Federal Courts Outline
Table of Contents
Justiciability
Advisory Opinions
Finality and Extrajudicial Functions
Standing to Sue
Mootness
Political Question
Congressional Control of Jurisdiction
Congress’s Power over Jurisdiction
Control of State Jurisdiction
The Applicable Law
State Law in Federal Courts
Federal Common Law
Rights of Action
Federal Jurisdiction
Judicial Power Under Article III
Statutory Jurisdiction
Supplemental Jurisdiction
Lawsuits Against Governments
Suits Against the Federal Government
Suits Against States
Abstention
The Anti-Injunction Act
Pullman Abstention
Younger Abstention
Habeas Corpus
Extrajudicial Detention
The Basic Rule and Factual Issues
Cognizable Claims
New Rules and Standard of Review
Procedurally Defaulted Claims
The Judicial Function
The Nature of the Judicial Function (Private v. Public Rights)
1)Where there is a legal right there is a legal remedy
a)Marbury v. Madison - Essence of civil liberty exists in right of an individual to claim a remedy to wrongs
b)if right is violated, and legal system hasn’t clearly codified what the remedy is, the courts will create one
i)Marbury v. Madison - the judicial remedy of mandamus is always available (every remedy is a judicial one. If there’s no remedy, they’ll make one up.)
2)It’s emphatically the court’s duty is to say what the law is
a)The job of the court is to decide cases and controversies; not to uphold the Constitution, etc.
b)However, since it is the court’s job to decide questions under the Constitution, it must “of necessity expound and interpret that rule.”
i)once it is deciding, the court is authorized to do everything necessary to decide the case (involved passing on Qs of law, interpreting the Constitution, etc.)
ii)Justifies constitutional review
3)Retroactivity in judicial decision making
a)Changes in rules of judicial decision-making must be applied retroactively (Harper v. Virginia Dep’t of Taxation)
i)Applies to civil and criminal rules
b)Selective prospectivity is forbidden
i)Applying the new rule only to this case but not others pending would be making impermissible choices like a legislature
c)Pure prospectivity is forbidden
i)Applying a new rule only to future cases and not the case of decision and pending cases would defeat point of bringing suit, would be legislature-like
4)The Supreme Court’s Certiorari Power
a)“Review of a writ of certiorari is not a matter of right, but of judicial discretion. A petition for a writ of certiorari will be granted only for compelling reasons, including: Court of Appeals split; state supreme court split; state court or Appeals Court has decided important federal question that should be decided by the Supreme Court; and rarely when asserted error consists of erroneous fact findings of application of law.”
i)More consistent with a “public view”: Court gets to decide if it’s important; this is not deciding on case-by-case basis
5)Constitutional Interpretations Outside the Courts
a)Once the Supreme Court rules, contrary interpretations are not allowed (Cooper v. Aaron)
6)Public Rights v. Private Rights views:
a)Private rights
i)The sole function of the federal courts is to decide particular cases about alleged violations of a particular plaintiff’s rights
ii)Holding statutes unconstitutional, ordering government officials to cease unlawful behavior, and other rulings of significance to society that impact others aside from the parties at bar are incidental to the courts’ case-deciding function
b)Public rights
i)The function of federal courts goes beyond simply deciding particular cases between particular parties
ii)Federal courts have special responsibilities that aren’t incidental to their case-deciding function, but are themselves justification for judicial action, such as:
(1)Interpreting and enforcing the Constitution and laws
(2)Ensuring that federal and state governments behave lawfully
7)SC granting Certiorari:
a)Matter of judicial discretion
b)Granted only for compelling reasons:
i)Circuit courts have split on the same matter
ii)A circuit court has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with a decision by a state court of last resort
iii)A circuit court has so far departed from the usual course of judicial proceedings that the Court should exercise supervisory power
iv)A state court of last resort has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with the decision of another state court of last resort or federal court of appeals
v)A state court of last resort or federal court of appeals has decided an important question of federal law that hasn’t been (or should be) settled by the Supreme Court, or has decided a case in a way that conflicts with relevant Court decisions
c)This reflects a public rights view – the Supreme Court only decides the important cases, as opposed to all cases that could potentially come before it
d)SC Rule 46 - If the parties both ask for dismissal, it’s granted (private rights view)
Justiciability
Advisory Opinions
8)Rule: The Courts do not issue advisory opinions (Letter from C.J. Jay to President Washington)
a)Exception: federal courts not barred from reviewing state action to determine its constitutionality
i)SC could review constitutionality of Arkansaws in failing to comply with Brown v. Board (Cooper v. Aaron)
9)Policy (why no advisory opinions?)
