Con Law Final

• Justiciability


  Whether a case can be heard by the federal courts; must have concrete, legal and factual disputes between adverse parties and capable of resolution through the judicial process
• Standing


  • Whether a litigant is the proper party to assert a claim or defense
  • Injury-in-Fact (π must show an invasion of a legally protected interest which is a) concrete and particularized, and b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical)
  • Causation (fairly traceable to the action alleged/∆'s conduct)
  • Redressability (remedy – whether the injury can be fixed)
• Mootness


  When the underlying facts of the case is no longer ongoing deemed non-justiciable; a case is not moot when the harm to the π is continuing or when it is capable of being repeated on the ∆ or others in the future
• Ripeness


  Dispute underlying the case must have fully arisen and is not merely a future, speculative dispute uncertain to rise (whether the controversy has begun, has it rippen to the point where a federal court can review?)
• Advisory Opinions


  Prohibits the courts from issuing counseling type legal opinions to other branches of government
• Political Question


  Prohibits federal courts from deciding issues that are intended to be resolved by or are more suited to be resolved by other political branches of government
• "Ms. Zaro has standing to bring her claim because the denial of her admission is a specific concrete injury to her giving rise to a justiciable case or controversy under Article III."
• Judicial Review


  Power of the SC to declare laws, acts of the Prez and other executive branch agents, unconstitutional
• Marbury v. Madison


  • Established that the judicial branch and the SC had sole responsibility to weigh the constitutionality of laws and declare a law which is repugnant to the Constitution is void
  • It is the Court's duty and power to make such decisions
• Article III, § 1 established "Judicial Power of the US, shall be vested in one SC, and applies to all cases and controversies; Congress cannot refuse or limit
• Article III, § 2 establishes SC's original jurisdiction; all other cases has ONLY appellate jurisdiction
• SC is final arbiter, ultimate decision maker on the US Constitution
• Words trumps state court interpretations of the U.S. Constitution
• Has jurisdiction to review state court determinations of federal law, but not to review state court determinations of state law
• Scott v. Sandford


  People of African descent (slaved or free) are not citizens, not entitled to protections/rights under Constitution
• Overruled by 13th Amendment, "neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist within the US."
• 14th Amendment, "All persons born or naturalized in the US are citizens of the US. No State shall abridge the privileges or immunities, deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, w/o due process, nor deny any person to the equal protections of the law."
• Implied Powers


  Congress has broad implied powers under the Necessary and Proper Clause to create laws deemed essential/useful of the enumerated powers AND to executed them by selected means
• McCulloch v. Maryland


  • Constitution does not limit Congress to enumerated powers, gives Congress authority through N & P Clause to create laws deemed essential/useful of the enumerated powers AND to executed them by selected means
  • Congress not limited to those acts specified in the Constitution, may choose any means, not prohibited by the Constitution to carry out its lawful authority, under the Necessary and Proper Clause
  • National government is supreme over states and states lack authority to negate federal actions
• Commerce Clause


  Authorizes Congress to regulate any activity that in the aggregate, substantially affects the interstate economy; Commerce: "the commercial intercourse between nations, and parts of nations, in all its branches and among the several states including local activities which affect the states generally or affect other states"
• Pre-1937: MIX OF BROADEN/RESTRICTED


  • Court grappled with how to define "commerce" and came to fairly narrow understanding
• 1937-1995: BROADENED


  • Court gave Congress considerable latitutile to regulate pursuant to Commerce Clause
• 1995-present: RESTRICTED


  • Court reined in congressional power, allowing more room for state
• Gibbons v. Ogden


  • Federal law governs pursuant to Congress's constitutional grant of power to regulate interstate commerce. Federal commerce statutes nullify any competing state statutes or licenses
• NLRB v. Steel


  • Established if they have such a close and substantial relation to interstate commerce that their control is essential or appropriate to protect that commerce from burdens and obstructions, Congress cannot be denied the power to exercise the control
• US v. Darby


  • Established Congress may choose the means reasonably adapted to obtain the end even though involves intrastate activities
• US v. Lopez


  • Established 3 categories of activities that Congress can regulate under Commerce: 1) Channels of Interstate Commerce, 2) Instrumentalities of Interstate Commerce, 3) Intrastate Activities that have a substantial relation to interstate Commerce
• Executive Powers


  President's responsibilities (Undefine Powers): "Shall be Commander in Chief of the Army, Navy, Militia," "Shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed."
• Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer


  • Established that Prez may not engage in lawmaking activity absent an express authorization from Congress or the Constitution. (IS NOT LAWMAKER), NO seizure of property is lawful w/o Congress's Approval; stems from emergency situation usually
• Article II obligates the Prez to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. Congress's spending power is valid and President must abide by the requirements
• President may direct federal executive agencies as long as Congress is silent on the matter and direction does not interfere with other branches
• When Congress passes legislation to monitor a federal agency, this action must be voted on by both houses and President. Cannot pass w/o Prez support bc would be a legislative interference with an executive function
• Established three different categories where Prez may act upon


  • An Expressed/Implied authorization from Congress, Prez acting within maximum authority
  • Congress is Silent (no congressional grant but also no denial of authority) Constitution grants the Prez certain powers to act independently or concurrently with Congress (twilight zone)
  • When Prez takes measures incompatible with the expressed/implied will of Congress, not consistent with Congress' intentions (lowest/no authority)
• Congress is permitted to regulate the scope of the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction. However, such authority is not unlimited. Cannot eliminate Court's review for an entire area of the law because would frustrate the body of supreme and uniform federal law
• Establishment Clause


  Prohibits the official establishment of religion by a State; Governmental neutrality is objective; Specific prohibition on forms of state intervention in religious affairs with. No precise counterpart in the speech provisions
• Penumbra


  Right to Association
• Everson v. Board of Education


  • Total separation is not possible in an absolute sense. Some relationship between Govt and Religious Organization is inevitable
  • While a State may not use public funds to support the establishment of religion, it may also may not refuse to include religious institutions in general subsidy programs as this could interfere with the free exercise of religion for state citizens
• Lemon v. Kurtzman


  • Three Main Evils: 1) Sponsorship, 2) Financial Support, 3) Active involvement of the Sovereign in Religious Activity
  • Lemon Test (Never overturned, but not generally followed; not clear or concise law): 1) The statute must have a secular legislative purpose, 2) Its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion, 3) The statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion
• Lee v. Weisman


  • Court took into consideration: 1) Public School Setting (Kids have to go to public school), 2) Age (Children are more suspectable to peer pressure/coercion); 3) Sport Setting
  • Right of Religious Expression is outweighed by Possibility of Coercion onto others
  • Cannot exclude priest, pastors bc of their profession, but exclude religious speech
• Town of Greece v. Galloway


  • Offense, disrespect, exclusion does not equate to coercion
  • It is not necessary to define the precise boundary of the Establishment Clause where history shows that a specific practice is permitted
  • Balance between Free Expression of Speech and Religious Freedom
  • History & Tradition Test: Passage of Time gives a strong presumption for constitutionality