said no standing – it is too speculative to say that but for the IRS decision, the plaintiff would get free service
  • Redressability = the plaintiff’s injury must be likely to be redressed, if the court rules for the plaintiff
  • Warth v. Seldin – plaintiffs are low-income people wanting to live in Penfield, but say that city zoning requirements make it impossible to build low-income housing
  • Court said no standing – there is no evidence that a zoning policy prevented building; no evidence that the policy is causing the injury, not that it would be redressed by a favorable court decision
  • Allen v. Wright – plaintiffs argue that if private schools are not segregated, more whites would go to public schools, providing a more diverse education in the public schools
  • Court said no standing – lack of causation and redressability
  • Heckler v. Mathews – government program provided benefits by the following scheme: if husband was original beneficiary, wife was automatically entitled to benefits, if wife was original beneficiary, husband had to prove dependency on the wife; Congress inserted a fallback provision that if this scheme was unconstitutional, nobody gets the benefits
  • Government argues plaintiff has no standing – he could not show dependency and even if he could, the fallback provision might kick in
  • Court rules the scheme unconstitutional and grants the plaintiff standing – says that plaintiff being denied equal treatment under the law is an injury that can be redressed by the court (even if he ultimately receives no benefits)
  • This is a case where the court recharacterizes the plaintiff’s injury
  • Common Theme in these cases – plaintiffs are suing a government official, but the alleged injury is coming from some private entity in between
  • Injury is coming from a third party that is benefiting in some way from the government – government is not a direct, immediate source of the injury

-Injury, Causation, and Redressability – all come from Article III of the US Constitution

CONGRESSIONAL CONTROL OVER STANDING

-Havens Realty v. Coleman – plaintiffs (HOME Organization) sent black and white testers to a realty company to look for racial steering; testers got different results

  • Court granted standing to the black tester – said the Fair Housing Act guards against racial discrimination (statute made false information based on race discrimination)
  • Statute confers a legal right to truthful information an injury to a legal right can satisfy the injury requirement
  • Congress can create standing that would not otherwise exist – the actual or threatened injury may exist solely by virtue of statutes creating legal rights, the invasion of which creates standing
  • Organizations can have standing if one of its members has standing – court granted HOME standing because its organizational mission was impeded by racial steering
  • This is probably a situation where the court granted standing because it needed to remedy the racial discrimination taking place

-Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife – Endangered Species Act required every government agency to ensure actions do not jeopardize endangered species; statute also contained a “citizen-suit” provision stating that anyone could sue to enforce the statute

  • Plaintiff claimed injury based on its members traveling abroad and planning to return in the future to see the animals
  • Court said no standing:
  • No injury – injury claimed was not “actual or imminent” because the plaintiff did not have specific plans to return
  • No redressability – the US was only funding 10% of the projects that were destroying habitats
  • Citizen-Suit Provision – Congress does not have limitless power to create standing; the plaintiff must be differentially affected from others
  • Congress cannot grant standing for a generalized grievance
  • Kennedy – there is a difference between granting legal rights and authorizing anyone to sue
  • By putting in a citizen-suit provision, Congress is usually trying to keep the executive branch in check

-FEC v. Akins – plaintiff claimed an informational injury because the FEC had determined that AIPAC was not a PAC and thus did not have to file reports

  • Court granted standing – informational injury was injury in fact and plaintiff had prudential standing by Congressional conferral
  • When Congress confers standing, prudential requirements are waived, but constitutional requirements must still be met
  • When harms are widely shared, but the plaintiff’s injury is only abstract, this constitutes a generalized grievance  no standing
  • When harms are widely shared, but the plaintiff’s injury is concrete  this is enough to grant standing
  • Congress cannot grant a right that would abolish the standing doctrine – “harm to common concern for disobedience of the law” is not a legally recognized right or injury

PRUDENTIAL REQUIREMENTS

-ZONE OF INTEREST

  • Gorris v. Scott – statute said that if one was shipping sheep by boat, they must be in separate pens, in order to protect the sheep from disease
  • Defendant did not comply with statute – plaintiff’s sheep washed overboard
  • Plaintiff has suffered an injury at the hands of the defendant – however, the court said no standing because the statute did not intend to protect this type of injury
  • Clarke v. Securities Industry Association – court says the zone of interest requirement comes from §706 of the Administrative Procedures Act which says that a person within the meaning of a relevant statute can seek judicial review of an administrative action
  • This involves an understanding of what Congress intended to do when the statute was passed
  • Air Courier Conference of America v. American Postal Workers Union – Postal Service has a monopoly over the delivery of all mail; statute created an exception for extremely urgent mail; Postal Workers complained
  • Plaintiffs had constitutional standing, but did not meet the zone of interest requirement – the statute was designed to protect the postal monopoly from using unprofitable routes, and prevent private companies from taking the profitable routes
  • The statute only incidentally benefited the postal workers – at the time the statute was passed, there was no such thing as a federal postal worker – Congress could not possibly have intended to protect these plaintiffs
  • This case suggests that the zone of interest test is conducted by looking at Congressional intent and whether Congress intended the statute to benefit the class of people of whom the plaintiff is a member
  • National Credit Union Administration v. First National Bank and Trust Co – Federal Credit Union Act requires federal credit unions’ membership to be composed of groups sharing a common bond of occupation or association; designed to promote the safety of credit unions and their beneficiaries
  • The administrative agency approved of multiple groups joining credit unions – banks were upset, saying this was an improper interpretation of the common bond provision
  • Court grants standing to the banks – despite the fact that the statute was NOT originally designed to protect banks
  • Test Used by the Court – competitors of regulated entities having standing to challenge regulations --> Two-Part Test
  • Discern what interests (NOT what parties) are arguably protected by the statute
  • Are the plaintiff’s interests affected by agency action among the protected interests? If yes --> zone of interest test is met
  • Possible problem – Possible elimination of the zone of interest test – if one is injured by a violation of a statute, one has an interest in enforcement of the statute, automatically placing one in the zone of interest
  • The law seems to say that if a party is a commercial enterprise, specifically complaining that competitors are not being regulated strictly, one is automatically within the zone of interest
  • If one is a union, an activist, an environmentalist – one will have to show that Congress intended to benefit them
  • Some argue that if an agency relaxes a law, and we allow parties who are not happy with the new provisions to have standing, we are allowing people to meddle into litigation – we should not allow litigation to stir, if the originally benefited parties are happy
  • Professor Fletcher’s Argument – in each case, we should ask who the law was intending to benefit (AirCourier)
  • We should do away with the injury requirement, and just use a zone of interest test – this is the true essence of standing (standing should limit plaintiffs to what they explicitly deserve)
  • Zone of Interest Test as it now stands – the plaintiff must have the requisite relationship with the allegedly violated law
  • Two Views on the Requisite Relationship –
  • Plaintiff must be the intended beneficiary of the law that is allegedly violated (AirCourier and Fletcher)
  • The group intending to be protected is happy, other third-parties are just stirring up needless litigation
  • Plaintiff is within the zone of interest if the plaintiff has interests the law seeks to promote (Credit Union)
  • Court seems to indicate that even here, the plaintiff’s interest must not be merely fortuitous – the interest cannot be only marginally related to Congressional intent

STANDING TO SEEK PARTICULAR REMEDIES

-City of Los Angeles v. Lyons – plaintiff seeks damages and an injunction prohibiting cops from using chokeholds in the future when they are not being threatened