a)Instrumentalist answers:
i)Beneficial for the judges to have all the arguments in front of them
(1)(could appt. counsel to argue each side, but doctrinal reasons keep us from doing this)
ii)“Council of revision’ argument: proposal that after Congress passed a bill, it would go to counsel which could reject the bill, later became the veto power
(1)It’s rejection is evidence that no one wanted courts to issue advisory opinions
(2)BUT this may not be a good point; Council of Revision could reject for any reason, whereas the Court must reject for Constitutional reasons only
b)Doctrinal answers:
i)The Constitution creates a case or controversy requirement
ii)Inherent in the nature of judicial power is not to issue advisory opinions
(1)However, this was NOT the rule at English courts (M’Naughten’s Case)
(2)English judges can issue advisory opinions, as can judges in Canada, Germany, ICJ and some US states (MA, FL)
c)Other answers:
i)Three branches intended to be checks on each other
ii)Court of last resort – may decide questions of law if they come up in cases, but only then. (Private rights view)
iii)Constitutional grant of power to President to call on heads of departments for opinions seems to be purposely and expressly given to the executive
d)NOTE: Declaratory Judgment NOT an advisory opinion:
i)Declaratory Judgment Act (28 U.S.C.§ 2201)
ii)Willing v. Chicago Auditorium Association (1928) (Brandeis)
(1)Willing was unsure if his lease permitted him to replace a building it built on its land with a more modern building, and sued for a declaration that he wouldn’t be liable to the Association for doing so
(2)This case did not present a case or controversy under Article III
iii)Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Haworth (1937) (Hughes)
(1)Affirmed the constitutionality of the Declaratory Judgment Act
(2)The practice of bringing cases solely for legal or equitable relief in 1789 isn’t the only possible way to present a case or controversy to the courts under Article III
iv)Dicta does not constitute an advisory opinion
(1)Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York (1978) (Brennan)
(a)Employees of New York City sought relief under § 1983 on grounds that the city adopted official policies that violated their rights
(b)The Court held that § 1983 permits suit against municipalities, then stated at length that it wouldn’t have permitted the suit if it hadn’t involved an official city policy or established city custom
(c)Stevens, Concurring – the discussion of official city policy and custom was advisory, and not needed to explain the Court’s opinion
Finality and Extrajudicial Functions
10)Rule: Statutes which would render court decisions less than final are invalid (Hayburn’s Case, 1792)
a)Actions which are reviewable by executive officials are not really judicial actions
i)Act allowed veterans to claim pensions by making certain showings to a judge, but made these reviewable by secretary of War, therefore unconstitutional (Hayburn’s case)
ii)Case which would have required Treasury Secretary to submit an appropriation to effectuate a judgment was not a proper judicial case (Gordon v. United States (1864))
(1)No more treasury appropriation, no more problem (United States v. Jones)
b)When the judgments of judges are subject to control and review by the legislature they are no longer judicial (separation of powers)
11)Rule: The executive and legislative branches have no power of review over the judicial acts or opinions of a court
a)Legislation mandating retroactive review of final decisions violates constitution
i)Statute retroactively lengthening statute of limitations for securities violations was invalid (Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc. (1995))
12)Rule: the federal courts may not act extrajudicially
a)Statutes which command the court to take extrajudicial action are invalid
b)Exception: Judges may act extrajudicially IF
i)They are acting in their individual capacity
(1)Distinction: does the statute command a “judge” or the “court”
ii)A particular extrajudicial assignment wouldn’t undermine the integrity of the court
(1)Extradition proceedings are fine (Lo Duca v. United States)
iii)The extrajudicial role is optional – judges may simply volunteer
c)Common application: extradition commissioners
i)§3184 vests judges (individuals) with the power to act extrajudicially
13)NOTE: “Incompatibility clause” of Constitution prevents members of congress from serving in judicial or executive roles
a)Clause does NOT apply to judges or executive officials – they can cross over
