Fundamentals of U S Law Outline 2008

8/11/2019 Fundamentals of U S Law Outline 2008

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/fundamentals-of-u-s-law-outline-2008 1/91

1

Fundamentals of U.S. Law — 2008 Outline

Table of Contents Judicial Review: Acts of the Executive and Legislative................................................9

Concepts.................................................................................................................9Essential features.......................................................................................................9

Powers of court.........................................................................................................9

Constitution- Bill of rights.........................................................................................10

Constitution- Civil war amendments.............................................................................10

Additional aspects of federal system.............................................................................10

Common law..........................................................................................................10

Jury system............................................................................................................10

Case Law............................................................................................................... 11

Ma!u" v. Madison #page 1$%............................................................................11

&acts................................................................................................................11

Relevant 'tatutes............................................................................................11

(ecision !" the 'upe)e Cout......................................................................1*

+))igation and ,atuali-ation 'evice v. Chadha #page *%............................1/

&acts of case................................................................................................... 1/

Relevant 'tatutes............................................................................................1/

(ecision !" the 'upe)e Cout......................................................................1$

Judicial Review: (ecisions of 'tate Couts................................................................1$

Case Law............................................................................................................... 1$

Martin v. Hunters !essee "page #$%.............................................................................1$

&acts................................................................................................................1$


Bush v. &ore "page '(%..............................................................................................1

&acts................................................................................................................1


2he 'upe)e Cout (ecided...........................................................................1

(issent............................................................................................................13

2he 4olitical 5uestion (octine.................................................................................13

Concepts............................................................................................................... 13

Case Law............................................................................................................... 13

6a7e v. Ca.......................................................................................................13

1



*

,ixon v. 8nited 'tates........................................................................................ 19

Co))on Law and &edeal Law.................................................................................*0

Legislation.............................................................................................................*0

Case Law............................................................................................................... *0

4ullia) v. Allen #193$%.......................................................................................*0&acts................................................................................................................*0

eld................................................................................................................ *0

Lessons........................................................................................................... *1

6a7e v. McCollan #199%...................................................................................*1

&acts................................................................................................................*1

4ocedual isto"........................................................................................... *1

eld................................................................................................................ *1

Lessons........................................................................................................... *1 193/ and the ;it of a!eas Copus.....................................................................*1

'tatuto" 6asis......................................................................................................*1

<eneal 193/ and a!eas Copus....................................................................*1

4eise 'peci=c................................................................................................... **

Concepts............................................................................................................... */

a!eas copus...................................................................................................*/

'uspension of the ;it of a!eas Copus..........................................................*/

Case Law............................................................................................................... */

4eise v. Rodigue-............................................................................................*/

&acts > 4ostue............................................................................................... */

Lessons of the Case........................................................................................*$

Cout '"ste): 2he 6ig 4ictue.................................................................................. *$

&edeal Couts 'tuctue.......................................................................................*$

Appeal 4ocess...................................................................................................... *

'u!?ect Matte Juisdiction of &edeal Couts.........................................................*

*3 8.'.C. § 1332 (ivesit" of Citi-enship.............................................................*

Concuent Juisdiction.......................................................................................... *3

'upple)ental Juisdiction......................................................................................*3

Counteclai).........................................................................................................*3

Joinde @ +ntevention............................................................................................. *3

E,8E ;hee the suit can !e !ought..............................................................*9

ReBuie)ents &o Law"es..................................................................................../0

*



/

Re)oval................................................................................................................ /0

&edeal Juisdiction.................................................................................................../0

Concepts............................................................................................................... /1

Case Law 6ieD"................................................................................................/1

<allaghe v. 4hiladelphia p. 1*3........................................................................./1'osa v. Alvae-Machain p. 1/$........................................................................../1

Case Law (etailed............................................................................................./*

<allaghe v. 4hiladelphia p. 1*3........................................................................./*

'osa v. Alvae-Machain p. 1/$..........................................................................//

2eitoial Juisdiction................................................................................................/

Concepts............................................................................................................... /

Case law................................................................................................................/

Asahi Metal +ndus Co v. 'upeio Cout of Califonia........................................../

&acts................................................................................................................/

4ocedual isto"........................................................................................... /

+ssues.............................................................................................................. /

olding............................................................................................................/

Rationale......................................................................................................... /

;ien Ai Alas7a v. 6andt.................................................................................../

&acts................................................................................................................/

4ocedual isto"........................................................................................... /3

+ssues.............................................................................................................. /3

olding............................................................................................................/3

Rationale......................................................................................................... /3

&edeal Civil 4ocedue: 2he Ju".............................................................................. /9

'tatuto" 6asis....................................................................................................../9

Concepts............................................................................................................... /9

Legal e)edies.................................................................................................../9

EBuita!le e)edies............................................................................................/9

6asic de=nitions................................................................................................. $0

Case Law............................................................................................................... $0

ChauFeusG 2ea)stes > elpes v. 2e"...........................................................$0

&acts................................................................................................................$0

Lessons of the Case........................................................................................$1

;aldop v. 'outhen Co. 'evicesG +nc................................................................$1

/



$

&acts................................................................................................................$1

Lessons of the Case........................................................................................$*

'u))a" Judg)ent.................................................................................................. $*

Concepts............................................................................................................... $*

Case Law............................................................................................................... $/Celotex Cop. v. Catett......................................................................................$/

Huto) Cop v. Cente Line................................................................................$$

&edeal Civil 4ocedue: 4etial and 2ial.................................................................$

<eneal..................................................................................................................$

4etial...................................................................................................................$

Rule 1*#!% )otions #Motions to dis)iss%............................................................$

,otice pleading..................................................................................................... $

I!ligations of the Attone" #Rule 11%....................................................................$

(iscove" #Rule *%............................................................................................... $

'ettle)ent.............................................................................................................$

4etial Ide.........................................................................................................$

Ju"........................................................................................................................ $

Ipening state)ent...............................................................................................$

;itnesses.............................................................................................................. $

(uing tial............................................................................................................ $

(o)estic AFais....................................................................................................... $3

Case Law............................................................................................................... $3 oungstown 'teel > 2u!e Co. v. 'aw"e #'teel 'ei-ue Case% 19*...................$3

Iutco)e......................................................................................................... $3

'teel 'ei-ue Case in (a)es and Mooe v. Regan..........................................1

,ew)an v. 8nited 'tates...................................................................................1

&edeal Executive 4owe: 4ivileges and +))unit"...................................................*

Concepts............................................................................................................... *

Case Law............................................................................................................... /

8.'. v. ,ixon *3................................................................................................ /

&acts > 4ostue............................................................................................... /

(ecision !" the 'upe)e Cout....................................................................../

Lessons of the Case........................................................................................

alow v. &it-geald *0.....................................................................................

&acts................................................................................................................

$



(ecision !" the 'upe)e Cout......................................................................


Clinton v. Jones *9............................................................................................

&acts................................................................................................................

6efoe 'upe)e Cout.....................................................................................

+ssues..............................................................................................................


&edeal Executive 4owe: &oeign AFais..................................................................

Legislation.............................................................................................................

Concepts...............................................................................................................

Case Law............................................................................................................... 3

(a)es > Mooe v. Regan...................................................................................3

&acts................................................................................................................34ocedual isto"........................................................................................... 3

Ipinion............................................................................................................3

Lessons of (a)es > Mooe............................................................................. 9

a)di v. Ru)sfeld............................................................................................. 9

&acts................................................................................................................9

Ma?oit": J. IKConno.......................................................................................9

;hat was held in this case............................................................................0

J. 2ho)as: (issent.......................................................................................... 0

J. 'oute and <ins!ug: dissenting in pat.......................................................0

Lessons of a)di............................................................................................ 0

Congessional Authoit"...........................................................................................1

Concepts............................................................................................................... 1

Case law................................................................................................................1

McCulloch v. Ma"land........................................................................................1

+ssues.............................................................................................................. 1

<i!!ons v. Igden...............................................................................................*+ssues.............................................................................................................. /

EBual 4otection: Race > Education..........................................................................$

Concepts............................................................................................................... $

Legislation.............................................................................................................$

Case Law............................................................................................................... $



6own v. 6oad of Education..............................................................................$

&acts and (ecision..........................................................................................$

Ithe He" issues.............................................................................................


<utte v. 6ollinge.............................................................................................

&acts and (ecision..........................................................................................

(issentes.......................................................................................................


EBual 4otection: Co))ecial and <ende...............................................................

'tatutes.................................................................................................................

Concepts...............................................................................................................

Case Law...............................................................................................................

;illia)son v. Lee Iptical #p//%........................................................................Michael M. v. 'upeio Cout of 'ono)a Count" #1931%.....................................

Mississippi 8nivesit" fo ;o)en.......................................................................3

&eedo) of 'peech................................................................................................... 9

, ti)es v. 'ullivan #19$%...................................................................................0

olding...............................................................................................................1

iginia v. 6lac7 #*00/% #p//%..............................................................................*

He" 4oints.........................................................................................................../

2ots..........................................................................................................................$

Concepts............................................................................................................... $

Case Law............................................................................................................... $

Mission Petroleum Carriers) *nc. v. +olomon #$,.............................................................$

&acts................................................................................................................

Relevant 4oints...............................................................................................

(ecision !" the 2exas 'upe)e Cout.............................................................

Class Co))ents.............................................................................................


Crain v. Cleveland !odge #.....................................................................................

&acts................................................................................................................

(ecision !" the Mississippi 'upe)e Cout.....................................................

Class Co))ents.............................................................................................


!i v. /ellow Ca0......................................................................................................



&acts................................................................................................................

(ecision !" Califonia 'upe)e Cout.............................................................


2edla v. Ell)an...................................................................................................

&acts................................................................................................................3

(ecision !" ...............................................................................................3

Lessons of the Case........................................................................................3

Copoations.............................................................................................................3

6asic concepts......................................................................................................3

+n Re ;alt (isne" Co. 'ec. Litig............................................................................9

&AC2'................................................................................................................. 9

4RICE(8RAL +'2IR.......................................................................................9

+''8E..................................................................................................................9IL(+,<............................................................................................................ 30

RA2+I,ALE.........................................................................................................30

R8LE...................................................................................................................30

6asicG +nc. v. Levinson...........................................................................................31

&AC2'................................................................................................................. 31

4RICE(8RAL +'2IR.......................................................................................31

+''8E..................................................................................................................3*

RA2+I,ALE.........................................................................................................3*

R8LE...................................................................................................................3/

8neasona!le 'eaches > 'ei-ues..........................................................................3/

'tatutes................................................................................................................. 3/

Concepts............................................................................................................... 3/

Case Law............................................................................................................... 3$

Hat- v. 8nited 'tates #19%...............................................................................3$

&acts................................................................................................................3$

olding............................................................................................................3

Lessons........................................................................................................... 3+llinois v. Ca!alles #*00%...................................................................................3

&acts................................................................................................................3

olding............................................................................................................3

Lessons........................................................................................................... 3



3

Judicial Review !cts of t"e #$ecutive and Le%islative

Conce&tsEssential features

o Constitution

Legislatue 'enate ouse

Executive4esident

Couts

o &edeal s"ste)

o Chec7s and 6alances

o Co))on law s"ste)

o Ju"

'enatos epesent states.

Executive powe 4esident. e delegates it to agencies.

Powers of court

o !'t. ((( )ainl" fedeal cout s"ste). !'t ((( esta!lishes the ?uisdiction of 8.'. couts.

Constitutional issuesG teatiesG fedeal law

(ivesit"

!'t ((( )ud%es ae fede'al )ud%es.

*a%ist'ates and ban+'u&tc, )ud%es ae -OT !'t ((( )ud%es.

NAt. +++ JudgesO ae also those ?udges who ae ceated !" the congess )eaning all fedeal ?udges.

o Judicial powe of the 8nited 'tates should !e vested in one 'upe)eCout and in such othe infeio couts esta!lished !" Congess

o &edeal Couts:

1* egional couts of appealsG 1 special couts of appeal #fedealcicuit%G 9$ distict coutsG including (Cs and !an7uptc" coutsGcout of intenational tadeG and cout of fedeal clai)s.

&edeal Judges:

o At. +++ ?udges:

3



9

'upe)e CoutG Appellate coutsG (CsG cout of intenationaltade

Appointed !" the 4esidentG con=)ed !" the 'enateG andappointed fo life

o ,on At. +++ fedeal ?udges:

6an7uptc" ?udges #1$ "s%G cout of fedeal clai)s #1 "s%G andfedeal )agistate ?udges #3 "s%.

• Inl" hea disputes authoi-ed !" At. +++. Cout of li)ited ?uisdiction. #'u!?ect )atte ?uisdiction%

o 'tate couts:

Each state has its own cout s"ste)

Judges )a" !e electedP appointed !" the state govenoG o aco)!ination of appoint)ent and election.

Cases not authoi-ed in fedeal cout ae t"picall" =led in statecout.

o Concuent ?uisdiction:

Most cases could !e !ought in eithe cout.

Fede'al Law and State Law.

;hateve is not unde ?uisdiction of the fedeal goven)ent lies unde the ?uisdiction of the state.

Constitution- Bill of rights

o &ist 10 a)end)ents

o Esta!lish individual ights against the goven)ento &eedo) of speechG asse)!l"G ight to !ea a)s

Constitution- Civil war amendments

o A!olition of slave"

o EBual potection of the laws

o (ue pocess

Additional aspects of federal system

o Congess can onl" enact laws as authoi-ed unde the constitution

o +f Congess has the authoit" to enact lawsG and it has done soG thoselaws pee)pt an" conDicting state law.

Common law

o ;hat ealie ?udicial decisions sa" is the law.

o ;hat ealie decisions should !e followed

+t depends on what cout is )a7ing the decision.

All couts el" on )ost ecent 'upe)e Cout ponounce)ents of the )atte.

9



10

Jury system

o Ci)inal cases: constitutional ights #a)end)ent +%

o Civil cases: Li)ited to cases at co))on law #a)end)ent ++%

Case Law*a'bu', v. *adison &a%e /1Marbury fo)s the !asis fo the execise of ?udicial eview in the 8nited 'tatesunde Aticle +++ of the Constitution.

Facts 2he Constitution was !ael" 10 "eas old.

*idni%"t )ud%es.

o ;illia) Ma!u" had !een appointed as Justice of the 4eace in the(istict of Colu)!ia !" 'esident Jo"n !dams shotl" !efoeleaving oQceG !ut his commission was not deliveed as eBuied.

Commission is an oQcial docu)ent.

o ;hen T"omas Je3e'son assu)ed oQceG he odeed the new'eceta" of 'tateG Ja)es MadisonG to withhold Ma!u"s andseveal othe )ens co))issions. 6eing una!le to assu)e theappointed oQces without the co))ission docu)entsG Ma!u" andthee othes &etitioned t"e Su&'eme Cou't #diectl"S% to foceMadison to delive the co))ission to Ma!u". 2he 'upe)e Coutdenied Ma!u"s petitionG holding that the statute upon which he!ased his clai) was unconstitutional.

2he" 4le di'ectl, !ecause of the Judicia', !ct /5681.

7/ '.C. shall have appellate ?uisdiction.

Relevant Statuteso 8.'. Const. at. +++G 'ection * Clause *

T+n all Cases aFecting A)!assadosG othe pu!lic Ministesand ConsulsG and those in which a 'tate shall !e a 4at"G thesupe)e Cout shall have oiginal Juisdiction. +n all the otheCases !efoe )entioned Uwithin the ?udicial powe of the

8nited 'tatesVG the supe)e Cout shall have appellate JuisdictionG !oth as to Law and &actG with such ExceptionsGand unde such Regulations as the Congess shall )a7e.T

o Judicia" Act of 139G 1/

T2he 'upe)e Cout shall also have appellate ?uisdictionfo) the cicuit couts and couts of the seveal statesG in thecases heein afte povided foP and shall have powe to issue

10



11

wits of pohi!ition to the distict couts . . . and wits of )anda)us . . . to an" couts appointedG o pesons holdingoQceG unde the authoit" of the 8nited 'tates.T

+f the Constitution esta!lished a 4$ed listG "ou cannot ceate new ite)s.

Decision by the Supreme Court o 2hee wee thee sepaate issues:

(id Ma!u" have a ight to the co))ission

(o the laws of the count" give Ma!u" a legal e)ed"

+s as7ing the 'upe)e Cout fo a wit of )anda)us thecoect legal e)ed"

o 2he 'upe)e Cout answeed "es to the =st two Buestions. &ailueto delive the co))ission was Tviolative of a vested legal ight.T

o 8' has goven)ent of laws and not of )enG and fo eve" violationof a legal ightG thee )ust !e a legal e)ed"

o oweveG the 'upe)e Cout is not the appopiate fou)

o At. +++G *G Cl. * esta!lishes the cases in which the 'upe)e Couthas oiginal ?uisdiction.

o Congess could not esta!lishG though 1/ of the Judicia" ActG thatthe 'upe)e Cout would have oiginal ?uisdiction in cicu)stancesothe than those povided fo !" the Constitution.

o 2husG the cout uled 1/ of the Judicia" Act to !e unconstitutionalGand esta!lished N+t is e)phaticall" the povince and dut" of the

?udicial depat)ent to sa" what the law isO.

6ut fo eve" violation of ight "ou have to have a e)ed".

oweveG we cannot give "ou this e)ed" !ecause we donKt have ?uisdiction.

;h" no ?uisdiction

6ecause the law is unconstitutional.

'oG the '.C. had a powe to decide what is constitutionaland what is not.

2his case was the 4'st ste& fo the %ove'nment to "ave cont'ol.

!ll )ud%es can do t"at9

6ut the distict cout can !e eviewed !" the appellate cout.

+f the '.C. decides it is !inding.

'o as a little tin, dist'ict cou't )ud%e + can sti7e down thestatute.

11



1*

Can 'tate ?udges sti7e down fedeal law

:es; if t"at is wit"in "is )u'isdiction.

(mmi%'ation and -atu'ali<ation Se'vice v. C"ad"a &a%e 251

+,' v. Chadha is a 'upe)e Cout case uling that a legislative veto ove a decisionissued !" the Executive !anch #Attone" <eneal% violated the constitutionalsepaation of powes.

+f thee is a foeigne in 8.'. fo less than "eas and he is illegal alien and he iscaught he can !e depotedG unless thee is exte)e hadship.

2he attone" geneal can gant his a sta"G howeveG he should info) Congess.

An" of houses can veto that.

2he gu" =les an action against the ouse of Repesentatives.

2he issues was whethe thee was a pocedual ight fo the oR to do so

Facts of caseo Respondent Chadha was a foeign !on #Hen"a% citi-en. e ca)e to

the 8' as a foeign exchange studentP afte his noni))igant studentvisa expiedG his ho)e count" would not accept hi) !ac7.

o 2he +,' initiated depotation poceedings against Chadha. Chadhasought to suspend his depotationG and the +,' acco))odated hiseBuest pusuant to *$$#a%#1%G and tans)itted a epot of thesuspension to Congess pusuant to *$$#c%#*%.

o 2he ouse of Repesentatives vetoed the suspension of ChadhasdepotationG and the +,' su!seBuentl" esu)ed depotationpoceedings. 2he i))igation ?udge declined to execise ?uisdictionove the constitutional o!?ections of ChadhaG and odeed hi)depoted. Chadha then appealed to the 6oad of +))igation AppealsGwhich dis)issed his constitutional o!?ections. Chadha and the +,'Gwhich now suppoted his challenge to the constitutionalit" of *$$#c%#*%G then appealed to the Cout of Appeals fo the ,inth CicuitG whichendeed ?udg)ent in his favo and odeed the suspension of depotation poceedings.

o Congess appealed to the 'upe)e Cout.

Relevant Statuteso 8' Const. At. +G G cl. *

NEve" !ill which shall have passed the ouse of Repesentatives and t"e SenateG !efoe it !eco)e a law andbe &'esented to t"e 'esident of the 8nited 'tates WO

1*



1/

T"e'efo'e; t"e veto s"ould "ave been establis"ed b, bot" "ouses; not onl,=oR.

>#TO is an e?uivalent of a new law.

o +))igation and ,ationalit" Act

*$$#a%#1% of the +))igation and ,ationalit" ActG 3 8.'.C. 1*$#a%#1%G authoi-ed the +,' to suspend depotation of alienscontinuall" esident in the 8nited 'tates fo at least seven "easwhee the Attone" <enealG in his discetionG found thatTdepotation would . . . esult in exte)e hadship.T Afte such a=nding !" the Attone" <enealG a epot would !e tans)ittedto Congess pusuant to *$$#c%#1%G and eithe house of Congess had the powe to veto the Attone" <enealsdete)ination pusuant to *$$#c%#*%.

;hat ae the eBuie)ents fo the eview

ou can depot this gu"G !ut ,ou s"ould %o to bot" "ouses and t"e'esident.

Decision by the Supreme Court o (ssue is the esolution of the ouse of Repesentatives vetoing the

Attone" <eneals dete)ination unconstitutional

o ;hen the Constitution povides expess poceduesG such pocedues)ust !e stictl" o!seved. 2wo such povisions ae !ica)ealis) andpesent)ent in the enact)ent of law.

o 2he pesent)ent pocess #the o!ligation of Congess to send the !illsto the 4esident fo appoval o veto% and the !ica)ealis)eBuie)ent #o!ligation of appoval !" !oth houses of Congess% wasesta!lished in the constitution as a )echanis) to pevent legislativeencoach)ent and illconceived policies.

o 2he action !" the ouse of Repesentatives which veto the Attone"<enealKs dete)ination is legislative in natue !ecause #a% it )odi=esights and duties of individuals outside the legislative !anchP #!% theenact)ent would othewise have eBuied a pivate lawG which is alegislative functionP and #c% the natue of the action is inheentl"legislative.

o +f itKs a legislative actionG it eBuies !ica)eal appoval and

pesent)ent to the 4esident unde At.

o 2he Constitution esta!lishes the exceptions in which a ouse of Congess can act alone #i)peach)entG tial conduct followingi)peach)entG appovals of appoint)entG and ati=cation of teaties.%.Except fo those clausesG the Congess should follow the pocedues.

1/



1$

Judicial Review @ecisions of State Cou'ts

Case LawMartin v. Hunters !essee "page #$%

• Martin v. Hunter's Lessee is the =st case to asset ulti)ate 'upe)e

Cout authoit" ove state couts in )attes of fedeal law.

Factso (uing the A)eican RevolutionG the state of iginia enacted

legislation that allowed it to con=scate Lo"alistsK popet". 4laintiF Matin had his popet" con=scated and sued on the gounds thatteaties with A'eat B'itain %ua'anteed &'otection of Lo,alist&'o&e't,. 2he >i'%inia state 'upe)e Cout upheld thecon4scation. +t did not do so on the gounds that iginia law wassupeio to 8.'. teatiesG !ut athe !ecause it agued that its ownintepetation of the teat" evealed that the teat" did notG in factG

cove the dispute. In eviewG the 8.'. 'upe)e Cout disageed withthis conclusionG uling that the teat" did in fact cove the disputeG ande)anded the case !ac7 to the iginia 'upe)e CoutG !ut the iginiacout then agued that the 8.'. 'upe)e Cout did not have authoit"ove cases oiginating in state cout.

2he" had t'eat, afte the wa ended. -o con4scations.

o 2he 8.'. 'upe)e Cout 'eve'sed the state coutKs decision on appealGuling that Buestions of fedeal law wee within its ?uisdictionG andthee!" esta!lishing its own supe)ac" in )attes of constitutionalintepetation.

o A 'upe)e Cout sa"s to 'upe)e Cout: Nsc'ew ,ouO. "o a'e,ouD Just a U.S. Su&'eme Cou't.

