Constitutional Law I Justiciability Part I Sept. 8, 2004.

Constitutional Law I

Justiciability – Part I

Sept. 8, 2004

Fall, 2004 ConLawI - Manheim 2

Types of Limits on Judicial Power

Interpretive LimitsStatutory LimitsArticle III Limits (justiciability doctrines)


Types of Limits on Judicial Power

Interpretive LimitsStatutory LimitsArticle III Limits (justiciability doctrines)


Article IIISection 2: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States … to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party …"



The power to apply the law to legal

disputes



legal dispute between litigants

based on facts



Synonym for "cases"


Case or Controversy requirement

Legal dispute between litigants based on actual facts No advisory opinions No conjectural, premature or stale

cases Only litigants with real & personal

disputes of adversarial character No political disputes (i.e., matters not

suited for adjudication in court of law)

Marshall: “Questions, in their nature political, or which are, by the

Constitution and laws, submitted to the executive, can never be made in

this Court."


Prudential rules (self-restraint)

Exercise power of judicial review only as last resort Decide constitutional questions last

Decide state issues 1st Decide federal statutory issues 2nd

Construe statutes as to render them const'l Decide cases on narrowest grounds Plaintiff must assert personal right Court must be able to issue meaningful

relief


Advisory OpinionsMarshall's syllogism for judicial review Courts must decide cases; If those cases set up the constitution as a

right or defense, courts must be allowed to look to the constitution;

If the constitution is supreme, it must provide the rule of decision in every case in which invoked

but only when necessary to decide actual cases


Opinion of the JusticesInterpretation of peace treaty Why did Washington/Jefferson want a judicial

interpretation? Why didn't Jay want to provide it? If not S.Ct., who gives President legal advice?

Art. II, § 2, ¶ 1: "the President … may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective offices …"

Contrast state Supreme Courts


Judicial FinalityHeyburn's Case (1792) Federal Courts cannot make mere

"recommendations" to other branchesRes Judicata Full effect to decided cases

Even if wrongly decided?


Plaut v. Spendthrift Farms (1995)

Statute of limitations - Rule 10(b)(5) casesS.Ct. interpretation of federal statute? Does S.Ct. ever misinterpret a federal

law? What recourse does Congress have?Change in underlying substantive law Applicability for future cases Applicability for case already decided


Plaut v. Spendthrift Farms (1995)

Change in underlying substantive law Applicability for pending casesDistinction between types of relief sought Retroactive relief (e.g., Klein v. U.S.)

When plaintiff seeks a remedy for past harms (e.g., damages, restitution), the law applied is that which existed when cause of action accrued

Prospective relief (e.g., Robertson v. Audubon Soc.) When plaintiff demands that defendant

comply with the law, to prevent ongoing or future harm, the law applied is the law that exists when judgment is entered


UnderStanding StandingArticle III courts have limited jurisdiction SoP and Federalism reasonsSubject matter limits 9 heads of SMJ in Art. III, §2, ¶ 1Case & Controversy (types of disputes) These are the justiciability doctrines

Standing Ripeness Mootness Political Question

Const. limits & rules of prudential self-restraint


StandingTheory Federal courts can exercies judicial power

only in cases and controversies of an "adversarial nature" To be adversarial, litigants must be in particular

relationship with one another such that they have personal stake in outcome of case

Judicial power is the power to decide cases. If a federal court is unable to give effective relief, then it is not deciding a case, but merely rendering an advisory opinion.


Standing Elements1. Discrete and Palpable Injury2. Caused by Defendant's (alleged)

Action3. Remediable by Court4. Plaintiff's personal rights at stake


Allen v. Wright (1984)Players W. Wayne Allen, Chairman, Bd of

Trustees, Briarcrest Baptist School, Memphis, TN

Donald T. Regan, Secretary of Treasury

Inez Wright, mother of black pupils

http://www.briarcrest.com/cgi-bin/bcs.pl


Background“White flight” from public to private schools

“Briarcrest Baptist High School, which opened two years ago after the courts ordered busing in the Memphis schools, has just about everything: a lavish $6.5 million building with earphones dangling from the ceiling in language labs, en electric kiln for would-be potters and an enthusiastic and well-educated corps of teachers …“Many of the new private schools, like Briarcrest, insist that they have "open" admissions and are segregated only because no blacks have applied. But they conceded that white hostility to desegregation accounts for much of their growth. "We've got parents who are running from problems," says Wayne Allen, a Baptist minister who is chairman of the Briarcrest board of trustees. "Anyone who says different is not telling the truth."