Standing to Sue
14)Doctrinal Foundations
a)Doctrinal arguments:
i)“Case and Controversy” requirement of Constitution (Allen v. Wright)
ii)separation of powers
(1)Courts may not restrict or restrain the actions of congress when not necessary to decide a case (Frothingham v. Mellon)
(2)Province of legislature to make the laws
(3)Some matters better left to the political process (Flast v. Cohen)
b)Instrumental arguments:
i)Not requiring standing would “open the floodgates” to too many lawsuits (Frothingham v. Mellon)
ii)We prefer that the legislature has incentives to get the law right
iii)Actual injury insures robust argument on each side
(1)Important for remedy and to ensure no advisory opinions
(2)Establishment Clause of constitution is important enough to ensure robust litigation (Flast v. Cohen)
(3)BUT there is no guarantee that those with actual injury will litigate more aggressively or argue more persuasively
c)Policy:
i)Pro-restrictive standing
ii)Anti-restrictive standing
d)Judge Fletcher: standing should go to the merits
i)Should depend on whether statutory or constitutional claim is raised
(1)Congress has duty to define standing for statutory issues
ii)Proposed test:
(1)What law is being violated?
(a)Straightforward – where is the right coming from?
(2)What is that law trying to achieve?
(a)The incompatability clause gives general rights, therefore anyone should be able to sue on it (Schlesinger v. Reservists)
(b)The right to protect national parks from development is similar to nuisance, should grant users of park legal rights (Sierra Club)
e)O’Connor in Allen v. Wright (1984):
i)Standing embraces judicially self-imposed limits on the exercise of federal judicial power
ii)Standing requires that a plaintiff allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief
iii)An injury must be distinct and palpable, not abstract, conjectural, or hypothetical
iv)The standing inquiry requires careful judicial examination of a complaint to ascertain if the particular plaintiff is entitled to adjudication of the claim asserted
v)The standing inquiry must be answered in reference to:
(1)The Article III notion that federal courts exercise power only as a necessity, and only when adjudication is consistent with a system of separation of powers
(2)Whether the dispute is one traditionally thought to be capable of resolution through the judicial process
15)Procedural notes:
a)The standing inquiry focuses on the plaintiff, not the issues sought to be adjudicated (Simon v. Easstern Kentucky Welfare Rights)
b)Standing is judged differently for each remedy (and each claim?) see infra
16)Constitutional Injury Requirements:
a)Old test: injury requires invasion of legal rights (Tennessee Electric v. TVA)
i)Rights are those which existed at common law: property, contract, tort, or created by statute
b)Modern test (3+ parts):
i)Injury in fact:
(1)Test: injury must be
(a)Concrete and particularized
(b)Actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical
(2)“a party must show not only that a statute is invalid, but also that he sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining a direct injury from its enforcement” (Frothingham)
(a)Ideological or political interest is NOT enough
(i)Disney was granted a bid to construct and operate a ski resort, and a 20-mile road leading to the resort, in the Mineral King Valley in Sequoia National Park, Sierra Club sued for declaratory judgment under the APA as a corporation with a special interest in the conservation of nature, SC says this is not cognizable injury (Sierra Club v. Morton)
- Dissent (Douglas): inanimate object should have standing
(b)Competitive business injury IS enough
(i)ADPSO, which sells data processing services to businesses, sued Camp, Comptroller of the Currency, to challenge a ruling making data processing services available to banks, SC says this is sufficient (ADPSO v. Camp)
(3)Probability of injury:
(a)Test: To have standing, a plaintiff who hasn’t already suffered an injury must show the threatened injury is certainly impending
(i)Plaintiffs challenged the 2008 amendments to FISA, which authorize the federal government to surveill aliens abroad, on grounds that they communicated with foreigners likely to be targets of such surveillance and their calls would likely be intercepted, SC says too speculative (Clapper v. Amnesty International)
(4)Generalized grievances are NOT injuries (arguably a prudential test)
(a)Generalized grievances:
(i)Taxpayers have standing when they can show sufficient nexus indicating…