Relevant Statuteso 8.'. Const. at. +++G 'ection * Clause *

T2he ?udicial 4owe shall extend to all CasesG in Law and EBuit"Gaising unde this ConstitutionG the Laws of the 8nited 'tatesGand 2eaties )adeG o which shall !e )adeG unde theiAuthoit"P W to Contovesies to which the 8nited 'tates shall !ea 4at"P to Contovesies !etween two o )oe 'tatesP !etween

a 'tate and Citi-ens of anothe 'tateP !etween Citi-ens of diFeent 'tatesP !etween Citi-ens of the sa)e 'tate clai)ingLands unde <ants of diFeent 'tatesG and !etween a 'tateG othe Citi-ens theeofG and foeign 'tatesG Citi-ens o 'u!?ects. +nall the othe Cases !efoe )entionedG the 'upe)e Cout shallhave appellate JuisdictionG !oth as to Law and &actG with suchExceptionsG and unde such Regulations as the Congess shall)a7e.T

1$



1

• T"e Su&'eme Cou't decided

o Aticle +++G 'ec. *G Cl. *G stating that Tin all othe cases !efoe)entioned the 'upe)e Cout shall have appellate ?uisdictionTesta!lished the possi!ilit" of the 'upe)e Cout eviewing statesKdecisions.

o +f the 'upe)e Cout could not eview decisions fo) the highest 'tatecoutG the 'tate couts would !e excluded fo) eve heaing a case inan" wa" involving a &edeal BuestionG !ecause the 'upe)e Coutwould !e depived of appellate ?uisdiction in those cases.

o 2husG !ecause it was esta!lished that 'tate Couts had the powe todecide !ased on &edeal Law #concuent ?uisdiction%G it )ust !e tuethat the 'upe)e Cout can eview the decision o the 'upe)e Coutwould not have appellate ?uisdiction in Tall othe cases.T &uthe)oeGthe 'upe)ac" Clause declaes that the &edeal intepetation willtu)p the 'tates intepetation.

o 2he 'upe)e Cout could alead" eviews state executive and

legislative decisions when the" confonted fedeal law and the eviewof state couts decisions is no diFeent.

o ,ecessit" of unifo)it" of intepetation of &edeal law in all 'tates.

o 2hee is also consideation of the existence of state attach)entsG statepe?udicesG state ?ealousiesG and state inteests.

o Constitution intended to !ene=t all people and not ?ust those who =lesuit in &edeal Couts.

+f '.C. cannot eview state coutsG state couts have =nal sa" on constitution. T"atis nonsense9

Bush v. &ore "page '(%

+t all %oes down to Flo'ida. And Eueen #ste'.

+n Bush v. Gore the 8nited 'tates 'upe)e Cout esolved the *000 pesidentialelection in favo of <eoge ;. 6ush.

Facts(uing the *000 pesidential election the oQcial esults showed a victo" fo <eoge6ush with a diFeence of less than 0GXG which )a7es a ecount )andato". Asallowed unde &loida law #each 'tate has its own electoal laws% Al <oe eBuested

a manual 'ecount of the votes in speci=c counties.&loida law also eBuied all counties to cetif" thei election etuns to the &loida'eceta" of 'tate within seven da"s of the electionG and seveal of the countiesconducting )anual ecounts could not )eet this deadline. 2he &loida Cicuit Coutuled that the sevenda" deadline was )andato"G !ut that the counties coulda)end thei etuns at a late date. 2he cout also uled that the Flo'ida Sec'eta',of State #lin7%G afte Tconsideing all attendant facts and cicu)stancesGT haddiscetion to include an" late a)ended etuns in the statewide ceti=cation.

1



1

'eceta" of 'tate ais #fo) the Repu!lican 4at"% issued a set of citeia !"which she would dete)ine whethe to allow late =lings. &ou counties su!)ittedstate)entsG and afte eviewing the su!)issions ais dete)ined that none

?usti=ed an extension of the =ling deadline. In ,ove)!e *G *000 she ceti=ed6ush the winne in &loida.

2he &loida 'upe)e Cout intevened and dete)ined a statewide )anual ecount.

2he following da" the 'upe)e Cout odeed a sta" of the ecountG and two da"slate head oal agu)ents fo) the patiesG issuing its decision in less than *$hous.

Relevant Statuteso &outeenth A)end)ent:

N,o 'tate shall ... den" to an" peson within its ?uisdiction theeBual potection of the lawsO.

o Aticle ++G 1G cl. *:

NEach 'tate shall appointG in such Manne as the Legislatuetheeof )a" diectG a ,u)!e of Electos....O

o U.S.C. 7 egulates the contoves" as to appoint)ent of electos#who cast the 'tate electoal votes% in 4esidential electionsG and itesta!lished a socalled Tsafe ha!oT povision allowing states toappoint thei electos without Congessional intefeence if done !" aspeci=ed deadline:

N+f an" 'tate shall have povided ... fo its =nal dete)inationof ... the appoint)ent of all o an" of the electos of such'tate ... at least six da"s !efoe the ti)e =xed fo the )eeting of the electosG such dete)ination ... shall !e conclusiveO. #2he

Tsafe ha!oT deadline was (ece)!e 1*G ?ust one da" afte theCout head oal agu)ents in this case%.

he Supreme Court Deci!e! 2hat was a fastest '.C. decision eve.

o 2he elevant issues unde discussion wee:

Ae the ecountsG as the" wee !eing conductedG constitutional

+f the ecounts ae unconstitutionalG what is the e)ed"

o Even though the issue unde discussion was centeed on &loida 'tate

Electoal lawsG the 'upe)e Cout decided to hea the case unde theagu)ent that the &loida 'upe)e Cout decision:

iolated the Constitution:

a. At. ++G 'ec.1G Cl.*: the )ethod of electing pesident!. / 8.'.C. 'ec. : 'tatute egulating the election of

pesidentc. &outeenth A)end)ent: EBual potection clause

2o potect the &loida legislatueKs intentions.

1



1

o 2he 'upe)e Cout uled Y* that the &loida 'upe)e Couts decisionfo a statewide ecount violated the EBual 4otection Clause. 2he Coutstated that the EBual 4otection clause guaantees individuals thatthei !allots cannot !e devalued !" Tlate a!ita" and dispaateteat)entT. Even if the ecount was fai in theo"G it was unfai inpacticeG since diFeent standads wee see)ingl" applied to the

ecount fo) !allot to !allotG pecinct to pecinctG and count" to count".

o Accoding to the opinionG the statewide standad #that a Tlegal voteT isTone in which thee is a clea indication of the intent of the voteT%could not guaantee that each count" would count the votes using theexact sa)e standadsG and thus it was possi!le that a vote consideedvalid in one count" would !e dee)ed null in anotheG which was notpe)issi!le unde the EBual 4otection Clause.

o 2he Cout uled Y$ that no constitutionall" valid ecount could !eco)pleted !" a (ece)!e 1* Tsafe ha!oT deadline esta!lished in /8.'.C. G and odeed the ecount to stop.

o 2he cout esta!lished that the decision did not ceate a !indingpecedent fo othe cases !ecause of the peculiaities of the situation.

6ush agues it violates #?ual 'otection.

'o)e counties do one wa"G othes do othe wa". 2hat got 5$2 decision.

6ut the stopping of ecount got $.

2he funn" thing is 'calia was a stong opponent of ?udicial eview fo thestate cout.

Cout said this is not a !inding caseP it shall appl" to the pesent situationonl,.

Dissent o 2his is !e"ond the authoit" of 'upe)e Cout !ecause it is stateKs

!usiness. &edeal couts defe to state couts on )attes of state law.&edeal couts should sta" out of intenal state govenance )attes inwhich the state cout constues legislative enact)ents

o &ou ?ustices #Justices 'tevensG <ins!ugG 'oute and 6e"e% dissentedas to stopping the ecountG and opined that a new ecountG confo)ingto EBual 4otection eBuie)entsG should ta7e place.

T"e olitical Euestion @oct'ine

Conce&ts4olitical Buestions have !een consideed unsuita!le fo ?udicial decision. a politicalBuestion is Twhen its esolution is co))itted !" the Constitution to a !anch of thefedeal <oven)ent othe than this coutT. 2he standads fo political Buestions #+ne 6a7e%:

1



13

A textuall" de)onsta!le co))it)ent of an issue to a coodinate politicaldepat)entP

A lac7 of ?udiciall" discovea!le and )anagea!le standads fo esolving itP

2he i)possi!ilit" of deciding without an initial polic" dete)ination of a 7ind cleal"fo non ?udicial discetionP

A couts ina!ilit" to esolve an issue without expessing disespect fo a coodinate!anchP

An unusual need to defe to a pio political decisionP

A situation whee goven)ent )ust spea7 in one voice.

Case Law

Ba+e' v. Ca''#8nited 'tates 'upe)e Cout Y 19*%

2he plaintiF agues that 2ennessee had not edisticted the voting distict fo 0"easG theefoe the outco)e is that the votes in the ual aeas of 2ennessee eBuals)oe than the votes in othe aeas of the state.

2he plaintiFs =st =les a Class action complaint, brought under 42 U.S.C. Section1983, which authoi-es a clai) against state oQcials fo violation of constitutionalights and unde $* 8'C 'ection 1933 which allows application of state law iffedeal law does not give a suita!le e)ed".

2he (istict Cout in 2ennessee dis)issed the clai) !ecause of lac7 of su!?ect)atte ?uisdiction and fo failue to state a clai) upon which elief can !e ganted.

2he distict cout held that !ecause the clai) concened a )atte not suita!le fo ?udicial inBui" the clai) was not ?usti=a!le.

2he plaintiF appeal to the 'upe)e CoutG agued that it was a violation if his ightfo eBual potection unde the 1$ a)end)ent of the constitution.

2he state of 2ennessee agues that the edistict is a political issue and not undethe ?uisdiction of the cout.

2he 'upe)e Cout held:

A not unsu!stantial clai) Taises undeT Constitution.

2he Clai) =ts within *3 8'C 'ection 1/$/G gives an individual the powe to =le thesuit and to the distict cout the ?uisdiction.

the Clai)s =ts within $* 8'C 'ection 193/ and theefoe aises unde &edeal Law. 2he $* u.s.c. section 193/ is a speci=c statute to ensue the ight of people who

have !een disci)inated. 2his is an act of congess theefoe it is within the ?uisdiction of the supe)e cout.

2he cout held that the Case not within 4olitical 5uestion (octine #45(%:

2he fedeal couts applied the EBual potection clause to i)pose standads onstates as to thei voting disticts.

2he fact that the suit see7s potection of political ight does not )ean it pesents apolitical Buestion. 2he 'upe)e Cout is the ulti)ate intepete of the constitution.

13



19

2he Case does not est on <uaant" ClauseG ConstitutionG At. +G section $. At. +Gsec. $: 8' shall guaantee to eve" 'tate a Repu!lican &o) of goven)ent. ,otapplica!le !ecause hee the case involves the fedeal ?udicia"Ks elationship to the'tatesG not a coodinate !anch of goven)ent

-i$on v. United States

#8nited 'tates 'upe)e Cout Y 19*%+n e ,ixon v. the 8nited 'tates the cout held that ,ixons challenge aised a non

?usticia!le political Buestion. 2he Constitution co))itted the issue of +)peach)entto the 'enate.

2he decision dete)ined that the Buestion of whethe the 'enate had popel"TtiedT an i)peach)ent was a political BuestionG and theefoe could not !eesolved in the Couts.

A 8nited 'tates fedeal ?udge na)ed ;alte ,ixon was convicted of co))ittingpe?u" !efoe a gand ?u"G !ut efused to esign fo) oQce even afte he had!een incaceated. ,ixon was su!seBuentl" i)peached !" the 8nited 'tatesouse of RepesentativesG and the )atte was efeed to the 8nited 'tates'enate fo a vote on ,ixons e)oval.

2he 'enate appointed a co))ittee to hea the evidence against ,ixonG and thenepot to the !od" as a whole. 2he 'enate then head the epot of the co))itteeand voted to e)ove ,ixon fo) oQce.

,ixon contended that this did not )eet the constitutional eBuie)ent of Aticle + of the Constitution that the case !e Ttied !" the 'enate.T

2he cout held that the couts )a" not eview the i)peach)ent and tial of afedeal oQce !ecause:

2he Constitution eseves that function to a coodinate political !anch.

Aticle +. 'ec. / of the Constitution gave the 'enate the TsoleT powe to Tt"T

i)peach)ents. 2he wod TsoleT it is clea that the ?udicial !anch was not to !e included.

2he wod Tt"T was oiginall" undestood to include fact=nding co))itteesG theewas a textuall" de)onsta!le co))it)ent to give !oad discetion to the 'enate ini)peach)ents.

2he &a)es !elieved that epesentatives of the people should t" i)peach)entsand the Cout was too s)all to ?ustl" t" i)peach)ents.

2he ?udicial !anch is Tchec7edT !" i)peach)entsG so that ?udicial involve)ent ini)peach)ents )ight violate the doctine of sepaation of powes. ,oteG the 'enateis also Tchec7edT !ecause onl" the ouse can decide who to i)peach.

2he Cout futhe uled that involving the ?udicia" would pevent =nalit" withoutclea e)ed"G and !ias posti)peach)ent ci)inal o civil posecutions which theConstitution explicitl" allows.

Common Law and Fede'al Law

19

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_judge

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Nixon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_jury

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Constitution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_judge

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Nixon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_jury





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Constitution




*0

Le%islation

$* 8'C 193/. Eve" state oQcial who causes a depivation of an" ight secued !"the constitution shall !e lia!le to the in?ued pat" in an action in law #unless theoQcial was a ?udicial oQce acting in oQcial capacit" Yadded in 199%

$* 8'C 1933. Allows fo an awad of Attone"Ks fees in cases whee stateoQcial !eached constitutional ights

Case Law

ulliam v. !llen /681

Facts

4ullia)G A )agistateG odes Allen and ,icholson to pa" !ail fo an oFensefo which the" could not !e put in ?ailP if !ail not )etG oF to ?ail the" go. Allen soughtan in?unction against 4ullia) unde 193/G and an awad of attone"Ks fees unde1933.

Hel! 2he decision intepeted the co))on law pinciple of N?udicial i))unit"Othough a histoic anal"sis and dete)ined that unde that pincipleG ?udges aenKti))une to attone"Ks fees. Cout =st decided and ganted in?unctive elief unde 42 USC §1983 (authories a person to sue state o!cials "or alleged #iolations toconstitutional rights and to see$ in%uncti#e relie" &hen the #iolation to the

constitutional rights is ta$ing place'. #'ee 42 USC §1988 re attorne)*s "ees%. Judiciali))unit" was not a !a to pospective in?unctive elief against a ?udicial oQceacting in his ?udicial capacit" Y 4REE,2 +,J8R 2I A 4E2+2+I,ER'CI,'2+282+I,AL R+<2'. 2he cout also allowed an awad of attone"Ks fees unde 1933 as petitiones wee a!le to get in?unctive elief 2his decision in spite of thedoctine allowing ?udicial i))unit" to uphold the independence of the ?udicia".193/ is an explicit exception to the ?udicial i))unit" as it potects funda)entalights and was posci!ed !" Congess.

,ote: this decision !efoe the 199 a)end)ent.

Lessons+n?unction fo pospective elief can issue against a ?udge in a 193/ case.

Judges ae to this da" i))une to sues fo in?unctive elief #with exceptions.

2he plaintiF was awaded att fees in the case. Judges ae to this da" i))une fo)attone"s fees #with exception%P

*0



*1

Ba+e' v. *cCollan /6561

Facts Leonad fa7ed !eing his !otheG Linnie. LeonadG as LinnieG aested in 4otteCount" #A)aillo% and was eleased on !ail. 6onds)an got ode "an7ing !ail and

waant issued fo Linnie. Linnie #good gu"% pic7ed up fo unning ed light in(allas. eld in (allas and then 4otte Count" fo a total of 3 da"s while he 7eptsa"ing Nou got the wong gu".O Inl" / da"sG howeveG in 4otte Count".

"roce!ural History Linnie sued 'heiF 6a7e fo depivation of constitutional ights unde 193/. Aftetial in distict coutG diected vedict fo 6a7eG &ifth Cicuit said 6a7e could !elia!le fo a N193/ false i)pison)ent actionOG !ut that McCollan had not !een a!leto pove that thee was a violation of his constitutional ights #due pocess% whichwould have geneated a valid clai) unde the ConstitutionG thusG 6a7e entitled todefense of Buali=ed i))unit". McCollan agued that he was depived of due pocess

once incaceatedG since the waant was issued unde due pocess and so was hisaestG thee is no violation. 2he fact that he was not the pevious oFende is not adue pocess guaantee !ut a possi!le tots clai).

Hel! $* 8'C 193/ did not guaantee that onl" the guilt" would !e aested. 193/i)poses lia!ilit" fo violations potected !" the constitutionG not fo violations ofcae aising out of 2ot law clai) of negligence o false i)pison)ent.

Lessons&edeal:

2o allow a constitutional action unde 193/ thee )ust !e:

an eFective depivation of constitutional ight.

'i)ple negligence and tot clai)s do not lead to a 193/ clai)G the" lead to a stateclai) fo tots.

7 /68 and t"e 'it of =abeas Co'&us

Statuto', BasisAene'al 7/68 and =abeas Co'&usU.S. Const. a't. (; 7 6; cl. 2

2he pivilege of the w'it of "abeas co'&us shall not !e suspendedG unless when incases of e!ellion o invasion the pu!lic safet" )a" eBuie it.

2 U.S.C. 7 /68 Civil action fo depivation of ights

*1



**

Eve" #a% &e'son whoG unde colo of an" statuteG odinanceG egulationG custo)G ousageG of an" 'tate o 2eito" o the (istict of Colu)!iaG sub)ects; o' causes tobe sub)ectedG an" citi<en of the 8nited 'tates o ot"e' &e'son wit"in t"e

)u'isdiction theeof to the de&'ivation of an, 'i%"ts; &'ivile%es; o'immunities secued !" the Constitution and lawsG #b% shall !e liable to t"e &a't,in)u'ed in an action at lawG suit in eBuit"G o othe pope poceeding fo edessG

except that in an" action !ought against a ?udicial oQce fo an act o o)issionta7en in such oQceKs ?udicial capacit"G in?unctive elief shall not !e ganted unlessa decla'ato', dec'ee was violated o declaato" elief was unavaila!le.

U@C #$ce&tionV &o the puposes of this sectionG an" Act of Congessapplica!le exclusivel" to the (istict of Colu)!ia shall !e consideed to !e astatute of the (istict of Colu)!ia.

;heeas a is dispositionG b is sanction.

Z

'eise' S&eci4c28 U.S.C. 722/: 4owe to gant wit

#a% ;its of ha!eas copus ma, be %'anted b, t"e Su&'eme Cou'tG an, )ustice theeofG the dist'ict cou'ts and an, ci'cuit )ud%e within thei espective

?uisdictions. 2he ode of a cicuit ?udge shall !e enteed in the ecods of thedistict cout of the distict wheein the estaint co)plained of is had.

#!% Uighe couts )a" tansfe to elevant lowe coutsV

#c% 2he wit of ha!eas copus s"all not e$tend to a &'isone' U-L#SS

#/% Ue is in custod" unde' o' b, colo' of t"e aut"o'it, of the 8nited'tatesVP o

#2% e is in custod" fo' an act done o' omitted in &u'suance of an !ct of CongessG o an odeG pocessG )ud%ment o' dec'ee of a cou't o ?udge of

the United StatesP o#% e is in custod" in violation of t"e Constitution o' laws o' t'eatiesof t"e United StatesP o

#% eG !eing a citi<en of a fo'ei%n state and do)iciled theein is incustod, fo' an act done o' omitted unde an" alleged ightG titleGauthoit"G pivilegeG potectionG o exe)ption clai)ed unde' t"ecommission; o'de' o' sanction of an, fo'ei%n stateG o unde colotheeofG the validit" and eFect of which depend upon the law of nationsP o

#% +t is necessa', to b'in% hi) into cou't to testif, o fo tial.

#d% U+f state which contains two o )oe &edeal ?udicial disticts =le to theelevantV

#Ze% #1% U,o ?uisdiction ove application fo a wit =led !" ene)" co)!atantsV

#*% UExceptions povided !" @etainee T'eatment !ct of 200 #10 8.'.C. 301note%V

28 U.S.C. 722 'tate custod"P e)edies in &edeal couts

#a% 2he 'upe)e CoutG a Justice theeofG a cicuit ?udgeG o a distict cout shallentetain an application fo a w'it of "abeas co'&us in !ehalf of a peson in

**



*/

custod" pusuant to the ?udg)ent of a 'tate cout onl" on the gound that he is incustod" in violation of the Constitution o laws o teaties of the 8nited 'tates.

#b% #/% An application fo a wit of ha!eas copus on !ehalf of a peson in custod"pusuant to the ?udg)ent of a 'tate cout s"all not be %'anted U-L#SS itappeas that

#!% the applicant has exhausted the e)edies availa!le in the couts ofthe 'tateP o

#B% #i% thee is an a!sence of availa!le 'tate coective pocessP o

#ii% cicu)stances exist that ende such pocess ineFective topotect the ights of the applicant.

#*% An application fo a wit of ha!eas copus )a" !e denied on the )eitsGnotwithstanding the failue of the applicant to exhaust the e)edies availa!lein the couts of the 'tate. . . .

Conce&ts

=abeas co'&us#Latin: U;e co))andV that "ou have the !od"% is the na)e of a legal actionG o witGthough which a peson can see7 elief fo) the unlawful detention of hi)self oanothe peson. +t potects the individual fo) ha)ing hi)self o !eing ha)ed !"the ?udicial s"ste). 2he wit of ha!eas copus has histoicall" !een an i)potantinstu)ent fo the safeguading of individual feedo) against a!ita" state action.

Also 7nown as NT"e A'eat 'itOG a wit of habeas corpus a! sub#icien!um is asu))ons with the foce of a cout ode addessed to the custodian #such as apison oQcial% de)anding that a pisone !e !ought !efoe the coutG togethe withpoof of authoit"G allowing the cout to dete)ine whethe that custodian haslawful authoit" to hold that pesonP if notG the peson shall !e eleased fo)

custod".

Sus&ension of t"e 'it of =abeas Co'&us 2he pocedue of ha!eas copus can !e suspended in ti)e of national e)egenc".'o fa this happened onl" duing the Civil ;a. 2he each of ha!eas copus iscuentl" !eing tested in the 8nited 'tates. Ial agu)ents on a consolidated<uantana)o 6a" detention ca)p detainee ha!eas copus petitionG !l Oda" v.United States wee head !" the 'upe)e Cout of the 8nited 'tates on (ece)!eG *00. 8' coutsK ?uisdiction was alteed !" Congess in R 19G 2he iolentRadicali-ation and o)egown 2eois) 4evention Act of *00. In June 1*G *003Gthe 'upe)e Cout uling in Boumediene v. Bus" ecogni-ed ha!eas copus ightsfo the Auantanamo &'isone's. In Icto!e G *003G the =st <uantana)opisones wee odeed eleased !" a cout consideing a ha!eas copus petition.

Case Law

'eise' v. Rod'i%ue< 2he appellate coutKs decision was 'eve'sed !" the Su&'eme Cou't !ecause statepisones wee theefoe not a!le to poceed unde 7 /68 unless pisone =st

*/



*$

)eet the eBuie)ents of a sepaate fedeal statuteG 722G i.e. exhausted thee)edies availa!le in the state couts.

Facts $ "osture4etitioneG the -ew :o'+ State @e&a'tment of Co''ectionsG challenged adecision in favo of espondent state pisones fo) the United States Cou't of

!&&eals fo' t"e Second Ci'cuit in the pisones actions unde 2 U.S.C. 7 /68 fo 'esto'ation of %oodGconductGtime c'edits and; as a 'esult; t"ei' 'eleasef'om &'ison. , 4ison in)ates sought an in)unction t"at would 'esto'e t"ec'edits to the)G which would thus entitle t"em to immediate 'elease fo) the,ew o7 pison.

Lessons of the Case

• +f "ou ae see7ing to get out of ?ail "ou will have to e$"aust and go though"abeas co'&us.

• +f "ou want da)ages against 'tate oQcials "ou can sue unde 7/68 founconstitutional con4nement.

#>#- (F the estoation of the espondentsK cedits OUL@ -OT have esulted inthei immediate 'eleaseG BUT O-L: in shotening the length of thei actualcon=ne)ent in pisonG ha!eas copus would ST(LL have !een thei a&&'o&'iate'emed,. &o ecent cases have esta!lished that ha!eas copus elief is not li)itedto i))ediate elease fo) illegal custod"G !ut that the wit is availa!le as well toattac7 futue con=ne)ent and o!tain futue eleases.

Justice otte' Stewa't in "reiser %&()*

", 'e?ui'e state e$"austionD

• 2o eli)inate fiction !etween state and fedeal couts if fedeal coutovetuned convictionP

•

2o let 'tate couts coect po!le)s =stP• Iut of due espect to the 'tate couts and 'tate ci)inal ?ustice s"ste).

