Studydroid is shutting down on January 1st, 2019



keywords:
Bookmark and Share



Front Back
What is The Instrument that must authorize a federal government entity to act in order for that action by the federal entity to be legitimate?
A). The Constitution. Thus, whenever a question involves action by an entity of the federal governemtn, the action will only be valid if it is authorized by the Constitution.
What part of the Constitution authorizes a federal court system and the Judicial branch?
A). Article III
The Constitution provides that the federal courts shall/will have jurisdiction/judicial power over what cases and controversies???
A). The Federal Courts have jurisidction over...

1. all cases and controversies Arising under the Constitution, United States Federal Laws or United States Treaties

(i.e. constitutional law cases, federal law cases and treaty cases)

2. all cases and controversies Of admiralty and maritime jurisidiction (i.e. cases on the U.S. waters)

3. all cases and controversies in which The United States is a party.
(i.e. X sues the United States)

4. all cases and controversies between two or more states

(i.e. Ohio v. Michigan)

5. all cases and controversies between a state and a citizen(s) of another state

(i.e. State of Michigan v. Joe from Ohio)

6. all cases and controversies between citiznes of different states
(i.e. Joe from Ohio v. Sam from Florida)

7. all cases and controversies between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states

(i.e. Sam of Ohio v. Joe of Ohio concerning a land grant from Wyoming for property in Wyoming)

AND

8. all cases and controversies between a U.S. State or a citizen of a U.S. State and a foreign state, foreign citizen or foreign subject)

(i.e. Joe from Ohio v. Sam from Spain; Ohio v. France; Ohio v. Greg from Germany)
What does it mean for the judicial branch to have the power of judicial review?
A). The federal courts and ultimately the Supreme Court may determine wheter or not the acts of other branches of government are constitutional

The Constitution is "law" and it is the province and duty of the judiciary to declar what the law is.
Why does the judicial branch have the power to determine whether or not actions by the other branches of government are constitutional?

(why does it have the power of judicial review?)
A). Because the Constitution is "law" and it is the province and duty of the judiciary to declare what the law is.
What doctrine of Constitutional Law prohibits the legislature from interfering with the final judgments made by the federal courts

(i.e perserving the finality of court decisions?)
A). separation of powers.
True or False; The Constitution permits the Legislative Branch to impair/undermine judicial decisions?
A). False. The judiciary's final judgments on a matter cannot be undermined by Congress because of separation of powers.
When determining whether federal legislation impairs/undermines the finality of a judicial decision by the United States Supreme Court, what should you be careful to do?
A). Be careful to scrutinize the facts of the Supreme Court Case.

i.e. Congress has the unlimited/plenary power to regulate commerce whereas states have limited power to do so. Thus, a scotus decision saying the state lacked power to regulate interstate commerce does not mean congress is undermining finality if they enact a similar provision because the States and Congress have different power standards.
1.Can the Federal Courts determine the Constitutionality of State Laws/Actions under judicial review?

2. What in the Constitution justifies this?
1). Yes

2). The supremacy Clause of Article IV states that the Constitution, Laws and Treaties of the U.S. take precedence over states laws tand that the judges of the state courts must follow federal law.
What are the two types of federal courts?
1). article III Courts established by Congress purusant to Article III sec. 1. They're bound by article three standsards of subject matter, parties and the case and controversy requirements.

AND

2). ARTICLE I COURTS (established by Congress to help with their legislative duties, I.E. the Tax Court)...Sometimes have adminstrative as well as judicial functions.
Can Congress take cases of the type traditionaly heard by Article III Courts and assign jurisdcition over them to Article 1 courts?
A). No. Congress' power to create article I courts is limited in that they may not take cases of the type traditionally heard by  Article III courts  and assign jurisdiction over them to ARticle I courts.
When does the Supreme Court have original/trial jurisdiction? meaning the Scotus runs the trial
Under Art. III Sec. 2 The scotus has original jurisidiction

in all cases affecting

1. ambassadors, public ministers and Consuls

AND

2. Cases in which a state is/shall be a party

**Congress can neither restrict nor enlarge the Supreme Court's original jurisidicition but can give concurrent jurisdiction to lower federal courts and has done so regarding all ceases except those between states

(i.e. Congress can also give a federal district court concurrent, original (trial) jurisidiction over a case involving the U.S. Ambassador to China).
When does the Supreme Court have appellate jurisidiction?
A). Under Art. III, Sect. 2 the scotus has appellate jurisidiction both as to law and fact in all cases and controversies the Federal Courts have jurisidiction over,

***Unless Congress makes Exceptions to this!
Congress has provided two methods for invoking Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction, what are they?
Scotus appellate Jurisdiction may be invoked by.

1. appeal (where scotus jurisdiction is mandatory)

AND

2. certiorari (where jurisdiction is within the Court's discretion.