- The status and type of legislative enactment, as opposed to incidental expenditure of funds in administering a law
- Insufficient – allegation that tax exemptions for transferring property to sectarian schools violated the establishment clause was rooted not in congress’s exercise of the tax and spend power but in an agency’s decision to transfer federal property (Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State)
- The status and precise nature of the constitutional infringement alleged (i.e., that the challenged law exceeds limitations imposed on the exercise of taxing and spending power, not just that an enactment is generally beyond Congress’s taxing and spending power)
- Insufficient - Taxpayer challenge to the Maternity Act, which provided money to states should they accept and comply with its provisions, challenged under 10th amendment coercion of state sovereignty grounds, was generalized grievance (Frothingham v. Mellon)
- Sufficient - Petitioner taxpayers filed suit to enjoin allegedly unconstitutional expenditure of federal funds to finance instruction in religious schools (Flast v. Cohen)
(ii)Information-seekers:
- Right to know expenditures of the CIA is generalized (US v. Richardson)
- FECA requires every PAC to file reports with the FEC listing receipts, expenditures, and donors who have contributed more than $200 per year, confers right to know this info to citizens (FEC v. Akins)
(iii)Right to restrict congressmen from serving in military (incompatibility clause) is insufficient (Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee to stop the war)
(iv)alleging that insufficient denial of tax-exempt status to racially discriminatory private schools interferes with their children’s ability to receive an education in public schools was generalized grievance (Allen v. Wright)
(b)Exception: Generalized grievances are ok to vindicate fundamental rights
(i)Interest in Establishment Clause may be sufficient (Flast v. Cohen)
(c)PROF: this may make more sense in prudential column
(5)Organizational standing:
(a)Organizations must show that some member actually would be injured (Sierra Club v. Morton)
(b)Environmental organizations challenged a decision by the U.S. Forest Service to exempt certain land management decisions from allegedly mandatory procedures, alleged that “thousands of members regularly used national forests”, SC denies standing because specific members who will be harmed are not identified (Summers v. Earth Island Institute)
ii)Causation requirement:
(1)Rule: the Case or Controversy Clause requires federal plaintiffs to allege a threatened or actual injury that “fairly can be traced” to the challenged action of the defendant, not independent action of an unnamed third party
(a)Government’s granting of tax status to hospital did not cause indigent plaintiffs to be denied care (Simon v. KY Welfare Rights)
iii)Redressability requirement:
(1)Rule: plaintiff’s grievance must be likely to be redressed by a favorable decision
(a)Redressability found:
(i)Revoking special privilage of women to get SS benefits when not dependant WOULD redress injury of male suing under Equal Protection Clause (Heckler v. Mathews)
- Injury was that he was not being equally protected
(b)Redressability not found:
(i)Revoking tax exemption of discriminatory private schools would not necessarily lead to change in school policies or change behavior of white parents (Allen v. Wright)
(ii)Changing of government’s policy in granting tax-exempt status was too unlikely to cause hospital to accept plaintiffs as patients (Simon v. KY Welfare Rights)
(iii)Conviction of father for failing to pay child support would not necessarily lead to him paying it (Linda RS v. Richard D)
- He could just go to jail, ect.
(iv)Invalidation of ordinance requiring single family homes would not necessarily lead to indigent plaintiffs acquiring affordable housing (Warth v. Seldin)
(c)Decisions of prosecuting authorities:
(i)Citizens lack standing to contest the policies of prosecuting authority when they themselves are neither prosecuted nor threatened with prosecution
iv)Policy:
(1)When the government is making a reasonable interpretation of a law, the courts are hesitant to upset it
(a)Particularly when the interpretation might not be cause of plaintiff’s injury
(2)Courts don’t want to take away traditional prosecutorial discretion of the government
v)NOTE: re-characterizing injury can completely change standing
(1)If Heckler was asking for money, he wouldn’t have had a case