", does Cou't &'efe' "abeas to Section /68D

• Clai) at issue sou%"t in)unctive 'elief P

• Clai) at issue was classic "abeas caseP

• 7/68 is b'oadP ha!eas copus is na''owe' 'ule applica!le to the case athand.

@issent b, Justice B'ennan:

• suits aFecting con=ne)ent can still be b'ou%"t in 7/68 so the ma)o'it,

o&inion is illo%icalP• 7/68 does not eBuie a caveout of cetain clai)sP

• 7/68 is fedeal law and fedeal couts pla" an i)potant ole in enfocingfedeal lawP

*$

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potter_Stewart

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potter_Stewart



*

• Rule of e$"austion does not satisf" 'tate needs !ecause no State cou't

decision was at issue=oweve'G thee was a state administ'ative decision at issueP

• 7/68 conte)plated the ve" case that was !ought. ,ow thee is ali7elihood of inceased fiction.

Cou't S,stem T"e Bi% ictu'e

Fede'al Cou'ts St'uctu'e&edeal Couts can !e ceated and ?udges can !e appointed:

/1 Unde' !'t. (((

•

8.'. 'upe)e Cout 9 ?ustices• Cout of Appeals 1* Cicuits &edeal Cicuit

• &edeal (istict CoutsG )oe than one ?udge in each cout

• Couts of +ntenational 2ade

!'ticle ((( Jud%es:

• Life Appoint)ent

• Re)oved onl" though +)peach)ent

• 4esident no)inates

• 'enate Con=)s

• 2he" ae su!?ect to a Code of Conduct and 'enioit"

21 Unde' -onG !'t. (((

U.S. Fede'al *a%ist'ate Jud%es

Y 3 "ea appoint)ent

Y 'elected !" chief ?udge of local distict cout

Y Resolve )attes unde gant of Congessional authoit" #*3 8'C

section /%

Y +n civil casesG pincipall" handle petial discove" !attlesP can !e used

to )ediateY Can )a7e =ndings and eco))endations on )attes that the distict

)ust eview

Y +n ci)inal casesG handles initial appeaance and othe )inisteial

)attes

Ban+'u&tc, )ud%e

Y Appointed !" the Cout of Appeals

*



*

Y 1$ "ea te)

Y &edeal statute esta!lishes authoit"@?uisdiction of fedeal distict

cout

Y (istict cout can delegation cetain authoit" to the)

Y IQces of the distict cout

Cou't of Fede'al Claim

Y Ceated unde Aticle +

Y 1 ?udges no)inated !" the 4esident and con=)ed !" 'enate fo 1

"ea te)s

Y Cases involving fedeal contactsG ta7ing of popet" !" fedeal

goven)entG tax efund suitsG civilian and )ilita" pa" Buestions

!&&eal 'ocess8.'. 'upe)e Cout

8.'. Cout of Appeals

8' (istict Cout

A pat" )a" appeal the ?udg)ent enteed !" a distict cout !efoe a Cout of Appeal. #$ce&t: Appeals involving 4atent Law and cases that need to !e decided!" cetain coutsG li7e fo exa)ple the Cout of &edeal Clai)s and the Cout of +ntenational 2adeG whose decisions ae appealed !efoe the &edeal Cicuit foCout of Appeals.

Rules:

+. ;e )ust 7now when and whee to appeal

++. Cou't of a&&eals doesnHt ma+e new fact 4ndin%sP defeence

given to facts as found !" tial cout #2ieoffact in the distict cout%

a. Cout of appeals can ode O'al a'%ument

b. !&&eal is decided b, )ud%e &anel

c. Li)ited en banc eview

II Su&'eme Cou't would 'eview an !&&eal to a Ci'cuit Cou't o Cout of appeals decision !":

1% <anting a 'it of Ce'tio'a'i to the lowe coutG ecod would pesented fo

futhe eviewa. Ci'cumstances unde' w"ic" a 'it of C. ma, be %'anted:

i. ConDict a)ong cicuit couts #2he goal is 8nifo)it"%

ii. 'tate cout decides a &5 that is in conDict with a decision ta7en

!" anothe 'tate cout of last esot o with a 8.'. Cout of

Appeals

*



*

iii. 'tate Cout o 8.'. Cout of appeals decided i)potant &5 that

has not !een settled !" 'C o is in conDict with elevant

decisions of 8.'. 'upe)e Cout.

Sub)ect *atte' Ju'isdiction of Fede'al Cou'ts

(. !'ticle ((( S*J claims a'isin% unde'K

28 U.S.C. §// Fede'al Euestion as to clai)s Naising undeO

a. 2he constitution

!. Laws of the 8.'.

c. 2eaties of the 8.'.

!'isin% Unde'KD

;ellpleaded co)plaint ule: face of co)plaint and not !ased on a defenseo the plaintiFKs pleading of an anticipated defense

Li)ited exceptions to wellpleaded co)plaint uleG e.g.G when a fedeal

statute co)pletel" pee)pts a cause of action

'how sa)ple fedeal Buestion co)plaint

+f clai) as pleaded aises unde fedeal lawG canKt !e dis)issed fo lac7 of

su!?ect )atte ?uisdictionP !ut if facts donKt =t unde the fedeal law pleadedG

case could !e dis)issed on the )eits and all clai)s that have o could have

!een asseted !" a)end)ent ae foeve !aed

28 U.S.C. § 1332 @ive'sit, of Citi<ens"i& 28 USC section /2

Y Citi<ens of di3e'ent states

Y US citi<en and fo'ei%n citi<en

Y Citi<ens of di3e'ent states and in w"ic" fo'ei%n citi<ens a'e

additional &a'ties

Y Fo'ei%n state is &lainti3 and citi<en of a State o' of di3e'ent

States

Y 5;000 in cont'ove's, not includin% inte'est and costs

a1 Com&lete @ive'sit,

!cce&table

• 4 #2exas% v. ( #,ew o7%

• 4 #2exas% v. ( 1 #,ew o7%G (* #(elawae%

• 4 1 #2exas%G 4* #A7ansas% v. (1 #,ew o7%G (* #(elawae%

Unacce&table

*



*3

4 #2exas% v. ( #2exas%

4 #2exas% v. (1 #A7ansas%G (* #2exas%

41 #2exas%G 4* #Louisiana% v. ( #2exas%

41 #2exas%G 4s #Louisiana% v. (1 #,ew o7%G (* #Louisiana%

b1 !mount in Cont'ove's, 5 M

• § 1332 (c)Copoations (ual citi-enship

o Co'&. is a citi<en of &lace of inco'&o'ation; andN

o 'inci&al &lace of business

• § 1333 !dmi'alt, #$clusive Ju'isdiction1

• 1330 !ctions a%ainst fo'ei%n States

• 1343 Civil Ri%"ts

• 1345 U.S. is alainti3

• 1346 U.S. is a@efendant consistent wit" !'t. (((; Section 21

/8 U.S.C. Section 2/ o'i%inal )u'isdiction; e$clusive of t"e cou'ts of

t"e States; of all o3ences a%ainst t"e laws of t"e United States. T"is )u'isdictional %'ant conce'ns acts t"at violate U.S. C'iminal Laws.

Concu''ent Ju'isdiction 'tate couts have inheent authoit" and ae pesu)ptivel" co)petent to

ad?udicate clai)s aising unde 8' laws

Exclusive ?uisdiction onl" if CongessG unde execise of authoit" unde

'upe)ac" ClauseG divests state couts of this authoit"

Su&&lemental Ju'isdiction

a% 'upple)ental Juisdiction: +f a fedeal cout has oiginal ?uisdiction ove a

caseG it also has the discetion to execise ?uisdiction ove A, clai) Nso

elated to clai)s in the action within such oiginal ?uisdiction that the" fo)pat of the sa)e case o contoves" unde At. +++.O Section /5.

• 4laintiF )a" plead a fedeal BuestionG fo exa)pleG violation of

'he)an Act #antitust clai)% and plead clai) !ased on state law #e.g.G

violation of state antitust lawsG faud%

• &edeal distict cout has ?uisdiction ove the faud clai) if it is so

elated to the fedeal clai) that it fo)s pat of the sa)e case o

contoves" unde Aticle +++ #*3 8'C sec. 1/#a%%. 'tate and fedeal

*3



*9

clai)s )ust deive fo) a co))on nucleus of opeative facts so the"

would !e expected to !e tied in one case. #$ce&tion 28 USC sec.

/5c11 w"en

Counte'claim 4 v. ( in fedeal cout !ased on fedeal BuestionP ( !ings a state law

counteclai) against 4 aising out of the facts at issue

4 v. ( in fedeal cout in divesit" and [100G000 in issueP ( !ings a state law

counteclai) against 4 fo [10G000

Joinde' N (nte'vention A peson not a pat" to a lawsuit )a" !e added in o )a" decide to !eco)e a

pat"

A peson can !e added as a plaintiFG defendantG o thidpat" defendant 'o in fedeal Buestion case:

Y 4 v. (1 unde 'he)an Act

Y 4 v. (* unde 'tate law and not divese

• +n @ive'sit, CasesG cout can execise 'upple)ental ?uisdiction ove

cetain paties #!ut not ove the ?oindes% if execising ?uisdiction

ove the) is inconsistent with 1//*. #&ed. '"ste) does not want

people getting aound the povision of (ivesit" of Citi-enship in ode

to go to fedeal cout%.

• Sam&le: 4 pesents clai) that includes a &5 #violation of 'he)an ActGAntitust% and also plead a clai) !ased on state law violation of 'tate

Antitust laws%

o &( can 7eep the state law clai) if it aose out the common nucleus

of o&e'ative facts;K which )eans if it so elated to the &edeal clai)G

so that it fo)s pat of the sa)e contoves" o case unde !'t. (((

and 28 U.S.C. section /5 a1; and s"ould be +ee& to%et"e'.

o #$ce&tion Section /5 c1

o ,ovel o co)plex issue of 'tate law

o 'tate law clai) pedo)inates ove fedeal clai)o Cout has dis)issed the fedeal clai)

o +n exceptional cicu)stancesG othe co)pelling easons

Limitations in @ive'sit, Cases

,o supple)ental ?uisdiction in divesit" cases as to clai)s !" a plaintiF as to

a pat" !ought into the lawsuit as:

*9



/0

Y 2hidpat" defendant #&ed. R. Civ. 4. 1$%

Y Joinde #&ed. R. Civ. 4. 19G *0%

Y +ntevention #&ed. R. Civ. 4. *$%

8nless divesit" exists

#$am&le of im&'o&e' su&&lemental )u'isdiction

4 #<eogia% v. ( #iginia% fo [*00G000

( sa"s it is not esponsi!le fo the lia!ilit" !ut \ #<eogia citi-en% isP so (

!ings a thidpat" clai) against \ #<eogia citi-en%

4 cannot sue \ diectl"

(n @ive'sit, Cases "at law a&&liesD "e'eD

• +n (ivesit" CasesG &edeal (istict Couts would appl" su!stantive 'tate

law and fedeal pocedual ules. Also fedeal ules of Evidence goven thetial in distict couts. 4ocedue in 'C is govened !" 'CKs ules.

Si%ni4cance of dive'sit, cases

;hen a fedeal cout sits in divesit" and decides Buestions of state lawG it

applies state law and sits as if it wee a state cout

+)potant decision as to what state law applies #choice of law%

>#-U# "e'e t"e suit can be b'ou%"t

+f ( disagees with venueG he can =le a C"an%e of >enueO *3 8'C 'ec. 1$0$.( )ust )eet eBuie)ents unde such statute cout gants the )otions.

Concens the fedeal distict cout whee a clai) can !e !ought

(etails ules unde *3 8'C sections 1/919*G 1/9G 1/9G 1$00G 1$01G 1$0*

goven

Re?ui'ements Fo' Law,e's

a1 Must !e ad)itted to appea in (istict Cout

a. Can appea in fede'al dist'ict cou't fo li)ited puposes !" motion pro hoc vice.

b. (f not ad)ittedG F(-@ ! LOC!L COU-S#LG which is alwa"s a good

eco))endation.

b1 Also need to !e ad)itted to appea !efoe Cicuit Couts and 'C.

c1 +f going !efoe a 'tate coutG must be admitted to &'actice in t"at State

/0



/1

a. (f claim 'aises fede'al o' constitutional issue 4le 'it of

Ce'tio'a'i.

Removal

+f ( is unhapp" a!out !eing tied in a fou) state which is not his own stateG he )a"e)ove the suit to a fedeal coutG distict in which the clai) was =led. 2itle 28U.S.C. Section //.

Rules:

• Re)oval is su!?ect to ti)e estictions and e)oval pocedue

• +f e)oval i)popeG case would !e REMA,(E( to tansfeo cout

• ( CA,,I2 REMIE +& E +' A C+2+]E, I& 2E '2A2E +, ;+C '8+2 +'

&+LE(.

,ote: nothing in this su!section #1$$1% shall estict the authoit" of the distict

cout to tansfe o dis)iss an action of the gound of Ninconvenient fou)O

Section / 'ocedu'e fo' Removal.

• /0 da"s afte eceipt of co)plaint.

• ,otice of e)oval )ust !e =led in the fedeal cout within the Ndistict and

?uisdiction whee the case is pending.O

• ,otice also =led with the cle7 of the 'tate cout

• ,otice )ust !e seved to all paties involved in the case

• +f Re)oval is i)popeG &C would e)and case to the state cout.

Fede'al Ju'isdiction(ivesit" ?uisdiction Y Meaning of citi-en *3 8'C 1//*

Conce&tsEle)ents of citi-enship @ Relevant date fo dete)ining citi-enship

2E'2: #Legal standad to dete)ine citi-enship%.

4esence in a state #)ailG 7ids living theeG pa" taxes thee #Iegon%G voteegistationG ca egistationG dive license%.

4esonKs +ntention to live thee at the ti)e of the aival. #to Iegon%

/1



/*

Can a peson !e a citi-en of )oe than one state fo puposes of divesit" ?uisdiction ,o. A peson onl" has one citi-enship. @ Also )a7e sue "ou 7nowwhee the peson is citi-en at the ti)e the suit is =led.

Case Law — B'ieP,

Aalla%"e' v. "iladel&"ia &. /28

+n this case the Cout sent !ac7 the case to the (istict Cout to appl" the legalstandad. 2he plaintiF is decided to !e citi-en of Iegon she wins the )one". +f shewould have !een declaed citi-en fo) 4enns"lvania the Cout wouldKve decide alac7 of su!?ect )atte ?uisdictionG the case wouldKve !een dis)issed and shewouldKve lost the )one" ganted in the othe Cout.

Juisdictional 'tatue Y Alien 2ot 'tatue Judicia" Act 139 #allows fo intenationallaw to !e intoduced into the 8' couts%

Sosa v. !lva'e<G*ac"ain &. /'osa got to the fedeal cout on the !asis that it was a violation of the law ofnations. 2he 'up. Ct. sa"s that the )ost i)potant Buestion is whethe theco)plaints =t the A2'. +n Alvae- case does not. 2hen the Buestion is to 7now if theA2' is a ?uisdictional statue '. Ct. sa"s "esG !ut this does not ceate new causes of action. #2his gave to the distict cout ?uisdiction%.

+n this case Alvae- co)plaint does not =t the A2' 'tatue in violation of the law of,ationsG !ecause &edeal Couts should not ecogni-e pivate clai)s unde &edealCo))on Law fo violations of an" +ntKl law no).

2hee ae li)its to use caution in adopting the Law of ,ations to pivate ights:

(ecision to ceate a pivate ight of action is !ette to leave it to legislative. #+n thegeat )a?oit" of cases%.

Co))on law is not deived an")oe !ut )ade: #+t changed since 139P nowestain in ?udiciall" appl"ing intenationall" geneated laws%.

,o Congessional )andate to =nd new violations of the law of nations. Judges aenot allowed to )a7e this law and intoduce it in &edeal Co))on Law.

Loo7 fo legislative guidance !efoe execising innovative authoit".

'ince we )a" !e ceating a pivate ight of actionG again loo7 to the legislatue fo

collateal conseBuences. igh !a to new pivate causes fo action fo violating +ntKllaw

2hee is concen as to foeign aFais%.

2he A2' *3 8'C 1/0 is a ?uisdictional gant and does not ceate a new cause ofaction fo tots in violation of the law of nations. 6ut then Justice 'oute sa"s thatcetain clai)s can go fowad unde A2': ow does he get thee and which ones:

/*



//

At the ti)e 8' was fo)ed the law of nations too7 two fo)s:

Relations !etween states and

Mechant law.

Const: At. +++G sec. * gave 'upe)e Cout oiginal ?uisdiction ove all A)!assadoscases. Judicia" Act included A2'. 8nde this one the A2' at the ti)e was appovedonl" thee ecogni-ed situations existed: 4iac"G (iplo)ac" and iolations of safeconduct.

,ow the '. Ct. stated that a clai) should !e !ased on a no) of intenationalchaacte accepted !" the civili-ed nations. #2his upset the ?udges and 'caliaG!ecause now the" have to !e awae of the evolution of intenational law and theco))on law itself%.

Case Law — @etailed

Aalla%"e' v. "iladel&"ia &. /28@ive'sit,

Meaning of citi-enship

• 4esence in a stateP

o aving 7ids theeP

o 4a"ing taxes theeK

o oting egistationP

o Mailing addessP

o Ca license.

• 4esonKs intention to live thee at the ti)e of aival.

'he has hus!and in ?ail in "iladel&"ia; !. And she taveled in Califo'nia.

oweveG eve"thing else is in O'e%on

Can peson have two citi-enships fo the puposes of divesit"

,otG onl" oneS

,atual peson cannot.

6ut a co'&o'ation can. ;hat ae the citeia

• 4lace of incopoation• 4lace of eFective !usiness.

2he ule is com&lete dive'sit,.

2hee is an exception fo insuance co)panies.

+f "ou have (isne" #egisteed in (elawae and headBuateed in AtlantaG<eogia% and the two plaintiFs ae fo) (elawae and <eogia thee is -O@(>#RS(T: .

//



/$

(ispute: #<allaghe% 4laintiF in?uedG pesu)a!l" hut while iding@getting on 4hill"!usG clai)ed negligence against tanspotation authoit"

'uit:

&iled in fedeal distict cout in 4enns"lvania

4 clai)ed she was a citi-en of IegonP ( is a citi-en of 4enns"lvania.

Evidence on ?uisdiction

4laintiFKs deposition

4laintiFKs tial testi)on"

4laintiFKs posttial aQdavit

2ial:

4 won.

Relevant facts that helped the Cout to see the 4 intention:

;hen she went to Iegon it was he intention to )a7e a ho)e thee

,o hus!and and went to loo7 fo !othe suppot.

asnKt etuned to 4enn except fo tial

,o !usiness@popet" left in 4enn

,o voting in 4enn

,ot even !otheed seeing hus!and in 4enn since 19$ when she went to Iegon

Sosa v. !lva'e<G*ac"ain &. / Ju'isdictional Statute

28 U.S.C. 7 /0G co))onl" efeed to as the T!lien To't Statute.T 2his

?uisdictional gantG which was esta!lished in the Judicia" Act of 139G allows fointenational law to !e intoduced into the 8.'. couts.

ee we have violation of t"e law of nations #custo)a" intenational law%.

(oes the co)plaint feet in A2'

-O. +t does not.

+s A2' ?uisdictional statute

:es. 6ut it does not ceate new causes of action.

&edeal couts s"ould not 'eco%ni<e &'ivate claims !ased onintenational custo)a" law #piac"G diplo)ac"G violations of the safeconduct%.

T"e, also establis" standa'd limits t"e )ud%es s"ould conside' w"ileestablis"in% if citi<en 4ts wit"in !TSD

/$



/

(espiteG Alvae- lost !ecause 'up. Ct. decides that in his case the A2' does notceate a cause of action fo tots in violation of the law of nationsG !ecause &edealCouts should not ecogni-e pivate clai)s unde &edeal Co))on Law foviolations of an" +ntKl law no)P cetain clai)s can go fowad unde A2'. ,owGlowe Couts will spend )oe ti)e and eneg" =guing out what clai)s can gofowad. 'up. Ct. tied to shut the doo to )an" clai)sG !ut this is not cetain.

(ispute: 4G Mexican nationalG 7idnapped !" 8' (EA agentsP !ought to 8' foci)inal chagesP afte 8' pesented caseG acBuitted !ased on distict cout ganting)otion fo acBuittal #elease%. Alvae- sues 'osa #Mexican national who helped inthe a!duction% in a &edeal coutG the clai) !ased on *3 8'C 1/0G A2' #Alien 2ot'tatute%. (istict Cout gants su))a" ?udg)ent in favo of Alvae- !ased on hisclai)s against 'osa fo 7idnapping and a!ita" detention 6oth violate law ofnations. 9th Cicuit 4anel aQ)s. En !anc eview #in full cout%:

Alvae- loses on clai) that a!duction violated law of nations

Alvae- wins on clai) that extateitoial aest and detention wee a!ita" and inviolation of the law of nations

;hat issue in 8' 'upe)e Cout

4e the opinionG the issue is whethe Alvae-Ks clai)s =t within the A2'.

2he issue depends on whethe the A2' does )oe than esta!lish ?uisdictionP doesthe A2' ceate a new cause of action fo tots in violation of the law of nations

+s this opinion confusing o what #Haa)anian co))enta"%

&istG 'oute sa"s Alvae- "ouKe wong W the A2' does not ceate a new cause ofaction fo tots in violation of the law of nations

6utG then 'oute sa"s that cetain tots in violation of the law of nations ae withinthe A2'.

ow does he do this At ti)e 8' fo)edG law of nations too7 two fo)s:

Relations !etween states

Law )echant

Ivelap: violation of safe conductsG infinge)ent of a)!assadosK ights and piac"

Const: At. +++G sec. * gave 'upe)e Cout oiginal ?uisdiction ove all A)!assadocases. Judicia" Act included A2' @ A2' designed to cove onl" a s)all nu)!e ofcases inside Co))on Law:

Co))on law ecogni-ed onl" thee ",b'id cases:

• IFenses against a)!assadosP

• iolations of safe conductP

• +ndividual actions aising out of pi-e captues and piac".

6ut the A2' is not li)ited to onl" these thee cases. A clai) )ust !e !ased on ano) of intenational chaacte accepted !" the civili-ed wold and de=ned withspeci=cit" li7e those thee in the 100s. 2hisG howeveG is a naow class of no)s.

/



/

+n this case Alvae- co)plaint does not =t the A2' 'tatue in violation of the law of,ationsG !ecause &edeal Couts should not ecogni-e pivate clai)s unde &edealCo))on Law fo violations of an" +ntKl law no).

2hee ae limits to use caution in ado&tin% the Law of ,ations to pivate

ights:• (ecision to ceate a pivate ight of action is bette' to leave it to

le%islative. #+n the geat )a?oit" of cases%.

• Common law is not de'ived an,mo'e but made: #+t changed since

139P now estain in ?udiciall" appl"ing intenationall" geneated laws%.

• -o Con%'essional mandate to =nd new violations of the law of nations.

Judges ae not allowed to )a7e this law and intoduce it in &edeal

Co))on Law.

• Loo7 fo le%islative %uidance befo'e execising innovative aut"o'it,.

• 'ince we )a" !e ceating a &'ivate 'i%"t of actionG again loo7 to the

legislatue fo collate'al conse?uences. igh !a to new pivate causesfo action fo violating +ntKl law

• 2hee is concen as to foeign aFais.

-ote 'oute satis=es Alvae- to so)e extent in that the A2' is not shut down !uthe doesnKt eall" answe the Buestion. ;hat does this )ean MIRE L+2+<A2+I,SS

'calia dissent:

2hee is no geneal co))on law and 'outeKs appoach allows ?udges to)a7e law. And 'oute does this afte announcing that the A2' is a

?uisdictional statute that does not ceate new causes of action.

2he new fedeal co))on law is not found !ut )adeP fedeal couts )ust

have fedeal co))on law)a7ing authoit" to )a7e the law,o fedeal co))on law)a7ing authoit" in the A2'

Contasts ad)ialt"G whee Constitution allows this.

+n su): Alvae- losesP cetain clai)s can go fowad unde A2'P Lowe couts willspend ti)e and eneg" =guing out what clai)s can go fowadP 'upe)e Coutpo!a!l" shut the doo to )an" clai)s !ut this is not cetain.

