Transcript PPT

Constitutional Law I
Justiciability – Part I
Jan. 20, 2006
Types of Limits on Judicial Power
Interpretive Limits
Statutory Limits
Article III Limits (justiciability doctrines)
Spring, 2005
Con Law I - Manheim
2
Types of Limits on Judicial Power
Interpretive Limits
Statutory Limits
Article III Limits (justiciability doctrines)
Spring, 2005
Con Law I - Manheim
3
Article III
Section 2: "The judicial Power shall extend to
all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this
Constitution, the Laws of the United States …
to Controversies to which the United States
shall be a Party …"
Spring, 2005
Con Law I - Manheim
4
Article III
Section 2: "The judicial Power shall extend to
all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this
Constitution, the Laws of the United States …
to Controversies to which the United States
shall be a Party …"
The power to apply the
law to legal disputes
Spring, 2005
Con Law I - Manheim
5
Article III
Section 2: "The judicial Power shall extend to
all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this
Constitution, the Laws of the United States …
to Controversies to which the United States
shall be a Party …"
legal dispute between
litigants based on facts
Spring, 2005
Con Law I - Manheim
6
Article III
Section 2: "The judicial Power shall extend to
all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this
Constitution, the Laws of the United States …
to Controversies to which the United States
shall be a Party …"
Synonym for "cases"
Spring, 2005
Con Law I - Manheim
7
Case or Controversy requirement
Legal dispute between litigants based on
actualMarshall:
facts “Questions, in their nature




or which
are, by the Constitution
Nopolitical,
advisory
opinions
laws, submitted
to the executive,
Noand
conjectural,
premature
or stale can
cases
never be made in this Court."
Only litigants with real & personal disputes
of adversarial character
No political disputes (i.e., matters not suited
for adjudication in court of law)
Spring, 2005
Con Law I - Manheim
8
Prudential rules (self-restraint)
Exercise power of judicial review only as a
last resort

Sequence of adjudication in a case
 Decide state issues 1st
 Decide federal statutory issues 2nd
avoidance
 Decide federal constitutional questions last



Construe statutes as to render them const'l
Decide cases on narrowest grounds
Decide cases only if brought by persons whose
rights are violated, not by interlopers
Spring, 2005
Con Law I - Manheim
9
Advisory Opinions
Marshall's syllogism for judicial review




Courts must decide cases;
If those cases set up the constitution as a
right or defense, courts must be allowed to
look to the constitution;
If the constitution is supreme, it must
provide the rule of decision in every case in
which invoked
but only when necessary to decide
actual cases
Spring, 2005
Con Law I - Manheim
10
Opinion of the Justices
(1793)
Interpretation of peace treaty


Why did Washington/Jefferson want a judicial
interpretation of the treaty & US obligations?
Why didn't Jay want to provide it?
 "We exceedingly regret every event that may cause
embarrassment to your administration, but we
derive consolation from the reflection that your
judgment will discern what is right, and that your
usual prudence, decision, and firmness will
surmount every obstacle to the preservation of the
rights, peace, and dignity of the United States."
Spring, 2005
Con Law I - Manheim
11
Opinion of the Justices
(1793)
Advisory Opinions

If not S.Ct., who gives President legal advice?
Art. II, § 2, ¶ 1: "the President … may require the
Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of
the executive Departments, upon any subject relating
to the Duties of their respective offices …“
 After Jay’s letter, Washington’s Cabinet formulated a
set of "regulations" reflecting executive interpretation
of international law -- for the President cannot fulfill
his obligation to take care that the law be executed
without making a determination of what it means.

Contrast state Supreme Courts
 e.g., Michigan Constitution, Art. III, § 8
Spring, 2005
Con Law I - Manheim
12
Justiciability Overview
What we know so far:

Jurisdiction of federal courts is limited
 By Article III of the Constitution
 By enabling legislation (except for SCt original jdx)


Congress may confer less jdx than Art. III permits, but not
more
Article III limits on jurisdiction strictly construed
 Extends only to “cases” and “controversies”
 In 9 “subject matter” areas (e.g., federal question)

What is a “case or controversy”?
 Form of litigation as known at common law

Spring, 2005
Adversarial, based on real facts, real injuries
Con Law I - Manheim
13
Justiciability Overview
What we know so far:

No Political Questions
 I.e., courts do not decide questions that the
constitution entrusts to the “political branches” of
government



Nomination of officers
Making of treaties & international diplomacy
No Advisory Opinions
 Supreme Court’s sole function is to “decide cases;”
not to revise legislation nor to render advice

Compare the “judgment” of a case, and its “dicta”
 Line between deciding & advising is strict & technical
Spring, 2005
Con Law I - Manheim
14