Background“White flight” from public to private schools

“The rise of private schools also poses a serious threat to public education in the South. By skimming off the children of many middle-class whites, the segregated academies are helping to turn public schools into "pauper systems", with student bodies that are increasingly black and poor ...“As one 17-year-old student at Briarcrest put it, "I left the public schools to get away from blacks. If they came here, I don't think they would be welcome at all."

Time Magazine, Dec. 15, 1975

http://www.corpun.com/ussc7512.htm


BackgroundPrivate schools are expensive Less so (perhaps) if they have

alternative sources of income Easier to raise funds (perhaps) if

contributions are tax deductible

IRS required by statute to deny tax exempt status [501(c)(3)] to racially discriminatory private schools But (alleged) IRS failed to follow standards

set by S.Ct. in Bob Jones University v. U.S. (1983)


AllegationsTax-exempt status constitutes federal financial aid in violation of statute NB: probably not a constitutional

violation



Action3. Remediably by Court4. Plaintiff's personal rights at stake



Action3. Remediable by Court4. Plaintiff's personal rights at stake

Irreducible minimums of Article III


1. Discrete and Palpable Injury

Discrete (or distinct): “constituting a separate

entity : individually distinct”

Not generalizedPalpable: “easily perceptible” Not abstract or conjectural Must be “judicially

cognizable”

Claimed injuries1. Harmed by gov’t

aid to discrim. schoolsa.Right to have

gov’t obey the law

b.Stigmatic injury (contrast personal discrimination)

2. Harmed by denial of integrated education

“One of the most serious injuries recognized in our legal system”


"Judicially Cognizable" injuries

Hohfeldian injuries Injury to person or propertyNon-Hohfeldian injuries Injury to positive rights

Constitutional rights (e.g., Wright) Most stautory rights (e.g., FEC v. Atkins (1998))

Other personal interests No, unless recognized by law (e.g., common

law)Abstract (philosophical) injuries Not usually


2. CausationPlaintiff’s injury must have been caused by defendant’s (allegedly) illegal conduct “fairly traceable”

Elsewise, not a “controversy” between these parties

IRS wrongly confers tax-exempt status

White flight, which deprives Pl’s of integrated education

Line of causation


2. Proving CausationDoes tax-exempt status cause segregated public schools? Is it tantamount to a “subsidy for the

withdrawal of a white child”? [Stevens] Even if it is, how does it cause

segregation?


3. RedressabilityCourt must be able to fashion a remedy that will alleviate plaintiff’s injury Often the flip side of causation inquiry Sometimes due to nature of requested relief

Example: Linda R.S. v. Richard D. (1973) Jailing father for non-support doesn't get mother more $$

Example: Warth v. Seldin (1975) Invalidating exclusionary housing ord. does not

necessarily result in more affordable housing

Inability to alleviate the injury is tanta-mount to rendering an "advisory opinion"


2. Proving CausationDoes tax-exempt status cause segregated public schools?

Do uncertainties about the actions of third

parties break the chain of causation?Would denying exempt status result in

better-integrated public schools? Raise tuition at discriminatory private

schools or cause them to change their policies?

Result in some white students not enrolling?

Would they attend local public schools instead?

Would that be sufficient “integration”?


2. Proving CausationIs Causation element result oriented? Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights

Org Would losing tax-exempt status induce hospitals

to provide free medical care to indigent patients? Duke Power v. Carolina Env. Study Group

Would removing cap on liability induce power cos to close nuclear power plants?

How do you “prove” this line of causation?When should you have to prove it?


2. Proving CausationWhen? Justiciability is a prerequisite to jurisdiction Must be satisfied at all stages of litigationWho? Party invoking fed. jdx. has burden of proofHow? Pleading stage: factual allegations sufficient Pre-trial stage: specific facts / triable evidence

Should the std. of proof be greater if facts supporting causation are in plaintiff’s control (vs. 3rd party)?

Trial: proof by preponderance of evidence


2. Proving CausationAlso an element of most causes of action Proof needed to prevail on claimAlso an element for injunctive relief Pl. must establish both ongoing or imminent

injury resulting from Def’s continued action

Courts often confuse standing standing causationcausation with claimclaim or relief relief causationcausation


4. Personal rights at stakeThe right being enforced must belong to plaintiff Here, the right is a statutory one: no tax-

exempt status for discriminatory private schools

Is Inez Wright the intended beneficiary of this right?

Did Congress intend for her to enforce it?Perhaps this is what J. O’Connor means by standing (in this case) raising SoP concerns

Constitutional Law I Justiciability Part I Sept. 8, 2004.

Documents

Transcript of Constitutional Law I Justiciability Part I Sept. 8, 2004.