2he 4of. Haa)anian agues that this is eall" a naow view of casesP 4of'teinhadt has a totall" diFeent opinionG that this was the pinciple vehiclethough which intenational law stat to access to 8' couts.

2otue is diFeent accoding to the Congess. 2he Congess is !eing ve"pessued to shut it down Tno) of intenational chaacte and ecogni-edWT'ee the othe li)its. 'calia is ang" !ecause he 7nows that thee ae all thesecases in the lowe couts still pending and he wished to shut all thesesituations down.

/



/

Te''ito'ial Ju'isdiction

Conce&ts

Case law

!sa"i *etal (ndus Co v. Su&e'io' Cou't of Califo'nia

FactsCalifonia esident <a" Quc"e' was in?ued and his wife died in the )otoc"cleaccident in Califonia. ]uche !ought Clai) against )anufactue including intealia Cheng 'hin Ru!!e +ndustial Co. #a 2aiwanese )anufactue of tu!es% # C"en%S"in%G which itself =led a coss co)plaint seeing inde)ni=cation fo) itscodefendants and fo) petitione Asahi Metal +ndust" Co #A Japanese )anufactueof valves% #!sa"i%. 2he co)plaint with ]uche and othe codefendants was settledleaving onl" Cheng 'hinKs co)plaint against Asahi.

"roce!ural History 2he (istict cout consideed the caseG denied AsahiKs co)plaint to ?uas"summons and held fo Cheng 'hin. 2he Cout of Appeals evesed the distictcoutKs decisionG howeveG the 'upe)e Cout of Califonia didnKt agee with theCout of Appeals and suppoted the distict coutKs decision. 2he 'upe)e Coutganted cetioai.

+ssues;hethe Califonia cout has pesonal ?uisdiction #a.7.a. 2eitoial ?uisdiction%unde the due pocess clause ove Cheng 'hinKs co)plaint

Hol!in,Revesed. Califonia Cout does not "ave pesonal ?uisdiction ove the cla) dueto the a!sence of N)ini)u) contactsO and the fact that execise of ?uisdiction ovethe co)plaint would aFect N2aditional notions of fai pla" and su!stantial ?usticeO

Rationale

+n a!sence of <eneal Juisdiction #when defendant has undisputed ties with thefou) state%G in ode fo Califonia cout to have pesonal ?uisdiction ove the caseit )ust esta!lish that Asahi had N)ini)u) contactsO with the fou) state#Califonia% and execise of ?uisdiction does not aFect Nthe taditional notion of faipla" and su!stantial JusticeO.

2hee two t"pes of ?uisdictions: pesonal and teitoial.

/



/3

Even if the peson is not pesentG it still can !e sued if it has )ini)u) contactsunless this causes in?ustice.

• *inimum Contacts

Asahi was sending tu!es to 2aiwan and 2aiwanese co)pan" was sending thetu!es to CA.

Cou't si)pl" enfocea!ilit" is not a legal standad.o +n ode to esta!lish )ini)u) contacts a peson )ust Npuposefull"

avail itself of the pivilege of conducting activities with the fou) stateGthus invo7ing !ene=ts and potections of its lawsO. Accodingl")ini)u) contacts )ust !e !ased on an act of defendantG which ispuposefull" diected towad the fou) state. &o +nstanceG it mustdesi%n t"e &'oduct fo' t"e ma'+et in t"e fo'um state it mustadve'tise o' ca'', out t"e ma'+etin% of t"e &'oduct in t"efo'um state etc. Mee place)ent of the poduct in the stea) ofco))ece with the foeseea!le possi!ilit" #howeveG thee should not!e an expectation% that the poduct )a" end up in the fou) statedoes not ?ustif" )ini)u) contacts.

'i)pl" putting the poduct in a stea) of co))ece is not enough.

2hee ae no )ini)u) contacts.

• 2aditional notions of fai' &la, and substantial )usticeo ;hen anal"-ing the taditional notions of fai pla" and su!stantial

?ustice the cout )ust conside the !uden on the defendantG the inteests of the fou) stateG and the plaintiFs inteest in o!taining elief.

2he second and the t"i'd can eli)inate the 4'st one.

2he inte'ests of &lainti3 and the fou) state could ?ustif" the heav" !uden of the defendant.

+ntestate #8.'. states% )udicial s,stems inteest in o!tainingthe )ost eQcient esolution of contovesies.

shae inteest of seveal states in futheing funda)entalsu!stantive social &olicies #this one is pu!lic polic"%.

(id the" have expectation that thei poducts would end up in CA

2he" did not.

ien !i' !las+a v. B'andt

Facts;ien Ai Alas7aG an Alas7an copoation !ased in 2exasG e)plo"ed sevices of <e)an law"es B'andt. 6andt epesented ;ien Ai in seveal deals in <e)an"and got involved into faudulent activities. ien !i' b'ou%"t t"e case on f'aud.#M>A of so)e ailines%. &ed up with 6and ;ien =les in 2exas.

/3



/9

"roce!ural History 2he distict cout found that thee was pesonal ?uisdiction against 6andt and thecase was appealed to the Cicuit Cout.

+ssues

;hethe 2exas cout has pesonal ?uisdiction #a.7.a. 2eitoial ?uisdiction% undethe due pocess clause ove 6andt.

Hol!in,Reve'sed. ,o )ini)u) contact.

2he =fth Cicuit held that 2exas cout had pesonal ?uisdiction ove the cla) due tothe existence of N)ini)u) contactsO and the fact that execise of ?uisdiction ovethe co)plaint would not aFect N2aditional notions of fai pla" and su!stantial

?usticeO.

2he" had so)e contacts. 2heefoeG 6andt can !e sued in 2exas.

2he" also had statute.

;hat a!out +ntenet

Loo7 at the natue of we!sites.

2hat is Qi&&o Slide' Test. +f the" ae ?ust having we!site withadvetise)entG that is not a ph"sical pesence. +f the" ae selling so)ethingo )a7ing po=t !" )eans of inteaction with the uses.

2he po!le) wasG thee was anothe case which said lette and phones aepesence fo law"es. 2hat is how the" wo7.

Rationale+n a!sence of <eneal Juisdiction #when defendant has undisputed ties with thefou) state%G in ode fo 2exas cout to have pesonal ?uisdiction ove the case it)ust esta!lish that 6andt had N)ini)u) contactsO with the fou) state #2exas%and execise of ?uisdiction does not aFect Nthe taditional notion of fai pla" andsu!stantial JusticeO.

• Mini)u) Contactso +n ode to esta!lish )ini)u) contacts a peson )ust Npuposefull"

avail itself of the pivilege of conducting activities with the fou) stateGthus invo7ing !ene=ts and potections of its lawsO. Accodingl")ini)u) contacts )ust !e !ased on an act of defendantG which ispuposefull" diected towad the fou) state and had "oreseeablee+ect o" a tort claim. 2he Cout found suQcient to esta!lish )ini)u)contacts on the !asis of the fact that 6andt had co))unications #e.g.e)ailsG lettesG and faxes% with the co)pan" opeating in 2exas.AlthoughG he had )eetings as wellG the cout esta!lished that ph"sical

/9



$0

pesence is not cucial when esta!lishing the existence of )ini)u)contacts.

• 2aditional notions of fai pla" and su!stantial ?usticeo ;hen anal"-ing the taditional notions of fai pla" and su!stantial

?ustice the cout )ust conside the !uden on the defendantG the inteests of the fou) stateG and the plaintiFs inteest in o!taining elief. intestate ?udicial s"ste)s inteest in o!taining the )ost

eQcient esolution of contovesies shae inteest of seveal states in futheing funda)ental

su!stantive social policies.

^2he inteests of plaintiF and the fou) state could ?ustif" the heav" !uden of thedefendant.

Fede'al Civil 'ocedu'e T"e Ju',

Statuto', Basis 2he ight to a ?u" is gounded in 8.'. Constitution. ULegV U.S. Const. amend. >(( gants this ight to paties in ce'tain civil casesG while ULegV U.S. Const. amend.>( gants this ight to paties in an, ci)inal case.

U.S. Const. amend. >(( in 'uits at U/V common lawG whee the U2V value incont'ove's, shall exceed twent, dolla'sG the 'i%"t of t'ial b, )u', s"all be&'ese'vedG and no fact tied !" a ?u"G shall !e othewise eexa)ined in an" Cout

of the 8nited 'tatesG than accoding to the 'ules of t"e common law.&o)all"G thee ae TO eBuie)ents in ULegV amend. >((G while actuall" thee isO-# #co))on law%.

+t is dicult to ima%ine so)eone =ling lawsuit fo less t"an 20S

Conce&ts 2he basic distinction to !e dawn fo the puposes of dete)ining whethe thedefendant is entitled to a ?u" is the natu'e of 'emed,. +f the e)ed" is Nle%alO thee can !e ?u" is the eBuest fo it is ti)el" =ledG if the e)ed" is N e?uitableO thee will !e no ?u"G unless thee is a speci=c indication fo ?u" in the legislation.

Le%al 'emedies

• All t"pes of dama%es #co)pensato"G punitiveG incidentalG liBuidatedGno)inal%.

#?uitable 'emedies

• +n?unctionP

• 'peci=c pefo)anceP

$0



$1

• Account of po=tsP

• RescissionP

• (eclaato" eliefP

• Recti=cationP

• EstoppelP

• Cetain popieta" e)ediesG such as constuctive tusts o tacingP• 'u!ogationP

• EBuita!le lien.

&o explanations on each t"pe of eBuita!le e)ed":http:@@en.wi7ipedia.og@wi7i@EBuita!le_e)edies.

Basic de4nitions

• A head ?uo is called the fo'eman o &'esidin% )u'o'.

• 2he &etit )u', #o t'ial )u',% heas the evidence in a tial. A %'and )u',G at"pe of ?u" now con=ned al)ost exclusivel" to so)e ?uisdictions in the8nited 'tatesG dete)ines whethe thee is enough evidence fo a ci)inal

tial to go fowad.• Ju', nulli4cation )eans )a7ing a law void !" ?u" decisionG in othe wods

it is Nthe pocess whee!" a ?u" in a ci)inal case eFectivel" nulli=es a law!" acBuitting a defendant egadless of the weight of evidence against hi) oheO.

• 2he ole of the ?u" is often desci!ed as a 4nde' of factG while the ?udge isseen as having the sole esponsi!ilit" of intepeting the appopiate law andinstucting the ?u" accodingl".

62;G the o'i%ins of t"e )u', ae in +sla) and the +sland of 'icil". 'eehttp:@@en.wi7ipedia.og@wi7i@Ju"`4ossi!le_+sla)ic_oots

Case Law

C"au3eu's; Teamste's =el&e's v. Te'',Su&'eme Cou't a'med lowe cout decision stating that wo7es "ad 'i%"t to

)u', t'ial as to thei claim of fai' 'e&'esentation against the Union.

Facts*cLean 2uc7ing Co)pan" is !ad gu"s. Te'', and fiends ae good gu"s and thetuc7 dives.

McLean shut so)e facilities and elocated 2e" and fiends )a7ing !ig po)ises

a!out Ns&ecial senio'it, 'i%"tsO a!out the !ette life in geneal. As it usuall"happens none of these !eco)e tue. 2e" and fiends wee pat of collectiveGba'%ainin% a%'eementG a legal tool used !" la!o unions to =ght !ull" e)plo"es.

2e" =led T=R## %'ievances with thei Union #i.e. NChauFeusG etc.O%. 2he =stone wo7ed wellG second led to nothingG thid one was ignoed !" the 8nion.

Te'', =led a lawsuit in fede'al dist'ict cou't alleging that #/% *cLean hadb'eac"ed the collective !againing a%'eement and #2% the Union violated its

$1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equitable_remedies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury#Possible_Islamic_roots

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equitable_remedies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury#Possible_Islamic_roots



$*

dut, of fai' 'e&'esentation. 2he dives sought in)unctive 'elief as well ascom&ensato', dama%es.

2he in)unctive 'elief sought !" Te'', was a &e'manent in)unction eBuiing thedefendants to cease thei illegal acts and to einstate the) to thei &'o&e'senio'it, status #less wo7 fo )oe )one"%.

2he com&ensato', dama%es wee fo lost wa%es and "ealt" bene4ts.McLean 4led fo' ban+'u&tc,. 8pon the !an7uptc" =lingG all clai)s againstMcLean !eca)e su!?ect to an Nautomatic sta,.O +n shotG all clai)s ae halted andthe" ae then folded into the !an7uptc" poceeding.

2hat is wh" *cLean is not a &a't, to this case. 2he action against it wasvolunta'il, dismissedG alon% wit" all claims fo' in)unctive 'elief .

Te'', eBuested a ?u" tial in thei pleadings. 2he Union moved to st'i+e t"e )u', demand on the gound that no ight to a ?u" tial exists in a dut" of faiepesentation suit. 6oth lowe couts held that espondents wee entitled to a ?u".

2he 'upe)e Cout aQ)ed.

Lessons of the Case• N2he 'i%"t to a )u', t'ial includes mo'e t"an the co))onlaw fo)s of

action 'eco%ni<ed in /56/.O;ellG so what

N2he ight Uto a ?u"V e$tends to UnewV causes of action ceated!" Congess.O'ee ull v. -nite! States.

• +n dete)ining whethe the action involves legal ightsG loo7 at #/% natu'e ofissues and #2% 'emed, sou%"t.

;hile loo7ing at the natue of issues and e)ed" #a% com&a'e statuto',action to 13th centu" action pe)ege of law and eBuit"P and #b% e$amine t"e 'emed, to dete)ine whethe it is le%al o e?uitable in

natue.

;hat if the 13th centu" didnHt "ave a statuto', claim

*a)o'it, Loo7 fo an analo%ous claim.

Justice B'ennan ;ongG donHt loo+ fo' an" Nanalo%ousclaimsO. Loo7 at the natu'e of 'emed, onl,.

• ;hat is Nanalo%ous claimO

2usteeKs b'eac" of 4ducia', dut,G which had !een within exclusive eBuit" ?uisdiction.

Union acts in !est inteests of its )e)!e@the e)plo"eesP e)plo"eedoesnKt contol the Union ?ust li7e a tust !ene=cia" doesnKt contol

the tustee. 2hat is wh" it is di3e'ent. Justice Stevens: As + have suggested in the pastG + !elieve thedut, of fai' 'e&'esentation action 'esembles a commonGlaw action against an atto'ne, fo' mal&'actice mo'eclosel, than it does an" othe fo) of action.&o this eason Stevens did not )oin the Ma?oit" opinion ina't (((G! #which discusses that collective !againing was

$*



$/

unlawful EnglandG loo7s fo analo%, and =nds it in !ene=cia"tustee elationship%.

• @issente's #Henned". IConnoG 'calia%: Nthe Sevent" !mendment eBuies us to dete)ine whethe the dut" of fai epesentation action Nismo'e simila' to cases that wee tied in couts of law than to suits tied incouts of eBuit".O

2his is eBuit" and the *a)o'it, is wong.6ut @issente's ae loses.

ald'o& v. Sout"e'n Co. Se'vices; (nc.#levent" Ci'cuit 'eve'sed the distict couts ode which denied appellants clai)fo wongful e)plo")ent dischage against appellee unde the Re"abilitation !ct.

2he cout 'emanded the case to the distict cout !ecause the bac+ &a, appellantwas see7ing was le%al; as o&&osed to e?uitable; in natu'e and t"e'efo'e constitutionall, 'e?ui'ed a )u', tial ight.

Facts

6a!aa ald'o& was =ed. Afte "ou ae =ed "ou get ang". 'oG Ms. ald'o& sued Sout"e'nG he fo)e e)plo"e alleging disci)ination in violation of the !%e@isc'imination in #m&lo,ment !ct of /65 !@#!1 and the Re"abilitation!ct see7ing bac+G&a,; li?uidated dama%es; lost senio'it,; lost &ension and f'in%e bene4t c'edits #wowG 'outhen should have done so)ething eall" nast"%.

Clai)s unde !@#! Dew pefectl" and wee decided !" the ?u"G as 26 U.S.C. 72c121 s&eci4call, aut"o'i<es a ?u" decide A(EA clai)s. etG clai)s undeRe"abilitation !ct did not D" with the dist'ict )ud%e. e 'efused to allow t"e

)u', to "ea' the plaintiFKs clai) unde the Re"abilitation !ct !ased on plaintiFKsstate)ent of da)ages as set foth in the 'et'ial O'de'. #levent" Ci'cuit evesed and e)anded.

Lessons of the CaseN2he twoG&'on%ed standa'd fo' 'esolvin% t"e issue of availabilit, of a )u',t'ial unde U.S. Const. amend. >(( Ui.e. NBuestion of lawO [*0V w"en t"estatute does not &'ovide t"e answe' Uco)pae to clai) unde !@#!V on itsface is to 4'st obse've the natue of t"e statuto', action as co)paed to 13thcentu" actions !ought in the English couts &'io' to t"e me'%e' of the couts oflaw and e?uit,. SecondG the 'emed, sought is e$amined to dete)inew"et"e' it is le%al o' e?uitable in natu'e. 2he second inBui" is the mo'eim&o'tant of t"e twoO.

,ote the se?uence of events. 2he cout 4'st dete)ined whethe theapplica!le statute aut"o'i<ed a )u', t'ial. +f it did notG the cout t"en

a&&lied t"e Sevent" !mendment.=oweve'G the cout also states:

N'uits unde 70 of the Re"abilitation !ct . . . . povide to plaintiFsthe full s&ect'um of 'emediesG such that in appopiate 70 casesGU.S. Const. amend. >(( allows a ?u" tial. A ?u" tial is -OT constitutionall, 'e?ui'ed in eve', 70 action. RatheG actionssee7ing onl, e?uitable 'elief ae unaFected !" the availa!ilit" of a

?u" tial fo plaintiFs who see7 da)age e)edies.O

$/



$$

2his put in hu)an language: no )u', tial fo eve', 70 action; onl,no )u', t'ial fo 70 action see+in% e?uitable 'emed,. 6ecauseMs. ald'o& is not as7ing fo eBuita!le elief she is safe.

Summa', Jud%ment

Conce&ts 2hee will !e no naow Buestion on this su!?ect.

*ovant is sue that he is ight. e )oves fo su))a" ?udg)ent.

e shows the ?udge his agu)entsP his vision of the case and the ?udgeagees o efuses.

Bot" &a'ties can move.

• M'J is )ade befo'e o afte' discove', but onl, befo'e t'ial.

• Motion can !e patialG i.e. cove'in% onl, one issue.

2he su))a" ?udg)ent is govened !" Rule 78 FRC.

@e4nition: A =nal decision !" a ?udge that esolves a lawsuit in favo of one of thepaties. ;hen A )otion fo su))a" ?udg)ent is )ade afte discove" isco)pleted !ut !efoe the case goes to tial. 2he pat" )a7ing the )otion )ashalsall the evidence in its favoG co)paes it to the othe sides evidenceG and aguesthat a easona!le ?u" loo7ing at the sa)e evidence could onl" decide the case onewa"fo the )oving pat". +f the ?udge ageesG then a tial would !e unnecessa"

and the ?udge entes ?udg)ent fo the )oving pat".Rule ; Section >((; Fede'al Rules of Civil 'ocedu'e FRC"K1: <oven theules fo the 'u))a" Judg)ent. &RC4 ules all civil actions !ought in &edealdistict couts.

Case Law

Celote$ Co'&. v. Cat'ett 2his is !sbestos case.

CatettKs hus!and died ight afte he was exposed to as!estos.

(istict cout found lac+ of evidence. In appeals the distict cout 'eve'sed thedecision and 'emanded.

"at ,ou need to +now: A 193 case in which the 8nited 'tates 'upe)e Coutheld that a pat" )oving fo su))a" ?udg)ent need onl" show that the opposingpat" lac7s evidence suQcient to suppot its case.

Facts: Catett #plaintiF% sued a nu)!e of as!estos )anufactuesG includingCelotex #defendant% in the (istict Cout fo (CG !ased on evidence alleging that he

$$

http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/term/B78DCAAE-AE32-4004-A4912C2F837FFD37

http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/term/3C5F1751-B1F4-4767-B1CD7DA834B2B204

http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/term/F6B35735-B249-4124-9D74F72F73665F34

http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/term/1CE79D69-DFDC-4450-861ED445A90105F3

http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/term/506937B0-0CCA-420B-90CD436F7AEE8F44

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_judgment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_District_Court_for_the_District_of_Columbia

http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/term/B78DCAAE-AE32-4004-A4912C2F837FFD37

http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/term/3C5F1751-B1F4-4767-B1CD7DA834B2B204

http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/term/F6B35735-B249-4124-9D74F72F73665F34

http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/term/1CE79D69-DFDC-4450-861ED445A90105F3

http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/term/506937B0-0CCA-420B-90CD436F7AEE8F44

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_District_Court_for_the_District_of_Columbia



$

hus!and died of health eFects of as!estos exposue. 2he distict cout found thatCatett lac7ed evidence to show that she could pevail at tial !ased on apepondeance of the evidence. 8nde Rule of the &edeal Rules of Civil4ocedueG su))a" ?udg)entG the case was dis)issed. In appealG the Cout of Appeals fo (C evesed the distict couts decision. &inall"G the 'upe)e Coutevesed the appeals couts decision and e)anded the case.

(ssue: ;hethe Celotex atte)pted showing that the plaintiF had put fothinade?uate evidence showing that he "usband "ad been e$&osed to Celote$asbestos was a suQcient !asis on which to gant su))a" ?udg)ent.

8suall" lainti3 needs to &'ove. 'oG (efendants moved fo' summa', )ud%ment.

'oG @efendants need to &'esent evidence fo M'J.

2hee wee two M'J initiall" and second in a "eaG afte t"ediscove', was ove.

(efendants )oved again. 2he" did not have to pove lac7 of necessa', evidence.

Rule of Celote$: )ovant needs to challenge the )ain agu)ents of the oppositepat" of pove that the opposite pat" lac7s the %enuine issue fo tial.

So; fo' *SJ "ou need to &'ove

1. Agu)ents ae wongP

*. -o %enuine issue #that is an i)pove)ent !" Celote$%.

", is im&o'tant 2he case changed the !uden of poof fo su))a" ?udg)entfo) the )ovant to espondent. Accoding to the Celotex standadG thee ae twowa"s fo a )ovant to pevail in su))a" ?udg)ent #supposing the espondent has

no counte agu)ent%. Ine wa" is to oFe evidence to negate one of the ele)entsof the clai). 2he second is to show that plaintiF has no evidence to suppot at leastone of the essential ele)ents of the clai).

!dditional info: Respondent agued that Celotexs )otion fo su))a" ?udg)entwas insuQcientl" TsuppotedGT and that the )oving pat" )ust povide aQdavits.In this !asisG the cout of appeals evesed the decision to gant su))a"

?udg)ent fo Celotex Cop.G !ut the 'upe)e Cout stated in its decision thataQdavits wee not necessa"G as long as it de)onstated the lac7 of a genuine issuefo tial.

Mut'om Co'& v. Cente' Line

Cente Line is the na)e of the cit". 4o!a!l"G a Re&ublican Cit,.

2he" intoduced special ules fo )assage.

Mut'om Co'&. uns a massa%e saloon.

4laintiF )oved fo 'J. 2he" thought the ule is a!sud unconstitutional #A). 1$%.

2he cout decided ,ou a'e w'on%.

$


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Rules_of_Civil_Procedure



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_District_of_Columbia_Circuit










$

Cit" showed Huto) Cop. opeated disguised !othels.

+f "ou want to challenge new law b'in% evidence.

Lesson/ ou C!--OT *SJ wit"out evidence.

Lesson2 ;heneve a cit" esta!lished cit, 'e%ulations the" ae pesu)ed to!e valid #com&ellin% inte'est%.

And "ou have to c"allen%e t"is &'esum&tion.

"at ,ou need to +now: 2he 'ixth Cicuit concluded that the egulation of housis easona!le Nbecause ille%al se$ual conduct is most li+el, to ta+e &lace atni%"t; closin% massa%e establis"ments du'in% ni%"t time "ou's se'ves ale%itimate inte'est in cu'tailin% ille%al se$ual conductO. &uthe)oeG theegulation govening the clothing won !" the )assages has a ational !asis in thatNt"e 'e%ulation of &'ovocative d'ess fu't"e's t"e le%itimate state inte'est

in assu'in% t"at massa%e &a'lo's a'e not me'e subte'fu%es fo'&'ostitution.O

Facts: Iwne and opeato of a health clu! featuing )assage sevices aised a duepocess challenge unde the &outeenth A)end)ent to a cit" odinance thategulated the hous of opeation and appopiate attie fo such esta!lish)ents. ,o)assages fo) 94M to 11AM. 2he odinance was adopted !" the cit" unde itspolice powe Nto potect the healthG safet"G welfaeG aesthetics and popet" valuesof the citi-ens of the cit" of Cente Line.O 4laintiF clai)s that the new law lac7seasona!ilit" and validit"G since it violates the &outeenth A)end)ent.