***Very few cases fall within the Court's mandatory appellate jurisidction; thus, applelate jurisdiction is almost completely discretionary.
The Supreme Court has completye discretion to hear cases that come to it by....???
A). writ of certiorari....4 justices need to agree to hear the case in order for a writ of certiorari to be granted.
What types of cases may be heard by the scotus via writ of certiorari?

(scotus has discretion to hear the case)
A. Cases from the highest state courts (i.e. Ohio Supreme Court) wherein;

1.The Constitutionality of
i. a federal statute,
ii. a federal treaty,
OR
iii. a state statute

is called into question

OR

2. a state statute allegedly violates federal law

AND

B. ALL cases from federal appellate courts.

When MUST the scotus hear a case and exercise its appellate jurisdiction without discretion?

(i.e. in what instance will a case come before the scotus by appeal rather than writ of certiorari?)
The supreme Court must hear those FEW cases that come to it by appeal.

Appeal to the scotus is available only as to decisions made by three-judge federal district court panels that grant or deny injunctive relief.
When is appeal to the scotus available?
A). Applea is avialble only as to decisions made by three-judge federal disctrict court panels that grant or deny injunctive relief.
If A sues in federal district court for injunctive relief and the three-judge panel denies it, what unusual step may he take next?
A). appeal to the scotus and they have to take the case and excercise their appellate jurisidction.
What is the difference between how the Scotus excercizes their appellate jurisidiction via appeal and writ of certiorari?
1. If they get jurisdiction because of certiorari it is discretionary.

2. If they get it by appeal it is mandatory
Congress may eliminate certain avenues for Supreme Court revew so long as...
A). It does not eliminate all avenues.

(i.e. if there are two statutes allowing Scotus to grant habeas corpus to federal prisoners, Congress can repeal one of those statutes becasue the other sttute remained as an avenue for Supreme Court Habeas Corpus review.
In U.S. Constitutional Law, what is plenary power?
plenary power is a power that has been granted to a body in absolute terms, with no review of, or limitations upon, the exercise of the power. The assignment of a plenary power to one body divests all other bodies from the right to exercise that power, and where not otherwise entitled; also, the right to substantively review the exercise of that power in a particular instance or in general.

i.e. A clear example of this is with the power of the United States Congress under Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, (the Commerce Clause). Because Congress is granted absolute power over interstate commerce, the Supreme Court has found that states may not pass laws that affect interstate commerce unless the U.S. Congress gives them permission to do so

i.e. An example of a plenary power granted to an individual is the power to grant pardons, which is bestowed upon the President of the United States
What is a writ of habeas corpus?
is a writ, or legal action, through which a prisoner can be released from unlawful detention. The remedy can be sought by the prisoner or by another person coming to his aid.
Congress may eliminate Supreme Court review of certain cases within the federal judicial power, but Congress must still???
permit jurisidction over those certain cases to remain in some lower federal court
Can Congress eliminate scotus review over certain cases within the federal judicial power?
A). Yes so long as Congre permits jurisdiction remain in some lower federal court.

***Remember, congress cannot alter instances in which the Scotus has trial jurisdiction.
If Congress were to deny all supreme court review of an alleged violation of constitutional rights, or go even further and deny a hearing before any federal judge on that claim, would this be constitutional?
A). No this would violate due process of law.
Even if a federal court DOES HAVE jurisidiction over the subject matter of a case (i.e. a federal court has subject matter jurisdiction), can the court reufse to hear the case?
A). Yes, the court can and might still refuse a case over which it has subject matter jurisidiction.

**Whether the court will hear the case depends on whether a "case or controversy" is involved and on whether other limitations on jursidiction are present.
What is the legaleze for wehther or not a court will hear a case?
A). Whether the case is justiciable?
Federal courts will not render decisions in what instances?
1. moot cases

2. collusive suits

3. cases inovlving challenges to governmental legislation or polices that are not actually being enforced or being threatened to be enforced.
Can the President of the U.S. go to the Scotus for an advisory opinion on whether or not a proposed law is Constitutional?
A). No. The scotus is barred from issuing advisory opinions under the case or controversy requirement.
A case or controversy exists IF...
1. there is an actual dispute between parties having an adverse legal interest.
What is the rule regarding whether or not the Supreme Court will rule on a statute's constitutionality if the statute is unlikely to be enforced?
A). the federal courts will not determine the constitutionality of a statute if it has never been enforced and theree is no real fear that it ever will be.