(ssue: ;hethe 'MJ was pecisel" ganted and that the (efendantKs new law isvalid.

", is im&o'tantD 'hows how Celotex is applied !" lowe couts. +f "ou want tochallenge a new lawG please !ing evidences.

!dditional (nfo: Cicuit cout decided that the new ule was easona!le andenteed an ode ganting the cit"Ks #now )ovant% )otion fo su))a" ?udg)entand dis)issing the action. Huto) appealed and lostG since it failed to de)onstatethe existence of a genuine issue with espect to the easona!leness of the new ule.

Fede'al Civil 'ocedu'e 'et'ial and T'ial

Aene'al• +n fedeal coutG thee is a estiction that onl" cetain cases can !e !ought.

6ut thee is a lot of ?uisdiction that is concuent with the state cout.• (ecisions whee the case will !e =ledG whethe in the state o fedeal cout is

a )atte of fou) shopping in cases of concuent ?uisdiction.• 2hee can !e )ultiple #enues that a defendant can !e sued in and "ou can

decide whee "ou will !ing suit.• Each fedeal cout will have its own local ules. 2he attone" needs to !e

ad)itted to t" in the cout.

$



$

• ;hen =ling a co)plaintG so)eti)es "ou )a" want to be sca'ce in theco)plaint.

(onKt tell too )uch.• 2he answe is t"picall" due within *0 da"s of sevice

• 2he pocess seve can !e used to seve the co)plaintG !ut the defendant

needs to pa" fo that• 'o)eti)es the defendant can waive sevice and the paties can aange fo

the answe to !e seved

'et'ial

Rule /2b1 motions *otions to dismiss1+n esponse to the co)plaint "ou should loo7 if thee ae easons to dis)iss thecase due to:

/. Lac+ of &e'sonal te''ito'ial1 )u'isdiction sahi case. alves )ade outside 8.'. and Asahi was not awae of it. 2he" could not foesee.+ sue *a'cus in !labama.

2. Lac+ of sub)ect matte' )u'isdiction+ go to &edeal cout with a state clai).;e c'as" ca's wit" !le$ and ( sue "im in @.C.

. (m&'o&e' venue s&eci4c cou't1 Add NenueO to <lossa"+ sue Alex in !an7uptc" cout instead of;ong distict #'.(.,..G E.(.,..%

. (nsucienc, of &'ocess ou sue )eG !ut "ou did not send )e the 'i%"t &a&e'.

. (nsucienc, of se'vice of &'ocessE.g. "ou seved the pocess on )anito'.

. Failu'e to state a claim

+ sue "ou !ecause ( donHt li+e ,ou' %lasses.5. Failu'e to )oin a &a't, 2hee shall !e )ultiple paties and "ou fail to !ing the thid pat". 2hat is li7e insu'ance and consume' law cases.

• A lot of the ti)eG the defendant will =le 1*#!%#% clai) to dis)iss thecase.

• (efenses unde 1*#!% #*%G #/%G #$% and #% ae waived if the" ae notincluded in )otion o esponsive pleading

-otice &leadin%

• it is a shot state)ent that "ou have a !asis fo pesonal ?uisdiction andsu!?ect )atte ?uisdictionP

• !ut when "ou =le a co)plaint whee "ou allege faud "ou need to !e detailed#it is !ecause "ou ae alleging that so)eone co))itted faud intentionall".

$



$3

Obli%ations of t"e !tto'ne, Rule //1• law"es )ust sign the pleading that to the !est of thei 7nowledge afte

co)pleting a easona!le inBui" the su!)ission is coectP• the law"e needs to attest that the" ae not haassing an"oneP

• thee needs to !e a !asis in factsP

•

the ule 11 )otion fo sanctions can !e =led to put pessue on the opposingpat" if the pat" !elieves that thee was a violation of epesentations to thecout.

+f attone" 7nows that his client is l"ing and is acting in !ad faith attone" isliable fo' dama%es of the o&&osite &a't,.

@iscove', Rule 21

ou ae obli%ed to &'esent all documents that ae elated to the case.• +n 8.'. "ou fail to poduce docu)ent and the othe pat" poduces it and

poves that "ou ae l"ing. 2hat is obst'uction of )ustice that /G/0,ea's in )ail.

• ;hen "ou lie in the cout that is &u'%e',. 2hat is Martha Ste/art Case.

• Co)panies should have docu)ent etention polic". +f "ou desto" thedocu)ent ealie "ou ae as7 Macos. 2hin7 of 0nron Case. AthuAndeson shedded the epots.

• 2he )ost extensive pat of the petial pocess

• ou cannot ta7e discove" of eve"thing: *#!%#*%#i%discove" uneasona!l"cu)ulative o duplicativeG #ii% the pat" had a)ple oppotunit" to o!taininfo)ation and #iii% the !uden of expense outweighs the !ene=t

• R2 b1 sco&e of discove', #Negading an" )atte not pivileged that is

elevant to the clai) o defenseG including the existenceG desciptionG natueGcustod"G condition and location of an" docu)ents o othe tangi!le thingsand identit" and location of pesons who 7now of an" discovea!le )atteO%.

o "at is sco&eD4esons in custod"G thei identit"G conditionsG locations.

o 'o)ething that is not wit"in t"e sco&e of discove', the law"ecannot as7 fo it.

4lane cashed. ou ae attone" fo victi)s. ou want to see epots fo cashes of this t"pe of attone".

But + also as7 fo info)ation on supplies of the chassis.+n this case ( "ave to e$&lain 'easons w",.

• 2he cout can ode discove".

• 2he elevant info)ation does not need to !e ad)issi!le in cout if it leads toad)issi!le evidence.

• @ocument &'oduction is ta7en seiousl"G so "ou )ust poduce docu)entsthat ae petinent to the suit. 2he wost thing that could happen is that thedocu)ent is desto"ed.

$3



$9

Settlement• 2he ?udge wants to 7now what the settle)ent eFots weeP

• 'o)e cases ae now eBuied to go though )ediationP

• 'o)e cases now 'e?ui'e mediation.

'et'ial O'de'• ou t"picall" su!)it all of the ecods and evidence "ou ae going to use

Ju',• Citi-ens ae ando)l" selected to seve on cases

• ou can as7 fo an excuseG !ut the )ee fact "ou wo7 is not a eason to !eexcused

• +t depends on the ?udge if a peson will !e excused

• 2he selected ?u" has to ta7e an oath that the" will not investigate the case

• 4eople who have pe?udice of the caseG such as 7nowledge of the caseG the"will !e excused

• 2he law"es have a cetain nu)!e of sti7es when the" do not want a ?uoto !e on the ?u"

• ou cannot sti7e !ased on ace

• 2hee ae also altenates that will !e in the coutoo)

• 8lti)atel"G the Buestion is will an"thing i)pede on the ?uos a!ilit" to heathe facts fail"

• Ju" nulli=cation thee ae people who !elieve that ?u" can )a7e the law ifthe" do not li7e the one in place

• ,ow the ?udges as7 Buestions to the ?u"G it was that the law"es could as7the Buestions to the ?u"

O&enin% statement• +t is good to not )a7e too )an" po)ises in "ou opening state)ent

• 2he defendant does not need )a7e the opening state)ent

itnesses• 2he counsel cannot lead the witnesses.

• ou can pepae the witness and thin7 a!out the wa" the" will !est answethe Buestions "ou ae going to pose

@u'in% t'ial

Ob)ections9Afte close of the evidenceG thee is a confeence with the ?udge to dete)ine inwhat context the ?u" would exa)ine the factsG what standad the" should appl". +fit is a tot caseG the ?u" will !e instucted to )a"!e use the negligence standad. Alaw"e who does not want so)ething to !e instucted to the ?u" needs to o!?ect.

$9



0

• 2hee could !e a motion fo' )ud%ment notwit"standin% t"e ve'dict.

• 2ial pactice is eall" challenging. +f "ou do not o!?ect to evidence !eingad)ittedG "ou need to o!?ectG othewise "ou lost "ou chance.

• Ob)ection in limine when thee ae Buestions that ae pe?udicialG and

"ou do not want the) to !e as7edG then "ou can =le that t"pe of )otion. oucan also o!?ect to the evidence in a petial confeenceG if "ou 7now what theevidence will !eG !ecause the su!)issions of the paties will !e availa!le.

2hee could !e evidence that the ?udge does not 7now whee it is goingG he)a" hold on deciding on the o!?ection.

• As fo the witnessesG "ou will !e o!?ecting to the evidence as it is !eingpesented.

• Counsel )a" =le a motion fo' a di'ected ve'dict i.e. a decision that is)ade !" ?udge befo'e the )u', sta'ts to listen to t"e case #i.e. !efoethe" co)e in% that awads ?udg)ent to the defendant in criminal cases andfo eit"e' of t"e &a'ties in ci#il cases.Add to <lossa" http:@@en.wi7ipedia.og@wi7i@(iected_vedict

Exa)ple fo) ou case 6a7e v. McCollan the w'on% b'ot"e'K case.

@omestic !3ai's

Case Law

:oun%stown Steel Tube Co. v. Saw,e' Steel Sei<u'e Case1 /62

1utcome'.C. said the 4esident has no powe of sei-ue. +t is up to legislatos to decide.

'ee Jac+son concuence. 2hee ae thee ele)ents:

Authoi-ed !" Congess expess.

Authoi-ed !" Congess i)plied #Congess was silent%.

Congess 4ohi!its.

4esident is violating the t"i'd one.

'.C. applied Jac+son easoning in @ames v. *oo'e.

2hee is also one thing.;hen the Congess was eviewing the 'ei-ue ActG the" too7 it out.

2he '.C. pointed at this while deciding this.

&AC2':

Apil $G 19* the 8nionKs notice of nationwide sti7e. 2hee is Hoean ;ahappeningP

0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed_verdict

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed_verdict



1

. T'umanKs executive ode to Saw,e'G 'eceta" of Co))eceG to ta7epossession of )ost of steel )ills in ode to 7eep the) unningP

4esident exhausted )ediation pocedues upon (E&E,'E 4RI(8C2+I, AC2P

2he" wee not successfulP

'aw"e executed pesidential odeP

Co)panies o!e"ed the odeP

4esident sent two )essages to Congess in ode to epot the actions ta7enP

Congess did not ta7e an" action.

4o!le): thee was no e)egenc" declaed !" the Congess.

S.C. a&&lied it a%ain in @ames and *oo'e.

4RICE(..:

Co)panies !ought clai) against 'aw"e in (istict Cout

(istict Cout issued peli)ina" in?unction to estain 'aw"e fo) i)ple)entingthe pesidential odes

Cout of Appeal sta"ed the in?unction

'upe)e Cout ganted cetioai

&RAME;IRH MAJIR+2:

;A' 2E AC2+I, I& 4RE'+(E,2 A82IR+]E(

,I 2ERE +' ,I '2A282E

2ERE +' ,I R8LE I& CI,'2+282+I, A82IR+]+,< 4RE'+(E,2 2I IR(ER A'E+]8RE +, 2E'E C+RC8M'2A,CE'

(T= R#A!R@S TO T=# ST!TUT#: thee ae / diFeent statutes that can appl" tothis case.

LMRA 19$ #2A&2 AR2LE%

(E&E,'E 4RI(8C2+I, AC2 190

'ELEC2+E 'ER+CE AC2 19$3

2hese statutes atti!ute the ulti)ate coecive powe #to deal with the theat of aseious wo7 stoppage% to Congess.

+n paticula the 2aft atle" 19$ eveals that the Congess had e?ected thepossi!ilit" of a goven)ental authoi-ation fo sei-ue #indeed the poposed

1



*

a)end)ent had !een e?ected% and this is )ateial in the test delineated J. Jac7sonwhich has !een applied in seveal following cases !" 'upe)e Cout:

ou should !alance the &ublic inte'est and t"e &'ivate &'o&e't,.

'ee Jac7son concuence.

,ot onl" thee was no statute.

Congess e?ected this a)end)ent.

Accoding to Jac7son #concuing opinion% the Executive Acts can !e a% authoi-ed!" CongessP !% not authoi-ed !" CongessP c% a!solutel" inco)pati!le with an"expess o i)plied will of Congess.

6ecause of the 2aft atle"G the ode of 4esident 2u)an in the instant case is tocollocate in the thid catego".

Against the agu)ent of 4esident that thee was a pu!lic inteest to potect:

Cout said that afte the Congess has enacted special ules thee is no spacean")oe fo a new !alance involving pu!lic inteest. 2he Cout can onl" intepetthe cited Acts

(T= R#A!R@S TO T=# CO-ST(TUT(O-

'eadin% t"e anal,sis of t"e Constitution +ee& in mind t"at fo' t"e ma)o'it,t"e Sei<u'e O'de' "as le%islative natu'e1

At ++ : 4esident as Co))ande of the A)ed &oces : the sei-ue is not execise of)ilita" powe. 'ince it involves pivate popet"G a sei-ue odeG also duing wati)eG is a ?o! fo law )a7es not fo the Co))ande.

,o )onopol" of wa powes can !e atti!uted to the 4esident and athe theCongess declaes the wa and povides fo suppl"ing a)ed foces

Also si)ila decisions involve necessail" expenses which ae authoi-ed !"Congess

2he executive powe ganted to the 4esident . +t is ganted not fo )a7e laws !ut tota7e cae that the laws ae faithfull" executed

2he powes of the 4esident not enu)eated. oweve the pinciple of thesepaation of the powes povides 'upe)e Cout with clea diections.

Against so)e agu)ents of 4esident:

2he <oven)ent cannot ague thatG fo the e)egenc" caused !" the sti7eG the4esidential ode was ?usti=ed: an e)egenc" cannot ceate a powe that does notexist. And athe the Congess has the powes to deal with e)egenc" included theadoption of special pu!lic policies.

*



/

also it cannot !e agued that the 4esidential action is pefea!le !ecause )oeeFective and expedite : #A<A+,% the atti!ution of the powes depends 'ILEL onwhat the Constitution sa"s. Ithe consideations ae i))ateial.

it cannot !e accept the theo" of the A82IR+]+,< 4A'2 4RAC2+CE

'ee =amdi case #usuall" the authoi-ing pactice is elevant if the Congess ati=es

that pactice !" )eans of statutes that expessl" ecogni-e these powes.also it is e?ected the theo" of the inheent powes which is NvagueO see p.*00*0

+n the dissenting opinion of inson R. Minton:

2he ole of 8nited 'tates in i)ple)enting teaties # no legislative natue !ut sei-ueto enfoce congessional ules%

,o one of the cited Acts is inconsistent with a powe of 4esident to ode thesei-ue

Also see)s that the 4esident co)plied with pocedue of the (efense 4od. Act andthen fo the e)egenc" has to act%

Steel Sei2ure Case in Dames an! Moore v. Re,an 2E 4RE'+(E,2+AL IR(ER' #which i)ple)ent the agee)ent 8s +an in 1931%aFect the ?udg)ent of the 8s Cout in favo of (a)es and Mooe against +an

the pesident has this powe !ecause +EE4A povides the 4esident with the poweof declaing national e)egenc"

also the +C'A&'+A Acts

also cases law

)oe geneall" the 'upe)e Cout found a longstanding pactice ati=ed !"Congess

so if it cannot !e held that Congess expessl" authoi-ed this poweG howeve#following Jac7son fa)ewo7% the Congess has not expessl" o i)plicitl" excludedthis powe. 'o ++ catego" in Jac7son test.

-ewman v. United StatesOutcome case not ?udicia!le !ecause of political Buestion.

2he othe ci)inal wanted the sa)e deal as his !udd". e wanted out of the ?ail.

Cout said: it is up to Attone" <eneal to do what he wants.

(ssue political Buestion doctine and powe of the 4esidentupon at ++ to ta7e cae of faithful execution of laws%

1. A22IR,E <E,ERAL A,( LA;ER ;IRH+,< 8,(ER +M ARE CAR<E( ;+2 2E M+''+I, 8,(ER AR2 ++ CI,'2.2I 2AHE CARE 2A2 LA;' ARE &A+2&8LLE\EC82E(

/



$

T"ese a'e cases of mal&'actice a%ainst !tto'ne, Aene'al.

4laintiF said 8.'. Attone" <eneal violated EBual 4otection doctine.

'ee Ba+e' v. Ca'' fo political Buestion.

Attone" <eneal is independent !ut she is also epots to the 4esident.

*. 2E '84REME CI8R2 CA, 8,(ER2AHE L+M+2E( RE+E; +, RE+E;+,< 2EAC2+I,' I& 8' A22IR,E:

Couts have egulal" ecogni-ed discetion of the Executive in deciding thefollowing issues:

when and whethe institute ci)inal poceedings

what chages shall !e )ade

whethe to dis)iss a poceeding

so the sa)e esult follows when dealing with: to initiate poceeding and tovoluntail" te)inate.

2he 8s attone" has discetion in enfoce)ent and ,ew)an cannot clai) aviolation of Constitution #\+ a)end. EBual potection clause% !ecause he wasefused the sa)e plea ganted to codefendant

+f thee is so)ething gave the 'upe)e Cout )a" &'oceed. 6ut that is not thecase.

'ELEC2++2 +, E,&IRCEME,2 +' ,I2 +ILA2+I, I& CI,'2+282+I,:

Ithewise it would !e negate the discetion that the 8s attone" is expected toexecise

AL'I 2E 8' A22IR,E +' A E\EC82+E I&&+C+AL I& 2E <IER,ME,2

4esident has enough disciplina" powes to deal with possi!le )isconduct #it is not ?o! fo ?udicia" to eview the 8s attone" actions%

I;EER MEREL M+'CI,(8C2' ARE 2I 6E (+'2+,<8+'E( &RIM (EC+'+I,

+RRA2+I,AL IR 8,CI,'2+282+I,AL. +, 2+' CA'E 2E CI8R2' CA, 'A ;A2 +',I2 CI,'+'2E,2 ;+2 CI,'2+282+I,.

Fede'al #$ecutive owe' 'ivile%es and (mmunit,

Conce&ts• A!solute and 5uali=ed +))unit"

$



o A!solute i))unit" is eBuied fo &ublic &olic,o IQcials ae i))uni-ed onl" fo thei actions in the ocial dut,

• Malicious +ntention

Add Lessons.

Case Law

U.S. v. -i$on 28

Facts $ "osture

• ,ixon )oves to ?uas" t"e sub&oenaP

• Moves to e$&un%e t"e %'and )u',.

(istict cout denies ,ixonKs )otion and odes hi) to poduce docu)ents.

,ixon evo7es pivilege.

Cou't sa,s: this pivilege is not to !e used to !e a!used.

/. 'pecial 4osecuto secued indict)ent against ,ixon aides and in the

ci)inal case sought docu)entsG including tapesG fo) ,ixon unde 'u!poena

(uces 2ecu).2. ,ixon esisted and his counsel =led special appeaance and )oved to Buash

the su!poena !ased on a clai) of executive pivilege.. At a heaing on the )otionG ,ixon also =led )otion to expunge gand ?u"

action na)ing 4esident as unindicted coconspiato and fo potective

ode as to the eBuested info)ation. (istict cout denies ,ixonKs )otion and odes hi) to poduce the

docu)ents !" a cetain date. ,ixon had pesu)ptive pivilege !ut oveco)e !" 'pecial 4osecutoKs

demonst'ation of com&ellin% need.

Ide sta"ed pending appeal.

Case gets !efoe 8' 'upe)e Cout #in less than a )onth%

Decision by the Supreme Court 2he posecuto co)pelled #povide geat evidence% the cout to ignoe the pivilege.

2he legiti)ate need of ?udicial pocess outweighs the pivilege.

Justice #na)e% in ,ixon #"ea%

'upe)e Cout heldG aQ)ing the denial of the )otion to BuashG that: 2hepesidentKs geneal pivilege of con=dentialit" did not extend to an a!solutepivilege of i))unit" fo) all ?udicial pocess. 6ecause the special posecuto had



de)onstated a speci=c need fo the evidence sought !" wa" of su!poena and hadco)plied with the eBuie)ents of ule 1#c%G it was pope to co)pel poductionand to exa)ine the )ateial in ca)ea. 2he legiti)ate needs of the ?udicial pocessoutweighed executive pivilege.

,ixonKs =st agu)ent45(;hen Executive see7s docu)ents fo) the Executive isnKt it a political Buestion!ecause the dispute is su!?ect to the Constitutional co))it)ent unde Aticle ++

,o.

&istG )ee assetion of the 45( clai) without )oe is not enough. +t does notdefeat fedeal ?uisdiction

'econdG 8nde aticle ++ *Congess has given the Attone" <eneal the authoit" toconduct ci)inal investigationsP conducting ci)inal )attes is in the A<Ks no)alcouse

2hidG Attone" <eneal can delegate to 'pecial 4osecuto and this was done undea speci=c egulation

&outhG Attone" <eneal is out of the pictue. 'pecial posecuto now has explicitpowe to contest the invocation of executive pivilege dee)ed elevant to hisdelegated duties.

U&+G unde the egulation 3 )e)!es of Congess would need to appove e)ovalof the 'pecial 4osecutoV

&ifthG issue aises in egula couse of ci)inal case unde &edeal Law and Aticle +++couts have authoit" to esolve such )attes

'econd point: pivilege

4esident sa"s no o!ligation to poduce docu)ents in esponse to the su!poena!ecause the" ae con=dential and would !e inconsistent with pu!lic inteest topoduce the)

;hat is standad fo eviewing distict coutKs decision of pivilege

,o)al case: sound discetion of the tial cout

2his case: eview should !e Npaticulal" )eticulousO. Cout ecogni-es thei)potance of cicu)stances.

'u!point 1: ?udicial eview #sepaation of powes% #pg*/%

Cout geneall" defes to othe coeBual !anches 6828nde Ma!u"G this Cout dete)ines who has =nal sa" on whethe a pivilegeexists

8nde Ma!u"G this Cout need not el" on ExecutiveKs dete)ination of applicationof the pivilege

Cout has peviousl" execised powe to dete)ine whethe a clai) with espect toexpess powe is authoi-edG so should !e a!le to do so as to i)plied powe of the4esident



'u!point *: pivilege !ased on need fo con=dences

Enu)eated powes do give ise to cetain pivileges although not stated in theConstitution

'u!point /: pivilege !ased on 'epaation of 4owes

2he Executive is an independent !anch and to )aintain independence it should not!e su!?ect to a su!poena issued !" the &edeal Cout

(oes 4esident have a!solute pivilege ,o. #pg*$%

Mee clai) of pivilegeG without assetion of need to potect )ilita"G diplo)atic osensitive national secuit" secetsG is not enough to counte an" di)inishing of thepivilege !" having 4esidential docu)ents poduced in ca)ea to the distict cout

,o a!solute pivilege #contKd% #pg*%

+f thee wee an a!solute unBuali=ed pivilege it would cetainl" intefee withAticle +++ ci)inal tials #legiti)ate needs of the ?udicial pocess%

Advesa" s"ste) gives confontation ights to the accused

Advesa" s"ste) authoi-es due pocess of law

;eigh geneal pivilege of con=dentialit" vesus fai ad)inistation of ci)inal ?ustice

4ocedual safeguads

'u!poena issued

Assetion of pivilege #)ateial teated as pesu)ptivel" pivileged%

4osecuto then )a7es so)e showing to e!ut pesu)ption of pivilege

Ide in ca)ea inspection of the su!poenaed )ateialAdditional pocedual safeguad

+n ca)ea pocedue: no docu)ents evealed to an"one until (istict Cout has)ade thoough eview

(istict Cout dut" to assue that ielevant@inad)issi!le info)ation is excised

Excised )ateial etuned to the 4esident in con=dence

Cout ac7nowledges thee is a pesu)ptive pivilege fo 4esidential co))unicationwhich allows fo opeation of <oven)ent and is ooted in sepaation of powes.oweveG it )ust !e consideed in light of the ule of law. Cout weighs the pivilege

against the aFect on the ad)inistation of ci)inal ?ustice. Cout !asicall" sa"s itwill not cause advise to te)pe thee e)a7s !ecause of the possi!ilit" ofconvesation !eing called fo in posecution. 6utG it will geatl" aFect the ci)inaltial and !asic function of the couts. #pp. **%

<eneal inteest in con=dentialit" cannot pevail ove speci=c need fo evidence in aci)inal tial.



3

Lessons of the Case

=a'low v. Fit<%e'ald 250 Judg)ent den"ing the i))unit" defense was vacated and 'emanded.

Facts&it-gealdG fo)e goven)ent e)plo"eeG sued * ,ixon aides and ,ixon ovewongful te)ination.

Aides and ,ixon =led M'J !ased on a!solute i))unit" !ased on. Motion denied asto aides. +))ediate appeal ta7en.

Decision by the Supreme Court Cout held that: the fact that aides wee entitled to ?uali4ed immunit, would !edefeated O-L: if the" +new o 'easonabl, s"ould "ave +nown that the action

violated the plaintiFKs constitutional ights o if the action was ta7en with maliciousintention to cause a depivation of plaintiFKs constitutional ights.

<ovt. oQcials get so)e i))unit"

5uali=ed i))unit" is no) fo )ost executives. <ovenosG ca!inet )e)!esG etc.

A!solute i))unit" eBuies a showing that pu!lic polic" eBuies the exe)ption notthe )ee fact of the high station.

6uden of ?ustif"ing a!solute i))unit" est on oQcial asseting the clai)

Responsi!ilities of oQce e)!ace a function so sensitive to eBuie a total shield

Aide was dischaging the potected function when pefo)ing the act fo whichlia!ilit" is assets

+f aides wee deivativel" i))une then Ca!inet )e)!es would !e i))unea!solutel"

2o get Buali=ed i))unit" what )ust !e shown

AQ)ative defense which )ust !e pleaded

8suall": I!?ective ele)ent: what is the oQceKs positionP what was he doing

8suall": 'u!?ective ele)ent: oQces own state)ent as to what he 7new@hisintentions

<oven)ent oQcials pefo)ing discetiona" functions %ene'all, a'e s"ieldedf'om liabilit, insofa as conduct @O#S -OT violate cleal" esta!lished statuto"o constitutional ights of which a easona!le peson would have 7nown

3



9

@issent Justice Bu'%e' cites Gravel which discussed i))unit" fo legislativeaides aising fo) a!solute i))unit" fo )e)!eKs. Justice 6uge !elieves that thecout in Harlo/ unde'mines t"e functionin% of t"e Oce of 'esident.

Lessons of the Case

Clinton v. Jones 256

Factsaula Jones !ought civil ights clai) against 'esident Clinton and oce'Fe'%uson elating to acts that occued !efoe Clinton was 4esident. Jones clai)ed&eguson aanged fo he to )et ClintonG who ten )ade i)pope advances at he#w"ic" s"e 'e)ected% and afte the incident he supeios teated he !adl" and&eguson defamed he !" calling he a lia.

'ought to suspend case !ased on i))unit" gounds #no discove"P no tial% untilafte his 4esidenc" is ove (istict cout denied )otion to dis)iss. eld: no tialuntil afte 4esident is out of oQce !ut allowed discove".

6oth sides appeal. Eighth Cicuit allowed discove" and allowed tial.

Before Supreme Court ,o i))unit" fo acts that occued !efoe 4esident #unoQcial conduct% and canstand tial even while as 4esident

+ssuesRationale fo aFoding i))unit" to cetain pu!lic oQcials fo) suits fo )one"da)ages aising out of oQcial acts does not appl" to unoQcial conduct

;hat a!out need to have 4esident who can ful=ll At. ++ duties and not have Coutintefee with sepaation of powes

Cout has authoit" to dete)ine whethe acts ae constitutional and 4esident issu!?ect to ?udicial pocess

Cout is )eel" pefo)ing its Aticle +++ duties

;onKt esult in a Dood of litigation

Lessons of the Case

9



0

Fede'al #$ecutive owe' Fo'ei%n !3ai's

Le%islation

At. ++G section 1: executive powe vested in the 4esident

At. ++G section *: Co))ande in Chief At. ++G section *: powe to )a7e teaties su!?ect to 'enate consent

At. ++G section *: appoint a)!assadosG pu!lic )inistesG su!?ect to 'enateconsent

At. ++G section /: eceive a)!assados and othe pu!lic )inistes

At. ++G section /: shall ta7e cae that the laws ae faithfull" executed

Conce&ts• &o the 4esident to actG he should have powes eithe in At ++ o should have

authoi-ation !" an Act of Congess.• Couts usuall" defe to 4esident on &oeign AFais.• 2he" execise li)ited ?udicial eview.

Case Law

@ames *oo'e v. Re%an4esidential ode validP (>M lostG had to go to ague to ecove.

acts,ational E)egenc" declaed. (>M sue the +anian govt. and !an7sP o!tain pe

?udg)ent odes. Executive odes passed a% nullif"ing attach)ents andtansfeing assets to &edeal 6an7 in ,. !% suspending all clai)s and legalpoceedings against the +an goven)ent and tansfe these to ti!unal at aguethis was pusuant to a settle)ent agee)ent 8'+an. A&2ER thisG (>M o!tained

?udg)ent and attach)ent odes against <ovt. of +anG +anian 6an7s etc. ExecIdes passed to i)ple)ent this agee)ent execution of (>M attach)ent odessta"ed.

-rocedural istor) (>M theefoe =led a suit fo declaato" and in?unctive elief against 8' and 'ec"of 2easu" see7ing to pevent the enfoce)ent of the executive odesi)ple)enting the agee)ent. (C denied the )otion. A)end)ents wee )ade tothe egulations 2easu" dept )andated the tansfe of !an7 assets and othe=nancial assets of +an to &edeal 6an7 of ,. (istict Ct this ti)eG enteed anin?unction pohi!iting tansfe of an" asset su!?ect to wit of attach)entGganish)entG ?udg)ent.. etc. 4etitione then =led this wit in the 'CG which wasganted.

1pinionRule:

1. 2he 4esidentKs powe .. to issue the ode )ust ste) eithe fo) an act of

the Congess o fo) the Constitution itself.#6lac7. J.%

0



1

*. +f thee is expess@i)plied authoi-ation fo) the Congess then 4esident

execising own plus delegated powes fo) the Congess 'tongest

pesu)ptions of validit". #Jac7sonG J.% UoungstownV

2he 4esidential odes a)ounts to two acts: need authoit" fo these:

a. ,ullif"ing attach)ents and odeing tansfes: <ovt elied upon *0/ of +EE4A: Cout ageed.Also 4etitione poceeded A&2ER 2easu" had issued evoca!le licensesauthoi-ing such poceedings and attach)ents i.e afte the settle)ent waseached and executive odes passed too7 it with ,I2+CE of contingentnatue of its inteest i.e suspension of clai)s. 2his wa"G since it is acontingent inteestP ta7ings clause #no ta7ing of popet" w@out ?ustco)pensation% also not invo7ed since no de=nite popet" inteests haveattached.

!. 'uspending the clai)s: ,o de=nite statute. Ct loo7ed at <eneal teno and

held that it suppots 4esidential action. Justi=ed sa"ing the Congess cannot

anticipate eve" action that needs to !e ta7en !" the 4esident. &ailue todelegateG esp in aeas of foeign polic" does not i)pl" disappoval. Cout

then loo7s at the histo" ugoslavia 2i!unalsG ceation of +ntenational

Clai)s Co))issionG and also past agee)ents have !een enteed into !"

8'A. Re?ected agu)ent that At +++ couts wee divested of thei powe said

onl" suspended the clai)sP not divested clai)s could !e evived if

Lessons of Dames $ Moore

• Ma7e sue "ou have an authoi-ation #at least i)plied% to act with foeign

aFais. U,ote the cout said: &ailue to delegateG esp in aeas of foeign polic"

does not i)pl" disappoval.V• oungstown b (>M: +n G Congess had expessed disappovalP elated to

do)estic aFais• Contingenc" (a)es > Moe got the ?udg)ent afte the settle)ent.

• +f "ou have the powe in the Constitution o in the Act of Congess ,ou a'e

OM to %o.• 4esident has no authoit" to divest At. / couts of thei ?uisdiction.

Cou't said no divest)ent of ?uisdiction. e onl" suspended the) !efoethe ?udg)ent is endeed.

=amdi v. Rumsfeld4etitione has due pocess ightsG got out of the pison in exchange fo his suendeof citi-enship.

actsa)di a 8' citi-enG was captued in Afghanistan in *001G allegedl" having lin7s tothe 2ali!anG detained in <uantana)o !a" and then shifted to a naval !ig in iginia.<oven)ent contended that is an ene)" co)!atantK which ?usti=es holding hi)inde=nitel" w@out fo)al chages o poceedings. Ks fathe =led a ha!eas copus

1



*

petition in the easten distict of iginia. Inl" piece of evidence on !oad: MichaelMo!!s declaation: opined a!out a)diKs involve)ent with a 2ali!an )ilita" unitwhich had tained hi) to use a weapon.Uheasa"V

Ma#ority3 4. 15Connor

(oes the executive have authoit" to do this detain citi-ens who Bualif" as EC

1. Authoi-ation fo 4esidential odes: Cout agees to congessional authoit"

!ac7ing pesidential ode in this caseG though the A8M& passed in *001 #Nuse

all necessa" and appopiate foce against those nationsG ogani-ations o

pesons he dete)ines plannedG authoi-edG co))ittedG o aided the teoist

attac7sW. N%. A8M& does not )ention citi-ensKG !ut it applies to all individuals.

*. 13 8.'.C. $001#a% is not the Congessional authoit" !ecause it applies to

civilian detentions and not )ilita" pisons li7e this one. ,ote: $001#a%

pesci!ed cetain pocedues which govt did not followP would have held it to !e

due pocess violationP Ks detention would have !een illegal.

;hat pocess is due to a citi-en who disputes his ene)" co)!atant status

1. agues )eaningful and ti)el" heaing hee the entie detention was !ased on

Mo!!s (eclaation an aQdavit !ased on thidhand heasa". agues th and

1$th a)end)ent ights violated. contends that a due pocess heaing is

eBuied wheein he could challenge Mo!!s (ecl and e!ut it.

*. <ovt. agued that Ks sei-ue was in a co)!at -one and the dete)ination of his

status was )ade theeP the ha!eas dete)ination is onl" a Buestion of law. <ovt

futhe agued that this dete)ination was entitled to defeence fo) the couts

and theefoe thee can !e no futhe fact =ndingP onl" eview #on the sepaation

of powes doctine%./. 'C tied to !alance !oth of these legiti)ate concens pivate inteest b

!uden of a geate pocess and sti7es the constitutional !alance Ct held

pesu)ption in favou of govtKs evidence is fai as long e!utta!le. (efeence to

evidence to !e given onl" to that which co)es out of an advesaial fact=nding

poceeding hee no pio poceeding theefoe no defeence to !e given to

Mo!!s (ecln.

2he citi-en detainee gets these ights:

• ,otice of factual !asis fo classi=cation #necessa" fo audi altea)

pate)@ ight to !e head% #includes )eaningful ti)e and )eaningful

)anne%• &ai oppotunit" to e!ut <ovt.Ks factual assetions !efoe a neutal

decision )a7e.

/hat &as held in this case0'ince was a citi-enG due pocess ights appl" to hi)G even in a )ilita" ti!unalG ata )ini)u) level li7e the ight to !e headG especiall" when the onl" evidence

*



/

availa!le is heasa"G which he has a ight to e!ut in the heaing. 2he est of it wasto see if thee was authoi-ation fo detentionG whethe due pocess was followedGth and 1$th A) ights applica!le to dispute his e@c status.

. homas issent 'ee the tone: 4esident has constitutional authoit" to potect national secuit".. and!oad discetion. <oven)ent detention of does not violate the constitutionPeceived all pocess he was due unde the cicu)stances.

. Souter and insburg dissenting in part Concued that had due pocess ightsP !ut disageed that A8M& authoi-ed Ksdetention #assu)ing Ks designation as e@c was coect%. $001#a% enacted inanticipation of such ti)es e)egencies etc eBuied clea congessional authoit".,o pocedual potection )ight leave citi-ens su!?ect to a!ita" action. A8M& didnot povide the eBuisite congessional !ac7ing fo Ks detention fo the puposes of

$001. 5uali=es Jac7sonG J. in oungstown: 4esidential auth is at its lowest e!!when 4esident acts conta" to congessional will except in genuine e)egencieswheein the e)egenc" powes ae li)ited !" the e)egenc" and not polonged inti)e. eld a)diKs detention is fo!idden !" $001#a% and unauthoi-ed !" A8M&would e)and. <ovt also clai)ed <eneva Convention applied to 2ali!an detaineesviolated Buestioned

Lessons of Ham!i

• =amdi is a citi-en and he has due pocess ights.is detention is illegal.

2he owe' of e$ecutive cannot ove''ide the Constitution.

2hat is violation of !mendment > and !mendment (>.• *obbs decla'ation was the onl" piece of evidence availa!le fo classif"ing

hi) as the ene)" co)!atant. Cout sa"s: we will not defe' to t"e

evidence with egads to which the defendant was given no c"ance to

'ebut.

Con%'essional !ut"o'it,

Conce&ts<eneal the)e: Law )a7ing authoit" of Congess v. 'tate legislatueG exa)ineAticle +G 'ection 3: Co))ece ClauseG necessa" and pope clause: +ntepetationi)potantP depends on the ideolog" of the ?udges. 4o!le)s: dawing the lines.

Constitution su!)itted to people of 8' !" a Convention of delegates fo) 'tatesG'tate legislatues and the Congess appoved !" people ati=ed and adoptedthe Constitution <ovt of 8' and laws unde the Constitution '84REME.

2heefoeG Constitution deives authoit" fo) the people and not states. #McCullochv. M(%

/



$

Constitution deives its powe fo) the peopleG not fo) the states.

Case law

*cCulloc" v. *a',land

6an7 of 8' opened !anch in 6alti)oeG M(. 'tate of M( levied tax on all !an7sopeating in M( that ae not incopoated unde M( law. ,onco)pliance with thetax entailed lia!ilit" fo !an7Ks pesidentG cashiesG and oQces. 6an7 of 8' did notpa" the tax. McCulloch #a !anch )anage% was =ned !" the Count" Cout and thiswas con=)ed !" the Appeals Cout in M(.

+f the fedeal !an7s ae taxed !" the statesG Congess executes its poweseQcientl".

Ceation of the !an7 is the powe of ceation. 2axation is the powe of dest'uction.

• Ma"land cannot 2ax 8.'.

• Ma"land is paticulaG 8.'. is geneal.

• 4aticula cannot tax geneal.

Congess has a choice of )eans to execute its powes.

+ssuesCongessional Authoit" to incopoate a !an7P 'tate of M(Ks powe to tax this

!anch.4owe to incopoate a !an7 not within the enu)eated powes in At +. Cout =ndsit in at +G sec 3 ,ecessa" and pope clause. An" )eans can !e e)plo"edGnecessa"K does not con=ne the CongessK choice of execution to a single )eansP itis not a!solute necessit"G )oe on the lines of co))on sense and needful sec 3 isan additional poweG not a estiction upon those alead" ganted.

2he powe to aise evenue a powe to conve" )one" fo) place to placepowe to incopoate a !an7 as a necessa" and pope )eans of execution

4owe of taxation !elongs to the 'tatesG not a!idged !" the gant of a si)ilapowe to the 8nionconcuentl" execised. oweveG the paa)ount chaacte ofthe constitution ad)its to itselfG the powe to withdaw an" su!?ect fo) the action

of this powe. e.g.: expots and i)pot duties. 6" analog"G an execise of this poweGepugnant to the constitutional laws of the 8nionG )a" !e estained. 2heecoollaies: a. powe to ceate powe to peseveG !. powe to desto" wielded !" adiFeent hand is hostile to these powes. c. authoit" that is supe)e contols.

2axation of the )eans of the 8nion !" M( in eFect i)pais execution of union lawsi.e. a stateKs powe to tax contols and desto"s the 8nionKs powe to ceate aepugnanc". 2heefoeG which is supe)e and contolling

$



Authoit" of state to tax people of the stateG wheeasG Means e)plo"ed !" the8nion govt people of all the states fo the !ene=t of all. M( cannot execisesoveeignt" and contol ove so)ething that it does not have authoit". 2heefoethe )eans of 8nion <ovt should !e su!?ect onl" to the govt that !elongs to all the8nion and not to one that onl" !elongs to people of one state M(. Also the )eanse)plo"ed ae )ade unde the constitution which is supe)e.

<eneal powe to tax can tax paticula stateP 4aticula powe to tax cannot taxgeneal. 8nion goven)ent can tax state institutions and constituents. 'tatescannot tax 8nion institutions and constituents.

Aibbons v. O%den 2hee wee two licenses. 'tate one and fedeal one and the fedeal won.

Ipeation of stea)!oats !etween , and ,J: <i!!ons opeated unde license fo)a Congess law wheeas Igden had a license fo) the 'tate of , giving hi)exclusive authoit" within ,. I sued < in , cout clai)ing <Ks opeation of !oat

violated IKs exclusive license. , uled fo I and < appealed to 8' 'C and won.

Co))ece Clause: at +G sec 3G cl / powe to egulate co))ece with foeignnations and a)ong seveal statesWK. 2he intepetations of Nco))eceO andNco))ece a)ong seveal statesO ae at issue. AlsoG the state law b fedeal lawconDict and which one pevails.

If couse , disli7ed <i!!ons fo) ,J.

<i!!ons appealed.

'.C. said: navigation !etween states is comme'ce clause.

CongessG not , has to issue licenses.

Co))ece is not esticted to state !oundaies onl".

+s navigationK within co))ece powe of Congess +f noG 8nion has no diect poweove that su!?ect and cannot )a7e laws egading this.

A s"ste) to egulate co))ece !etween nations !" its natueG cannot !e silent onlaws concening navigation.

4owe egulating a)ecian vessels has !een execised fo) the co))ence)ent ofthe govt. with the consent of all and accepted as a co))ecial egulation.

4owe of 8nion govt to i)pose e)!agoes also indicates undestanding of the te)Nco))eceO as including navigation

2heefoeG navigation has alwa"s !een conte)plated to !e within the )eaning of

the te) Nco))eceO. 2his co))ece powe extends to co))ece with foeign nationsG a)ong sevealstates and with +ndian ti!es. +t conte)plates eve" species of intecouse !etweenfoeign nations and it caies the sa)e )eaning thoughout the sentence unless anintelligi!le cause altes it.

Co))ece a)ongK states: li)ited to co))ece concening one state o )oeG notapplica!le to exclusivel" intenal co))eceG and not necessail" li)ited at theextenal !oundaies of each state i.e. extenal concens of the nationsG intenal



concens that aFect states geneall" and not those which ae co)pletel" within apaticula state.

Extent: Co))ece of 8' with foeign nations is that of the entie count"P aFectseve" state and distict. CongessK powe to egulate )ust !e execised wheevethe su!?ect exists. 'i)ilal" co))ece a)ong states can !e conducted !etweenstates e)ote o close to each otheG theefoe is co))ece with statesK. Congesscan egulate navigation elating to co))ece with foeign nations and a)ong thestates o +ndian ti!es and )a" pass the ?uisdictional lines of the states.

Can state law egulate co))ece with foeign nations and a)ong the states whilecongess is egulating it Congess has li)ited powes extending ove the entiecount" and the state has esidual powes ove onl" the state. Adoption of statelaws !" the congess does not )ean congess laws ae contolled !" the state.;hethe the collision exists !ecause of concuenc" of powes o powes to egulatedo)estic aFaisG the law of , should "ield to the law of congess.

Conflict 0etween laws of state) passed in e1ercise of their sovereignty and laws of Union) passed 0y thecongress pursuant to the Constitution) 23 435 affect the su06ect matter li7e equal opposing powers. 5hisapplies to even those state laws that do not transcend the powers 0ut interfere with/conflict/contrary to the

laws of congress made in pursuance of the constitution or treaty. 5he framers of the constitution declaredthe constitution and the laws enacted under it supreme) state laws yield to them.

+ssues;hee do "ou daw the line Al)ost eve" tade activit" in a state aFects intestateco))ece. ,o tul" local poduct. Law developed afte <i!!ons stengtheningfedeal govt.Ks powe except ove activities li7e )anufactuingG poduction and)ining which wee within state govt.Ks powes.

2ests ove the ages:&edeal egulation of intestate co))ece which eBuied incidental egulation ofintastate co))ece wee upheld.

(iectindiect eFects of intastate co))ece upon intestate co))ece dete)ineif the egulation was within the congessK powes. (iect eFects "esP indiecteFects no. Uwages > wo7ing hous Y indiectVClose and su!stantial elation: depated fo) the diectindiect test. Matte ofdegeeP if esta!lish close and su!stantial elation to intestate co))ece that theicontol is essential o appopiate to potect fo) !udens o o!stuctionsG thenegulation !" congess is valid.;ic7ad test: activit" whethe local o not in the natue of co))ece )a" !eegulated if it exets su!stantial econo)ic eFect on intestate co))ecePiespective of whethe diectindiectG even tivial.Iute li)its: scope )ust !e consideed in light of dual s"ste) of goven)entP notextended to e)ote and indiect eFects on intestate co))ece which o!liteatethe distinction !etween nationallocal and centali-e the goven)ent.;ic7ad intepeted in ;it- as sa"ing de )ini)us chaacte of individual instances!eas no eFect on the validit" of the geneal egulato" sche)e.

2heefoeG thee categoies of egulation:8se of channels of intestate co))ecepotect instu)entalities of intestate co))ece o pesons o things in intestateco))ece though the theat is fo) intastate activities



activities that have a su!stantial elation to intestate co))ece U8,CLEAR CA'ELA;V&inal conclusion in the addendu): test is to see whethe the egulated activit"su!stantiall" aFectsK intestate co))ece.E ;hat is su!stantial (ecide on a case !" case !asis.

#?ual 'otection Race #ducation

Conce&ts• 2he 8.'. Couts appl" the strict scrutiny test as a standad of eview in

ace issues. As wellG the couts eview 'emedial &olicies o a'mative

action to edess negative eFects of past unfainess.• =isto'ical issues Afte the Civil ;aG slave" was a!olishedG and as a

conseBuence the 8.' Constitution was a)ended to assue eBual potection to

all the pesons #1/thG 1$th and 1th A)end)ents%. oweveG a s"ste) of

acial disci)ination e)ained thoughout so)e states.• Jim C'ow laws wee state and local laws in the 8nited 'tates enacted

!etween 13 and 19. 2hese laws pe)itted acial segegation in all pu!lic

facilitiesG with a Tsepaate !ut eBualT status. 2his pactice was 7nown as de

%ure segegation.• +n -less) v. ergusonG the 8.'. 'upe)e Cout upheld the constitutionalit" of

de ?ue segegation !" upholding the constitutionalit" of a Louisiana law that

eBuied ailwa" caiages to have se&a'ate but e?ualK facilities fo whites

and coloed people.

Le%islation1$th A)end)ent

Case Law

B'own v. Boa'd of #ducation;ith 6ownG the 'upe)e Cout ovetuned the holding of -less) !" allowingintegation in pu!lic schools.

Facts an! Decision!f'ican !me'ican c"ild'en fo) HansasG 'outh CaolinaG iginiaG and (elawae!ought a class action against Boa'ds of #ducation and ot"e' institutions too!tain ad)ission to the pu!lic schools of thei co))unit" on a non segegated!asis. 2he alleged that the sepaate facilities violated the eBual potection of thelaws unde the eBual potection clause of the 1$th A)end)ent .



3

6ecause of the i)potance of the issue the 8.'. 'upe)e Cout gouped the casesand eview if Nsepaate !ut eBual facilitiesO in schools violates the eBual potectionclause. 2he Cout found that indeed the N'epaate !ut eBualO ule is inheentl"uneBual. AlsoG the Cout upheld that education is special and is the )ost i)potantfunction of state and local goven)ents. 2heefoeG the Cout concluded thateducation is theO ve" foundation of good citi-enshipO and oppotunit" of an

education is a Night which )ust !e )ade availa!le to all on eBual te)sO. 2he Coutdecided that the plaintiFs wee depived of the eBual potection of the laws.,onethelessG the Cout did not consideate the extent of the appopiate elief inthese t"pe of cases.