(i.e. anticontraceptive law not enforced for 80 years won't be ruled on).
Under the case or controversy requirement, will the Federal Courts hear actions for declaratory relief?
Yes because a case or controversy exists if there is an actual dispute between parties having adverse legal interests. In order to have an action heard for declaratory relief then, the complainants must show that they have endgaged in ()or wish to engage in) specific conduct and that the challenged action poses a real and immediate dnager to their interests.
What is the Ripeness Doctrine?
The ripeness doctrine is the idea that a federal court will not hear a case unless it is ripe; that is, unless the plaintiff has been harmed or ther is an immediate threat of harm.
As a general rule, is a plaintiff entitled to judicial review of a state law before it is enforced?
A). No a plaintiff generally is not entitled to review of a state law before it is enfoced (i.e. may not obtain a declaratory judgment) because the law is not ripe. Thus, a federal court will not hear a case unless the plantiff has been harmed or there is an immediate threat of harm.
What is a Declaratory Judgment?
A declaratory judgment is a judgment of a court in a civil case which declares the rights, duties, or obligations of one or more parties in a dispute. A declaratory judgment is legally binding, but it does not order any action by a party. In this way the declaratory judgment is like an action to quiet title, a paternity petition, or any other form of preventive adjudication
When might a declaratory judgment might be requested?
A declaratory judgment is typically requested when a party is threatened with a lawsuit but the lawsuit has not yet been filed; or when it is thought by one of two (or more) parties that their rights under law and/or contract might conflict; or as part of a counterclaim to prevent further, similar lawsuits from the same plaintiff (for example, when only a contract claim is filed, but a copyright claim might also be applicable)
A claim is not ripe for adjudication if...
"a claim is not ripe for adjudication if it rests upon contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all."[1] For example, if a law of ambiguous quality has been enacted but never applied, a case challenging that law lacks the ripeness necessary for a decision.
When is a case considered moot?
A case is moot if there is not a real, live controversy at any state of review even if there was one when the complaint was filed.
What does a declaratory judgment allow.....????
allows a court to declare the rights of parties under the facts as proven without actually ordering that anything be done.
In Constitutional law, a matter is moot if...
further legal proceedings with regard to it can have no effect, or events have placed it beyond the reach of the law. Thereby the matter has been deprived of practical significance or rendered purely academic.
A case can be heard by a federal court and has not become moot if...
A real, live controversy EXISTs, at all stages of review, not merely when the complaint was filed.

i.e. a white student is passed over for law school by black applicants but then is accepted to law school and graduates while litigation is pending. the case is not moot anymore once he goes to law school and graduates.
When will a federal court hear a case despite it being moot?
A). A court will hear a case that would otherwise be moot, (and it will not be MOOT) where there is a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party will be subjected to the same action again AND would again be unable to resolve the issue because of the short duration of the action.

(i.e. where the controversy is capable of repetition yet evading review).
A case that would otherwise be MOOT because it lacked a real, live controversy at all stages of review,

will not be considered MOOT and will be heard/continued to be heard by a court if....
A). The Case or Controversy is Capable of Repetition, yet Evading/would evade Review.

Meaning, There is reasonable expectatio that the same complaining party will be subjected to the same action again and again would be unable to reslve the issue because of the short duration of the action

Examples of Controversies that are reapatable but will evade review


1). Cases/Controversies with Issues concerning events of short duration (e.g. pregnancy, elections, divorce actions);

AND

2). Where the Defendant voluntarily stops the offending practice, but is free to resume it
What are two example scenarios that, if part of a case of controversy that might otherwise be moot, will prevent the case from being moot because they are repeatable but would evade review
1). Events of Short Duration: If the Case/Controversy concerns events of short duration such as pregnancy, elections, divorce actions, which are repeatable but would evade review because of their short duration, the action won't be moot

2. Voluntary Cessation of Offending Practice by Defendant.

If the Defendant stops an offending practice, technically the case would be moot because there is not a real, live controversy through all stages of review.

But, the Court will hear the case anyways and not consider it moot if the Defedant voluntarily stops the offending practice, AND/BUT is free to resume it!
What distinguishes ripeness from mootness?
A). Ripeness and mootness are related concepts in that the court will not hear a case unless there is a live controversy.

Ripeness bars consideration of claims before they have been developed;

Mootness bars the consideration of claims after they have been resolved.
What is the Class Action exception to the mootness doctrine?
A). A class representative may continue to pursue a class action even though the representative's controversy has become MOOT, as long as the claims of others in the class are still viable.
When does an action BECOME, moot?
A). An action becomes moot once the claim has been "resolved" in some way because there is no longer a real, live controversy at some stage of the review.
X is the class representative in a Class Action Lawsuit against GM and his individual controversy with GM has become MOOT. Can he continue to pursue the class action?
A). Yes he may continue to pursue the class action even though his controversy has become moot as lo9ng as the claims of others in the class are still viable.
What does it mean when a case or controversy is capable of repetition evading review?
A Case or Controversy is capable of repetition evading review, and consequently won't be considered MOOT,

IF

there is a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party will be subjected to the same again again and would again be unable to resolve the issue because of the short duration of the action.

I.e.

1. cases with issues conerning events of short duration (pregnancy, elections, etc.)

2. Defendant voluntarily stops the offending practice, but is free to resume it.
x of y cards Next > >|