1ther 6ey issues Re)ed": what does it )ean to have eBual potectionP aQ)ative

action Racial integation 19$ Civil Rights Act: withhold funds to states that continue acial

disci)ination

De #ure v. !e facto segegation still exists afte 5ro&nG !ecause!ette schools wee situated in non)inoit" neigh!ohoodsG fa awa"

fo) the AficanA)eican neigh!ohoods Hoe)atsu case: con=ne)ent of Japanese citi-ens > Japanese

A)eicans !ased on Ntheatened dangeO doctine.

Lessons of the Case

• A)end)ent 1$ did not wo7. Couts held that sepaate facilities did not

violate the Constitution. "lessy was decided afte the A)end)ent 1$ and it

said that segegation was eBual. '.C. oveuled it.•

(onKt )ix it with the pio decision of 190G S/eatt v. "ainther . +n thatcase the 'upe)e Cout held that the EBual 4otection Clause eBuied that

the petitioneG who had !een denied ad)ission to the 8nivesit" of 2exas Law

'chool solel" !ecause of his aceG !e ad)itted. oweveG the decision did not

expessl" oveule the doctine of Nsepaate !ut eBualO.• Cou't "eld: segegation was in"e'entl, une?ual.

A'utte' v. Bollin%e'

Facts an! Decision 2he 8niv. of Michigan Law 'chool #Bollin%e' was the pesident of the 8nivesit"%

adopted an ad)issions polic"G which was intended to achieve divesit" a)ong thestudent !od". 2he polic" ai)ed the enolling of a Tcitical )ass of )inoit"studentsP !utG it did not de=ne divesit" onl" in acial te)s. 2he polic" wanted toachieve a Dexi!le assess)ent of individual talentsG expeiencesG and potential toconti!ute to leaning. 2heefoeG each candidate loo7ed at independentl". Ba'ba'aA'utte'G a white applicantG with a /.3 <4A and 11 L'A2G was not ad)itted to the'chool. 'he sued Law 'chool oQcials and othes clai)ing disci)inationG the eBualpotection clause of the 1$th A)end)ent and 2itle + of the Civil Rights Act of 19$G

3



9

!ecause ace is the pedo)inant facto fo the ad)issions and the 8niv. had noco)pelling inteest to ?ustif" thei use of ace in the ad)issions. 'he eBuestedco)pensato" and punitive da)agesG an ode eBuiing the 8niv. to oFe he andad)ission and an in?unction pohi!iting the Law 'chool fo) continuing todisci)inate on the !asis of ace.

+n this case the 'upe)e Cout found that the 8nivesit"Ks polic" did not violatedthe 1$th A)end)ent of the Constitution !" the use of ace in the ad)issionspocess. 2he Cout clai=ed that e)ed"ing past disci)ination is not the onl"goven)ental use of ace that can suvive stict scutin". 2he Cout upheld that theLaw 'chool has a co)pelling inteest in attaining a divese student !od".Additionall"G the Cout upheld that the Law 'choolKs ad)issions plan uses naowl"tailoed )eans to achieve thei goals.

DissentersRe"n?uist: nu)!es of applied@ad)itted wee consistent with the nu)!es of

)inoit" goups. 2his is not a Dexi!le polic"G that is a Buota.

Scalia: )eans of achieving divesit" ae diFeent. 2he )eans that the 8nivesit"uses ae !ad and not the onl" availa!le.

Lessons of the Case

• 4efeences to the acial !ac7gound violate A)end)ent 1$.

• St'ict sc'utin,: )eans e)plo"ed should !e naowl" tailoed to achieve

com&ellin% %ove'nmental inte'est.• 2hee is co)pelling goven)ental inteest in ensuing divesit" in schools.

#?ual 'otection Comme'cial and Aende'

StatutesEBual 4otection Clause in the 1$th A)end)ent. 2his clause doesnKt state that adiFeent standad of eview applies !ased on the conduct at issueP nevethelessGthe 'up. Cout has developed diFeent standads of eviewG depending on theconduct !eing egulated. A elativel" lax standad is applied to goven)ent

egulations that disci)inate !ased on co))ecial activit" that is unelated to aceGageG gendeG etc.

Conce&ts'tict 'cutin" test.

Less 'cutin" test.

9



0

Case Law

illiamson v. Lee O&ticalLaw in I7laho)a is constitutional.

(ispute: Ipticians in I7laho)a canKt =t lenses o eplace the) whileophthal)ologists and opto)etists canP law doesnKt appl" to ead"towea glasses.Challenged unde E4C. Cout defes to the I7laho)a lawP 'ational basis test ist"e'e a le%itimate state inte'est and is t"e law 'ationall, 'elated to it .

Case that disci)inated against opticians in I7laho)aP sa"ing that the" canKt =tcetain lensesWonl" sell ead)ade @ ead"to Ywea glasses.

2his was onl" eseved fo the ophthal)ologists@ opt

2he level hee is )uch loweWno concens of co)pelling state inteests # such asace disci)ination%Wso the theshold is lowe cause we ae onl" dealing with aco))ecial activit" and s7ills.

2he co)pelling inteest hee ae pedo)inantl" health Y !asedW.in co))ecialissue ensuing that when the pple of I7laho)a get glassesG the" ae =t in a cetainwa".

4o!le) heeWthe HMats etc can still sell ead" to wea glassesWhow do "ou dealwith that

Cout will ,I2 )ico)anage legislation in co))ecial issues.

Co))ecial @ co)pelling inteest

(ecision is shot !ecause the Cout did not have to do )uch anal"sis.

T"e'e a'e t,&es of OTOK &eo&le

8nde the law the opticians wee not allowed to eplace the lenses.

Su&'eme Cou't of O+la"oma 2his is unconstitutional.

T"is is &u'el, comme'cial.

*ic"ael *. v. Su&e'io' Cou't of Sonoma Count, /68/1

;e need to potect wo)en fo) the)selves.

ea'nel

Law u&"eld as Constitutional.

6o"s unde age can !e ci)inall" chaged and even go to ?ailG !ut the paticipatingwo)en @ gils wonKt even !e chaged.

Califonia Law: IFense fo a )ino )ale to engage in sexual intecouse with undeage fe)alesW

0



1

Facts <il gets 4<G gu" goes to ?ail fo causing the pegnanc". ou aedisci)inating !ased on gende.

;hat should the 2E'2 !e 'hould we appl" the st'ict sc'utin, standa'd +s thisas !ad as ace disci)ination

Test /1 %ende' classi4cation must se've an important ,overnmentalob#ective and 21 !oes classi7cation bear a substantial relationship to theob#ective

As Applied

I!?ective: pevention of illegiti)ate teen pegnancies

Statute is sucientl, 'elated to t"e ob)ective

4o!le)s with the anal"sis:

isto" of the Califonia law was !ased on assu)ption that "oung wo)en weeincapa!le of consenting to an act of sexual intecouseP #gils would not do

the 7ind of acts that )en would% ;e ae not eBuiing gils to !e esponsi!leW"et the acts eBuie two people.

Law was not shown to eFectivel" dete )ino fe)ales fo) having sexualintecouseP

<ende neutal solution is possi!le and not shown to !e less eFective than theCalifonia law

,ote the polic" ationale: 2he eal pupose is to potect the chastit" of thei gils.

Justice RE,58+'2W the se$es we'e not simila'l, situated in elation to the

pupose of this ci)inal lawG which was deteence. Justice RehnBuist said that onl"fe)ales can get pegnantG so onl" fe)ales have the natual deteent of fea ofpegnanc" to 7eep the) fo) engaging in undeage consensual sex. 'ince )ales donot have this !iological deteentG the state )a" i)pose ci)inal penalties Ntooughl" eBuali-eK the deteents on the sexes.O #2he is7 of pegnanc" itselfconstitutes a su!stantial deteence to "oung fe)ales. ,o si)ila natual sanctionsdete )ales. A ci)inal sanction i)posed solel" on )ales thus seves to oughl"NeBuali-eO the deteents on the sexes.%

Justice RE,58+'2 sa"s: we CA,,I2 intude on ou pecedentWwe ae ,I2 goingto teat it the wa" we teat Race disci)ination.

*ississi&&i Unive'sit, fo' omen8nivesit" fo gils onl" is unconstitutional.

,@6 E(8CA2+I, +' (+&&ERE,2S Re)e)!e 6own v 6d of Education.

TwoG&a'ts test Bo'en Test1

1



*

• Legiti)ac" of I!?ective: Mississippi state: =x past in?ustices #IH%

• (iect o su!stantial elationship !etween )eans. 2hee was no elationship !etween t"e &u'&ose and the )eans.

*ississi&&i failed this pat.aving disci)ination against )en is not a good solution.

2hee wee othe univesities."at if t"e'e was no ot"e' unive'sit,D

2hat would !e OM .

Man canKt get into all fe)ale nusing school #M8;%. ogan wanted to go to the 8nivfo ;o)en !ecause it was a few !loc7s fo) his digs. ,otion of what M+ is t"ing todoWe)ed" past in?usticesWwo)en have !een disci)inated upon in the past incetain

Justice IKConno #fe)ale ?ustice%

'tate 8nivesit"Wthis was onl" to consist of ;o)enW.M+Ks agu)entG weKve !eendisci)inating against wo)en so now weKe t"ing to =x this. Also assu)ing that

onl" wo)en can !e nusesWS

(istict CoutP used the ational elationship to ?ustif" su))ail" dis)issing thiscaseG sa"ing that ogan failed to tende a factual issue.

8sing the ;illia)son ve" low standadS

2+' +' ALL J8'2 A 68,C I& ,I,E'E,'ESS +t is the cout =tting the fact pattens of all these cases within the 1$th A)end)entKs witing.

+ssue: (oes M8; violate E4C. Answe: es

;h"

Miss. T)ust ca" the !uden of showing an exceedingl" pesuasive ?usti=cationK fothe classi=cation

Restates BOR#- T#ST im&o'tant %ovtHl ob)ective and law is substantiall,'elated to ac"ievement of t"e ob)ective1 need to appl" easonedanal"sis@thow awa" gende assu)ptions.

I!?ective of aQ)ative action to e)ed" past disci)ination is not an i)potantone in the context of Mississippi. eeG the univesit" failed to show wo)en lac7edoppotunities fo taining in nusing.

,ot convinced that the lawKs actual pupose is to e)ed" past disci)ination

&ails second pat as no showing )ade that the gende!ased classi=cationsu!stantiall" and diectl" elated to poposed co)pensato" o!?ective

Men ae allowed as auditosP aving )en in class doesnKt aFect teaching@)en donKtdo)inate

*



/

4o!le)s: Inl" one )an is co)plaining onl" ha) to hi) is he has to dive 'ingle sex has !ene=ts &ustates li!eating spiit of E4C Can )eet 6oen test.

Ine of the po!le)s is the )eans though which it the polic" was pusued !ecause)en could even assist to classes theeG the evidence doesnKt suppot this

steeot"pe that the school alleged. ou want to encouage wo)en to pusuenusing. 2he Constitution pohi!its disci)ination !ut fo) statesG so what a!outpivate schoolsG the" can sa" the" donKt need the state )one" and do as the" want.

F'eedom of S&eec"8nited 'tates Constitution: 1st A)end)ent clause that TCongess shall )a7e no lawa!idging the feedo) of speech.T clause applies to the laws of the 'tates thoughits incopoation unde the 1$th A)end)ent.

-: times v. Sullivan /61 2his is !mm. ( !mm. (>.

+n ode to suvive ,2 used !m. (>.

;h" 2hee was no 'tatute.

'ettingG (uing the Civil ights )ove)ent in the 0s Matin Luthe Hing J.Montgo)e"G Ala!a)a getting eve"one allied up on the issues. ,2 uns an addoesnKt )ention 'ullivan diectl" and spea7s of acts that too7 place in Montgo)e".(ispute aose and 'ullivanG the Montgo)e" police co))issioneG sued fo li!el inAla!a)a cout against individuals and , 2i)es aising fo) the ad.

+n Ala!a)a 'ullivan won !ecause of libel &e' se instuction.

• Hnew it was falseP

• ;anted to in?ue.

2he onl" defense thee is t'ut".

'.C. aised the !a: "ou have to pove actual malice fo &ublic 4%u'es #note:O-L: fo &ublic 4%u'es1.

+n ode to pove actual malice "ou have to go to pesonKs )ind. 2hat is al)ost i)possi!le.

6ut if "ou do thatG "ou get actual and punitive da)ages.

'.C. did not ?ust e)and the case. 2he" e)anded wit" 'ead, to use )u', instuctions.

2hat is a N )ud%e c'aftin%O.

/



$

,I2E

Judge CaftingKWthis was necessa" in this caseG given the hostilit" that waspesent in the 'tate of Ala!a)a. 4efect exa)ple of wh" 4. Co))issione =led suit

in the local Ala!a)a coutG 7nowing that it was fiendl" to hi)Wagainst the 6+< 6A(, papeS

,I2E

6ibel per seP +f "ou can pove so)eone sa"s so)ething that is consideed li!elouspe se@li7el" to cause legal in?u"G then the falsit" and )alice ae pesu)ed andhence <eneal da)ages ae pesu)ed to !e due.

7ctual malice needs to !e poven fo thee to !e an awad of 4unitive da)ages

2ial cout instucted ?u" to assu)e that ads wee Tli!elous pe seT and notpivilegedG so petitiones lia!le if the ?u" found the" had pu!lished the ads and thestate)ents wee Tof and conceningT 'ullivan. Li!elous pe se i)plies thee will !elegal in?u" as a esult of pu!lication. &alsit" and )alice pesu)edP theefoegeneal da)ages ae pesu)edP i.e do not have to !e alleged@poven. 2he Coutefused to chage ?u" it )ust !e convinced of )alice and that the" shoulddiFeentiate !etween actual )alice and li!el pe se.

5ues: ;h" is the lac7 of instuction on )alice i)potant

8nde Ala!a)a lawG canKt get punitive da)ages soG donKt 7now if the da)agesae lin7ed to )alice. Result !elow: 'ullivan wins [00G000

, 2i)es challenged awad on &ist A)end)ent and &outeenth A)end)entgounds. Revesed and endeed in , 2i)es favo

5ues: ;h"

Ala!a)a Cout standad violated &ist A)end)ent

As to pu!lic oQcialsG )ust show actual )alice

Rule: a pu!lic oQcial is pohi!ited fo) ecoveing da)ages fo a defa)ato"falsehood elating to his oQcial conduct unless poof state)ent )ade with actual)alice Y with 7nowledge that it was false o with ec7less disegad of whethe itwas false o not

5ues: ;h" need fo actual )alice Rationale

4u!lic discussion is essential and onl" li)ited except in ae cicu)stancesGpaticulal" tue in citici-ing goven)entG

A ule peventing citicis) would lead to selfcensoshipP thatKs wh" we have feespeech and fee asse)!l"

IQcials put the)selves out thee #love to !e in the font line so the" have to getthe heat accodingl"%.

IQcials can coect wong state)ents

=oldin%Appeal decision evesed > endeed in , 2i)es favo. 'upe)e Cout loo7s atecod and =nds no actual )alice

5ues: ;h" did Cout do this and get so involved in the details

$



ote the 1st A)end)ent spea7s of Congress not ma$ing a la& that:.abridges the"reedom o" speech;

+n this caseG thee is no law of Congess that has !een violated.

5ues: as thee !een a violation of 'tate law 2he li!el pe se ulesW6ecause it is)oe of a state law violationG we tun to the 1$th A)end)ent.

+n going into the details of the factual develop)ent and esta!lishing that thee wasan eoK with the instuctions that the ?u" wee given and conseBuentl" an eo inthe =nding that thee was actual )aliceK !" the 'upe)e Cout )eans that thiscase is oveWit has !een e)anded !ac7 to the Ct of Ala!a)a who have no choice682 to ente a ?udg)ent in favo of the ,.. 2i)es.

5ues: ;h" is thee a ule to pove actual )alice fo pu!lic oQcials +t is a!out the)a7et !ut also !ecause of the people feedo) on how do u want to expess"ouself.

5ues: "o is a &ublic ocial +tKs had to )eet the actual )alice standad !ut itcan !e done. 4u!lic oQcials have the a!ilit" to coect an" state)ents the" feel ae

incoectG ha)fulG false etcWso !ecause the" have avenues fo coectionP can useall the )edia instu)ents to coect itG the standad is highe.

(efa)ation can consist of eithe li!el o slande. Li!el involves a false witten opu!lished state)ent while slande is a false oal state)ent. (efa)ation is t"picall"a cause of action that aises unde state law.

'ince 8e/ 9or: imes v. SullivanG the 8.'. 'upe)e Cout has shaped thede=nition of a pu!lic =gueK !e"ond those who ae )eel" pu!lic oQcials. A pesonwho achieves Tsuc" &e'vasive fame o' noto'iet,T is a pu!lic =gue fo allpuposes and in all contexts. Gert2 v. Robert ;elch, <nc.. A peson can achievenotoiet" in li)ited instances and thus !eco)e a li)ited pu!lic peson. As JusticeRehnBuist wote in imes, <nc. #. irestoneG $*$ 8.'. $$3 #19%G public =gures

includes persons &ho >thrust themsel#es to the "ore"ront o" particular publiccontro#ersies in order to in?uence the resolution o" the issues in#ol#ed.>

>i'%inia v. Blac+ 2001 &1>! statute invalidated. 6ut MMM cannot intimidate people. 2he ?u" instuctionthat the coss !uning is illegal pe se was wong. 6ut if thee was actual )alice 6lac7 would go to the ?ail. 2hat is what happened to t"e ot"e' %u,.

• 6lac7 did it on his popet" that is his po!le).

• 2he othe gu" did it on his neigh!oKs popet" that is a po!le).

2he goven)ent can loo7 at each case sepaatel".

Loo+ at slide V/.

NBlac+ O hee is HHH )e)!e.



Congess cannot )a7e an" law that a!idges feedo) of speech.

2his is staight !mm. (.

2hee was >! C'oss Bu'nin% Statute.

2hat is wh" no !mm. (> is needed.

(ntent to intimidate.

2his is diFeent fo) the a!ove , 2i)es case !ecause it concens a stateegulating the speechK of the paties.

'etting: Coss !uning in the context of HHHWto inti)idateG incite feaW!ut also anexpession of solidait" !etween )e)!es of HHHWand in that egad "ou could notinfe intent to incite violence.

2he HHH do not alwa"s )eet and tal7 a!out violentG ci)inal acts etcWso)eti)esthe" watch the coss !un and sing A)a-ing <ace.

HHH had !een aFoded the ight to )ach in Jewish neigh!ohoodsWand thecount"@co))unit" had to invest in secuit" when these )aching.

(ispute: / ci)inal cases involving coss!uning in violation of A law that pohi!itscoss!uning with intent to inti)idateP

Under the la& an) burning o" a cross shall be prima "acie e#idence o" an intent tointimidate a person or group o" persons.

Cases

6lac7Ks case: ?u" instucted that coss!uning is suQcient evidence fo) which "ou)a" infe the eBuied intent

IKMaaKs case: pled guilt" with ight eseved to challenge constitutionalit"

ElliottKs case: ?u" not instucted on intent

All found guilt"

Appeal to A 'upe)e Cout which stuc7 down the law as unconstitutional ineliance on R.A. v. 't. 4aulP EL( that it disci)inates !ased on content since itselectivel" chooses onl" coss !uning !ecause of its distinctive )essage.

'ee 'L+(E 1 #13th Class% fo isto" on what happened !efoe 'upe)e Ct.

Me, oints(istinction of R.A. v. 't. 4aul #odinance !anned coss!uning when done with7nowledge that the conduct would Taouse angeG ala) o esent)ent in othes onthe !asis of aceG coloG ceedG eligion o gendeWK disci)inated !ased on content%

RA ecogni-ed that cetain content disci)ination does ,I2 violate the 1st A)end)ent.

5ues: ;hat 7ind of content !ased disci)ination +' allowed

'tates allowed to !an:

&ighting wods

Advocating use of foce whee the advocac" is diected to inciting o poducingi))inent lawless action and is li7el" to incite o poduce such actions.



2ue 2heatsP state)ent whee spea7e )eans to co))unicate a seious expessionof an intent to co))it an act of unlawful violence to a paticula individual o goupof individuals. e@Ahreats against the -resident : threats o" #iolence are outside o"the irst 7mendment

I!scenit" that is patentl" oFensive in its puience

A can !an coss !uning with an intent to inti)idate !ecause coss!uning is apaticulal" viulent fo) of inti)idation

6ut what A CA,,I2 do is authoitativel" tell the ?u" that all coss!uning is pi)afacie evidence of an intent to inti)idateW.

;hile couts give considea!le defeence to feedo) of speech o expession the"also ecogni-e that the <ovt can egulate speech o conduct !ased on ti)eG place o)anne.

+n )an" instancesG the speech o conduct )a" ovelap with nonpotected ele)entswith the latte giving ise to the need fo goven)ent egulation. An exa)ple of theegulation occued in Butrom Corp. #. Center 6ine. 8nde United States # *5rienGgoven)ent egulation is pe)issi!le if it:

#a% is suQcientl" ?usti=ed within the goven)entKs constitutional poweP#!% futhes an i)potant o su!stantial goven)ental inteestP

#c% is unelated to the suppession of fee expessionP and

#d% Tif the incidental estiction on alleged &ist A)end)ent feedo)s is no geatethan is essential to the futheance of the inteest.T

Ex of !uning the 8' DagG vs <aQtti on a pu!lic !uilding...note that in the 8'G it islawful to !un DagS

2he appoach is that these actions ae )eel" expessionsK of oneKs !eliefs.

Justice IKConno does not have a po!le) with the statute egulating the act ofcoss !uning when this is ai)ed at intending to incite fea and inti)idationWthee

was a cicula povision that stated that thee was a pesu)ption that the !uning of the cosses is done with the intent to inti)idate.

&ea of i))ediate ha)P the cout will ta7e the step to !alance that ha) in favo of feedo) of speechK.

To'ts

Conce&ts• 2ot law is the !od" of law that addessesG and povides e)edies foG civil

wongs not a'isin% out of cont'actual obli%ations.o +t is a ceatue of State Law

o +t coves !oth accidents and intentional acts

• 2ot lia!ilit" aises out of:

o (ntentional acts and unintentional acts.



3

o St'ict Liabilit, "ou ae esponsi!le even if "ou donKt have an"

fault.

8suall" this is consume' law.

o -e%li%ence

,egligence is failu'e to act with the 'e?ui'ed standa'd of

ca'e. @ut, of Ca'e whethe the acto has the dut" to act with a

cetain standad of cae in elation to the victi).

• &inall"G tot lia!ilit" 'e?ui'es occu''ence of an in)u', to a legall" potected

inteest

o Applies to pesonalG )ateial o e)otional da)ages

• +n ode to have lia!ilit" "ou have to:o Act with a violation of the dut, of ca'e.o 6e negligentG do )alpactice #failue to act with a eBuied cae%.o Case in)u', #)ateialG ph"sicalG e)otional%.o Eve" state has its own limits ca&s1 on da)ages.

• @ama%es should )ean + a) co)pensating "ou.o ;ith &unitive dama%es + a) punished fo doing so)ething + a)

not expected to do. Judge wants to )a7e a point.

Case LawMission Petroleum Carriers) *nc. v. +olomon #$,;as thee dut" of cae o not

FactsMission =ed 'olo)on !ecause he failed d'u% test given unde (epat)ent of

2anspot #(I2% egulations. -ow "e canHt %et a new )ob; because t"e test

'esults in "is 'eco'ds. 'olo)on clai)s that Mission was negligent in not

execising easona!le cae in conducting his testing. 2he tial and appellate couts

ecogni-ed the violation of dut" of cae and convicted Mission.

,ot onl" 'olo)on lost a ?o! "e canHt %et )ob an,w"e'e else.

Relevant "oints

• 'olo)on was an atwill e)plo"ee #he could have !een =ed at an" )o)ent

without ?usti=cation%

• 2he test was conducted unde (I2 egulationsG which povided fo

pocedues fo 'olo)on to challenge the test esult

3



9

Decision by the e<as Supreme Court Co)pan" "as no dut, of ca'e to the e)plo"ee.

• !tGwill em&lo,ee an e)plo"ee not unde contact who can be

te'minated fo' an, nonGdisc'iminato', 'eason. 'o his te)ination !"

itself does not violate an" ights no gants a cause of action.

• E)plo"e did not own a dut, to use easona!le cae when collecting uine

fo a dug test unde (I2 egulations.

o (I2 egulations povide administ'ative measu'es to c"allen%e

t"e test 'esults

'olo)on failed to 'eso't to such )easues.

o Congess =!S -OT AR!-T#@ a cause of action fo (I2 violations

Regulations povide fo =nes and penalties fo not following

poceduesG !ut does not give individuals a pivate cause of

action.

o 2he existence of the dut" is a Buestion of law: Ris7G foeseea!ilit"G

li7elihood of in?u" v. social utilit" of the actoKs conductG )agnitude of

!uden of guading against in?u" and conseBuences of placing !uden

on the defendant

2he 'upe)e Cout ecogni-es that false &ositive tests can

cause in)u',G BUT !elieves that the 'e%ulato', sc"eme in

place Nsti7eUsV an a&&'o&'iate balance !etween the need fo

eQcient dug testing and the eBuie)ent that each e)plo"ee

have the )eans to insist on t"e inte%'it, of the pocessO.

Class Comments

• 2he issue of the existence of a dut" of cae in this case should !e decided !"

the ?u". 2he lowe couts held thee was a dut" of cae !ecause 'olo)on

could not =nd an" ?o! !ecause of the esult of the dug test pefo)ed !" the

co)pan".

• 2he fact that Solomon was an atGwill em&lo,ee aFected the esult.

Lessons of the Case

• +n cases whee statutes o egulations esta!lish speci=c o!ligations andcoesponding safeguads and e)edial )easuesG couts cannot ceate

additional o!ligations o Ndut" of caeO.

Crain v. Cleveland !odge #+s the co))ecial esta!lish)ent esponsi!le fo so)ething that is happening on the

pa7ing lot

9



30

FactsCain !eaten up in the pa7ing lot of *oose Lod%e. e sues *oose Lod%e

clai)ing that did not use easona!le cae in secuing the pa7ing lot.

Decision by the Mississippi Supreme Court

• 4laintiF )ust show #a% the dut, owed hi) !" the Moose LodgeP #!% a b'eac"

of that dut"P #c% dama%esP and #d% a causal connection !etween the

!each and the da)agesG such that the !each is the poxi)ate cause of his

in?uies #!asic ele)ents of tot lia!ilit"%.

• 2hee was no legal dut" of cae !ecause the assault was not foeseea!le.

• Meel" !ecause so)eone owns a !usiness and a guest co)es to the !usiness

doesnKt )ean the" insue all conduct outside of thei pe)ises.

• &oeseea!ilit" should !e !ased on the pio incidents tests #whee !usiness

owne )ust conside whethe si)ila incidents occued in the past% and not

in the totalit" of cicu)stances tests #whee !usiness owne )ust conside

the possi!ilit" of incidentsG a test which ceates al)ost an stict lia!ilit"%.

• eeG Moose Lodge "ad onl, two 'e&o'ts of c'imes on t"e &'emisesP

evidence a!out the vicinit" didnKt esta!lish that attac7 was foeseea!le.

• Mechants should not !e o!liged to engage in the functions of police foce.

• @issentin% o&inion: &oeseea!ilit" is Buestion to !e decided !" the ?u".

Class Comments

• (oes the goven)ent o the school have the dut" to )aintain secuit" In

the pivate popet"G does the owne have the dut" to )aintain the secuit"

on the popet"• ow fa is the dut" 2hee will !e a !alance. 2hat is wh" we have insuance.

• 'eving alcohol to dun7en people is )oal dut"G not legal dut" 6a tendes

and ownes of !a have the legal dut".

• Fo'eseeabilit,: is this decided !" the ?u" o the ?udge 2he ?u" will also

aise the dut" fo the goven)ent. 2he cout will !e )oe consevative and

)oe appopiate to decide the dut".

• +f it is ove egulatedG the wold cannot function.

Lessons of the Case• 2he point in elation to the dut" of cae is foeseea!ilit"G Ae "ou actions #o

o)issions% li7el" to cause a da)age to a thid pat"

!i v. /ellow Ca0 2hee is a ca cash and !oth paties ae to !la)e.

30



31

FactsCa accident whee !oth paties at fault.

(ue to plaintiFKs negligenceG defendant won. +s 4laintiFKs own negligence a

co)plete !a to ecove"

Decision by California Supreme Court

• -O. 2he old ule of conti!uto" negligence is gone. ,ew ule: co)paative

negligence in a pue fo)G which appotions lia!ilit" in diect popotion to

fault.

• Cont'ibuto', ne%li%ence was esta!lished !" Califonia legislatue following

the intepetation of the couts at the ti)e #co))on law%. 2he legislatue did

not intent to esta!lish a new standadG !ut athe to consolidate the standad

then applied !" the couts.

• Contentious issues aising out of the application of the co)paative

negligence standad #such as the existence of )ultiple patiesP willful

)isconduct !" one@so)e of the patiesP the last clea chance and assu)ptionof is7 doctines% ae to !e esolved !" the ?uies !ased on the guidelines to

!e esta!lished !" the couts on a case!"case !asis.

Lessons of the Case

• 2he couts have favoed negligence citeia that guaantee that negligent

paties will !e held lia!le fo the da)age the" cause to the extent of thei

fault.

• Cout can so)eti)es change the law though a change of the intepetation

of the te)s of the law.• ou have conti!uto" negligence and co)paative negligence.

Cont'ibuto', ne%li%ence: 90X to 10X. ,one gets the da)ages.

Com&a'ative ne%li%ence: 90X to 10X. 4evailing pat" gets 30X ofda)ages.

Most of the states use co)paative.

@issent 6ut how to decide the pecentage

*a)o'it, the ?u" will decide that. 2he ?udge will instuct the ?u".

Tedla v. #llman 2hee is a li)it to how negligent the plaintiF has to !e in ode to ecove.

+f that is )oe than 0X he is )oe esponsi!le. 'oG in this case no da)ages.

oweveG loo7 at the cont'ibuto', ne%li%ence ve" close.

Facts

• 4edestians wal7ing on the w'on% side of t"e 'oad a'e "it b, a ca'.

31



3*

• N<eneal pinciple that o)ission !" a plaintiF of a safeguadG pesci!ed !"

statuteG against a ecogni-ed dange; constitutes ne%li%ence as )atte of

law which !as ecove" fo da)ages caused !" incidence of the dange fo

which the safeguad was pesci!edO. @'ive' claims that &edest'ians we'e

ne%li%ent.

• Ithe side had ve" "eav, incomin% t'ac. 2he cout found that&edest'ians we'e not at faultG !ecause the" ignoed the ule !ecause of

the fact that com&l,in% wit" t"e 'ule would &ut t"em in %'eate' 'is+ .

• ;hat the statute does povide is ules of the oad to !e o!seved !"

pedestians and !" vehicles. A geneal ule of conduct andG speci=call"G a

ule of the oad )a" acco)plish its intended pupose unde usual

conditionsG !utG when the unusual occusG stict o!sevance )a" defeat the

pupose of the ule and poduce catastophic esults. iolation of such statute

in unusual cicu)stances is not necessail" negligence.

Decision by ===

Lessons of the Case

• ,egligence is failue to execise the cae eBuied !" law. 2his does not

mean that %ene'al 'ule of conduct intended to pevent accidents must be

followed even unde conditions w"en obse'vance mi%"t cause

accidents.

Co'&o'ations

Basic conce&ts@e'ivative action a lawsuit !ought !" a copoation shaeholde against thediectosG )anage)ent and@o othe shaeholdes of the copoationG fo a failue !")anage)ent.

Class action a lawsuit !ought !" one o )oe plaintiFs on !ehalf of a lagegoup of othes who have a co))on inteest.

Fiducia', duties of t"e boa'd of di'ecto's Bo@1

dut" of lo"alt": which povides that the diectos )ust act in %ood fait" and in

t"e best inte'est of t"e co'&o'ation and not engage in selfdealing o usupcopoate oppotunitiesG and

dut" of cae: use of 'easonable cae in )a7ing copoate decisions and the dut" to!e info)ed of all )ateial info)ation easona!le availa!le !efoe )a7ing adecision.

6o( has to 'e&o't eac" and eve', decision the" )a7e in the co)pan" )inutes.

'haeholdes can alwa"s loo7 !ac7 at the decision and dete)ine.

3*



3/

Business )ud%ment 'ule

;hen evaluating the actions of the 6o(G couts have adopted a standad of ?udicialeview 7nown as the Tbusiness )ud%ment 'ule.T 2his is done to avoid )anages!eing afaid of decision ma+in%. 2hee is pesu)ption that "ou ae acting in thegood faith.

<eneall" statedG t"e 'ule &'esumes t"at t"e boa'd acted inde&endentl,;wit" due ca'e; in %ood fait"; and in t"e "onest belief t"at its actions we'ein t"e s"a'e"olde'sW best inte'ests.

2hee ae two aspects to the ule:

&istG couts will not su!stitute thei ?udg)ent fo the !oadsG and

'econdG the !oads action will !e !ased on the info)ation that was availa!le atthe ti)e a decision was )ade.

2husG if the !oads action was not cleal" iesponsi!le at the ti)e it was )adeP the!usiness ?udg)ent ule should !e a co)plete defense to an" clai) that the !oadviolated its =ducia" dut".

+n class action "ou see7 elief on "ou !ehalf and fo "ou poc7etG in deivativeaction "ou sue on be"alf of t"e co'&o'ation and fo its poc7et.

(n Re alt @isne, Co. Sec. Liti%.

+hareholders lost.

F!CTS 2he 6oad 7new ve" little. Class action as 6a7e v. Ca. Clai)ing faud undesecuit" laws. causation of false state)ent. Reliance on )ateial fact Y alleged

wong info)ation. &aud on the )a7et theo": eliance not so )uch on )ateialstate)ent !ut on stoc7 )a7et as it eDects the state)ent. adl" possi!le to e!utthe theo".

2isney +toc7holders "Plaintiffs% allege that the Walt Disney 0oard of directors "defendant%oversight as to a fundamental corporate issue and 0reached their fiduciary duties) in the hiring ofa new president for the 8alt 2isney Company " a 2elaware company%. 2isneys CE3) MichaelEisner) 0rought in his friend) Michael 3vit9) as president of 2isney) ":% without any review of theemployment contract 0y the Bo2 and Compensation Committee and ";% without holdingade<uate record=minutes esta0lishing that ade<uate 6udgments was made 0y the Bo2 andCompensation Committee.

After 0arely a year) 3vit9 failed as president and the Bo2 impliedly approved a non-faulttermination "and not for fault% of the contract that resulted in an award to 3vit9 of > :')).

ROC#@UR!L =(STOR:

Plaintiffs see7 rescission and=or money damages from defendants and 3vit9) or compensation for damages allegedly sustained 0y 2isney and disgorgement of 3vit9?s un6ust enrichment.

3/



3$

(SSU#

8hether the derivative claim should 0e e1cused 0ased upon futility.

++C rule that prohi0its fraud in the stoc7.

4ot only there was a negligence of the Bo1 0ut also they continuously and rec7lessly regardedtheir responsi0ility. @ec7less has a higher standard than negligence.

Minutes were incomplete. 5hey did not e1plain the decisions.

=OL@(-A

Plaintiffs? new complaint sufficiently alleges a 0reach of the directors? o0ligation to act honestly

and in good faith in the corporation?s 0est interests for a Court to conclude) if the facts are true)that the defendant directors? conduct fell outside the protection of the 0usiness 6udgment rule. 3fcourse) the alleged facts need only give rise to a reason to dou0t 0usiness 6udgment protection)not a 6udicial finding that the directors? actions are not protected 0y the 0usiness 6udgment rule.

Plaintiffs? allegations support claims that fall outside the lia0ility waiver provided under 2isney?scertificate of incorporation.

5he practical effect of the ruling is that defendants must answer the new complaint and plaintiffsmay proceed to ta7e appropriate discovery.

R!T(O-!L#

5he facts) if true) do more than portray directors who) in a negligent or grossly negligent manner)merely failed to inform themselves or to deli0erate ade<uately a0out an issue of materialimportance to their corporation. *nstead) the facts alleged in the new complaint suggest that thedefendant directors consciously and intentionally disregarded their responsibilities) adopting awe don?t care a0out the ris7s attitude concerning a material corporate decision.

Also) as in most 6urisdictions) including 2elaware) minutes are considered to 0e prima facieevidence of actions ta7en 0y the corporation) and in others) minutes are presumed to 0e credi0le.Additional evidence will 0e permitted only when minutes are incomplete or am0iguous. 5hecourt found that all that occurred during the meeting regarding 3vit9?s employment was one ofthe mem0ers reviewed the employment terms with the committee and answered a few<uestions. 4o draft of the employment agreement was given to the committee) and the onlyinformation a0out the agreement recorded in the minutes was an incomplete summary. 5hus) theminutes of the compensation committee were not sufficiently detailed to sustain the presumptionthat the 0usiness 6udgment rule had 0een satisfied.

3$



3

A fair reading of the new complaint gives rise to a reason to dou0t whether the 0oard?s actionswere ta7en honestly and in good faith) as re<uired under the second prong of Aronson.

RUL#1% ;hen the plaintiF alleges a deivative clai)G de)and )ust !e )ade on the !oado excused !ased upon futilit".

*% !'onson test 2o dete)ine whethe de)and would !e futileG the Cout )ustdete)ine whethe the paticula factsG as allegedG ceate a eason to dou!t that:T#1% the diectos ae disinteested and independentT o T#*% the challengedtansaction was othewise the poduct of a valid execise of !usiness ?udg)ent.T

/% 2he N!usiness ?udg)ent uleO ceates a pesu)ption that the !oads decision isentitled to defeence #espect%.

$% 2his pesu)ption could !e e!utted !" aising paticulai-ed facts suQcient toaise #1% a eason to dou!t that the action was ta7en honestl" and in good faith o#*% a eason to dou!t that the !oad was adeBuatel" info)ed in )a7ing thedecision.

% Acts o o)issions not undeta7en honestl" and in good faithG o which involveintentional )isconductG do not fall within the potective a)!it of § 1D2(b' (E'1.

% Hnowing o deli!eate indiFeence !" a diecto to his o he dut" to act faithfull"and with appopiate cae is conduct that )a" not have !een ta7en honestl" and ingood faith to advance the !est inteests of the co)pan".

% ;hee a diecto consciousl" ignoes his o he duties to the copoationG thee!"causing econo)ic in?u" to its stoc7holdesG the diectos actions ae eithe Tnot ingood faithT o Tinvolve intentional )isconduct.T

Basic; (nc. v. Levinson

S"a'e"olde's won.

;hethe an" )isleading state)ent !" the co)pan" can aFect the decision to !u"shaes

ou donKt need to show sciente'S

*ate'ialit,. +n ode to show it "ou have to de)onstate Nsubstantial li+eli"oodOthat would !e ta7en into account !" the easona!le investo.

Causation. +n tots what "ou need to show: is the b'eac" of dut, and causation #the lin7%.

F!CTSCo)!ustion EngineeingG +nc.G epesentatives had )eetings and telephoneconvesations with 6asic oQces and diectosG concening the possi!ilit" of a)ege. (uing 19 and 193G 6asic )ade thee pu!lic state)ents den"ing that itwas engaged in )ege negotiations. In (ece)!e 13G 193G 6asic as7ed the ,ew

o7 'toc7 Exchange to suspend tading in its shaes and issued a elease statingthat it had !een TappoachedT !" anothe co)pan" concening a )ege. In(ece)!e *0G 6asic pu!licl" announced its appoval to the )ege.

3



3

Respondents ae fo)e 6asic shaeholdes who sold thei stoc7 afte 6asics =stpu!lic state)ent of Icto!e *1G 19G and !efoe the suspension of tading in(ece)!e 193.

ROC#@UR!L =(STOR: Respondents !ought a class action against 6asic and its diectos alleging that

the" wee in?ued !" selling 6asic shaes at ati=ciall" depessed pices in a )a7etaFected !" petitiones )isleading state)ents and in eliance theeon. 4laintiFsalleged that eBuiing poof of individuali-ed eliance fo) each )e)!e of thepoposed plaintiF class eFectivel" would have pevented espondents fo)poceeding with a class action.

2he distict cout ganted su))a" ?udg)ent fo ( !ased upon a =nding that:

#1% the state)entsG as a )atte of lawG wee not )ateial and theefoe not falseand )isleading and thatG as a )atte of lawG the defendants did not act withsciente #=avin% a mental state wit" t"e intent to deceive; mani&ulate; o'def'aud1.

#*% a pesu)ption of elianceG so that a class consisting of all paties who sold 6asic

stoc7 duing the )ege negotiations could !e ceti=ed as eBuied !". 2he Cout of Appeals vacated the su))a" ?udg)ent egading the )ateialit"issue and aQ)ed the class ceti=cation.

(SSU#;hethe a peson who taded a copoations shaes on a secuities exchange aftethe issuance of a mate'iall, misleadin% statement !" the copoation )a"invo7e a e!utta!le pesu)ption thatG in tadingG he 'elied on the integit" of thepice set !" the )a7et.

R!T(O-!L# 2he Secu'ities #$c"an%e !ct of /6 !ct was designed to potect investos

against )anipulation of stoc7 pices. 2hee cannot !e honest )a7ets withouthonest pu!licit".

!. *ate'ialit,

2o pevent allegations of !ad info)ation fo) !eing used as a petext fo shiftinglossesG couts eBuie that the )isinfo)ation !e )ateial.

2o ful=ll the )ateialit" eBuie)entG thee )ust !e a su!stantial li7elihood that thedisclosue of the o)itted fact would have !een viewed !" the easona!le investoas having signi=cantl" alteed the total )ix of info)ation )ade availa!le.

+t is not enough that a state)ent is false o inco)pleteG if the )isepesented fact isothewise insigni=cant. ;hethe )ege discussions in an" paticula case ae)ateial theefoe depends on the facts. <eneall"G in ode to assess the po!a!ilit"

that the event will occuG a fact =nde will need to loo7 to indicia of inteest in thetansaction at the highest copoate levelsG such as !oad esolutionsG instuctionsto invest)ent !an7esG and actual negotiations !etween pincipals o theiinte)ediaies )a" seve as indicia of inteest.

2o assess the )agnitude of the tansaction to the issue of the secuities allegedl")anipulatedG a fact=nde will need to conside such facts as the si-e of the twocopoate entities and of the potential pe)iu)s ove )a7et value. ,o paticula

3



3

event o facto shot of closing the tansaction need !e eithe necessa" osuQcient !" itself to ende )ege discussions )ateial.

B. 'esum&tion of 'eliance

2he faud on the )a7et theo" is !ased on the h"pothesis thatG in an open anddeveloped secuities )a7etG the pice of a co)pan"s stoc7 is dete)ined !" the

availa!le )ateial info)ation egading the co)pan" and its !usiness. . .)isleading state)ents will theefoe defaud puchases of stoc7 even if thepuchases do not diectl" el" on the )isstate)ents. . . . 2he causal connection!etween the defendants faud and the plaintiFs puchase of stoc7 in such a case isno less signi=cant than in a case of diect eliance on )isepesentations.T

+n facetoface tansactionsG the inBui" into an investos eliance upon info)ationis into the su!?ective picing of that info)ation !" that investo. ;ith the pesenceof a )a7etG the )a7et is inteposed !etween selle and !u"e andG ideall"Gtans)its info)ation to the investo in the pocessed fo) of a )a7et pice. 2husthe )a7et is pefo)ing a su!stantial pat of the valuation pocess pefo)ed !"the investo in a facetoface tansaction. 2he )a7et is acting as the unpaid agentof the investoG info)ing hi) that given all the info)ation availa!le to itG the value

of the stoc7 is woth the )a7et pice.+n an open and developed )a7etG the disse)ination of )ateial )isepesentationso withholding of )ateial info)ation t"picall" aFects the pice of the stoc7G andpuchases geneall" el" on the pice of the stoc7 as a eDection of its value .

RUL#!. *ate'ialit,

#1% +n the context of Rule /0bG2 of 'ECG an o)itted fact is )ateial if thee is asu!stantial li7elihood that a easona!le shaeholde would conside it i)potantO.

#*% Mateialit" eBuied a case !" case eview of the facts

B. 'esum&tion of 'eliance

#1% Reliance is an ele)ent of a Rule 10! cause of action and povides theeBuisite causal connection !etween a defendants )isepesentation and aplaintiFs in?u".

#*% 2hee is a e!utta!le pesu)ption that stoc7holdes 'elied on availa!leinfo)ation when !u"ing o selling secuities.

#/% 4etitiones )a" e!ut poof of the ele)ents giving ise to the pesu)ptionG oshow that the )isepesentation in fact did not lead to a distotion of pice o thatan individual plaintiF taded o would have taded despite his 7nowing thestate)ent was false.

Un'easonable Sea'c"es Sei<u'es

StatutesA)end)ent $.

3



33

Conce&ts

• 'each

• 'ei-ue

• 4o!a!le cause• ;aant

<oven)ent needs:

;aant o 4o!a!le cause.

An" evidence in a ci)inal case poduced in the violation of this ule is t"'own out.

,o )atte:

• ow elevant

• ow !ad is what the accused did

2his aFects all the deivative evidence.

+f Macus seaches <ennadi"Ks house and =nds an Evidence of 6enn"Ks dug dealing no case against !oth.

2his is a f'uit of t"e &oisonous t'ee.

Case Law

Mat< v. United States /651

Rule: $th A)end)ent 4otection against uneasona!le seaches and sei-ues.

2his case sets a 2E'2 to esta!lish when the <ovt has indeed engaged in a seach.

(e=nition of what constitutes an 8neasona!le seach > 'ei-ue.

FactsH was convicted fo violating fedeal statute that pohi!its the tans)ission ofinfo)ation fo placing !ets ove the telephone.

HKs phone convesation in a pu!lic phone !ooth was taped@ecoded via a devicethat was not +, the !ooth !ut outside of the !ooth.

+t is evident that the police tied to ta7e so)e )easues to ,I2 intude on HKspivac"...and onl" got pats of convesation that wee speci=c to thei case.

H was convicted !ased on ecodings of his end of the convesations. e challengedhis convictionG aguing that the ecodings could not !e used as evidence against

33



39

hi). 2he Cout of Appeals sided with the &6+ !ecause thee was not a ph"sicalintusion into the phone !ooth itself.

+ssue#s% !efoe the Cout:

(oes the &outh A)end)ent potect the pivate convesations of an individual

)ade in a telephone !ooth+s a ph"sical intusion !" <ovt oQcials eBuied to violate a defendants &outhA)end)ent ight against uneasona!le seach and sei-ueG o is a waantlesselectonic tap of the defendants phone call suQcient@enough of an act to violatehis@he ights

+s the <ovt eBuied to o!tain a seach waant !efoe executing a wietapG o is adete)ination !" the fedeal agents that po!a!le cause exists enough

&6+ said: that was a pu!lic placeS +t was not located insideG it was located in pu!lic.

+f "ou wal7 on a steet with a gun CO can sto& me and as+ fo the

authoi-ations.

Hol!in,'o long as an individual can ?usti=a!l" expect that his convesation would e)ainpivateG his@he convesation is potected fo) Tuneasona!le seach and sei-ueT!" the &outh A)end)ent.

2he <oven)ents activities in electonicall" listening to and ecoding thepetitiones wods violate the pivac" upon which he ?usti=a!l" elied while using thetelephone !ooth and thus constituted a seach and sei-ue within the )eaning ofthe &outh A)end)ent.T

2he &outh A)end)ent potects peopleG not places. 2heefoeG the ights of anindividual )a" not !e violatedG egadless of whethe o not thee is ph"sicalintusion into an" given aea.

,6: Cout has expanded its intepetation of this povision to cove not ?ust theph"sical pesonG !ut also the place.

A waant is eBuied !efoe the goven)ent can execute a wietapG and the Gwaant )ust !e suQcientl" li)ited in scope and duation.

Lessons

• A)). $ potects &eo&leG -OT &laces o' &a&e's.

+n whateve situation "ou have easona!le expectation of pivac" "ou haveeasona!le expectation of pivac" and ,ou a'e &'otected.

• Su&'emes ageed: it was illegal.

39



91

Fundamentals of U S Law Outline 2008

Documents

Transcript of Fundamentals of U S Law Outline 2008