Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
[DOCTRINAL OVERVIEW]
METHODOLOGY Must ask several questions when interpreting and analyzing the constitution and other relevant documents. WHAT does it mean? Deciding on the best meaning of the words used (ex: interpretation of the commerce clause) WHO decides what it means? Judicial Review (see Marbury) HOW do you use the necessary tools to answer the WHAT and HOW questions? Use constitutional interpretation tools to argue in favor of particular substantive parts of the constitution / methods of constitutional discourse. 1. Originalism Look to text itself / good starting point / only works for concrete provisions (35 years old to be the President / two thirds majority vote requirements) 2. Original Intent Legislative history or situational factors behind particular section or words used / look to the substantive understanding of the people who ratified a provision / use dictionaries of the day, specific policy discussions, historical context (ex: 14th is about slavery) 3. Pragmatism Use common sense when evaluating the document (ex: constitution didnt give power to create the Air Force BUT its reasonable to do so) / fill the blanks with common sense 4. Past Precedent Can be judicial or otherwise / maintain stare decisis and judicial uniformity (ex: Blakey) 5. Structural No clause or article is invoked BUT a value that runs through the document may be at issue (ex: privacy rights OR presidential impeachment and chief justice oversight, not VP) CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY Declaration of Independence 1776 13 colonies revolt and declare their independence from Great Britain / tired of over taxation without representation and enslavement Philosophical Implications - government is not ordained by God / no more King - God endows PEOPLE with individual sovereignty (popular sovereignty) and those PEOPLE then establish ordered government / sovereignty from the bottom up (compare with GB top down) - Which people? Sovereignty applied to the people of the INDIVIDUAL states, not the people of the whole states collectively (not truly united yet) Articles of Confederation Problematic for several reasons: weak centralized government / no power to tax / no meaningful executive branch / couldnt raise troops effectively 1776 1787 it becomes clear that the states need a new framework of government in order to secure their safety militarily and economically Philadelphia Convention 1787 originally established to revise the articles of confederation (legality question) but it ended up creating an entirely different system of government / must be ratified by the people of each state / establishes the electoral college / sovereignty transformed from the people of each state to the United States collectively / strong executive / separation of powers Fundamental Dilemma
[FEDERAL JURISDICTION] Federal Judiciary State Judiciary SCOTUS REVIEW OF STATE COURTS The Constitution sets out the types of cases the Supreme Court can review from the State courts. The most relevant section is Article III & the Judiciary Act of 1789. Article III US Constitution Federal judicial power extends to cases arising under this Constitution, the laws of the US, and Treaties made... 25 of Judiciary Act (45) Allows for Appellate JX in the SC of the highest judgment of a State court. One of 3 circumstances must exist for this to apply: (1) Where STATE ct strikes down FEDERAL law as unconstitutional Drawn into question the validity of fed treaty or statute...and the decision was against the validity (2) Where STATE ct upholds STATE law against a FEDERAL law Drawn into question the validity of state treaty or statute...and the decision is in favor of its validity This is what happened in Martin (3) When person is asserting FEDERAL right under STATE law and loses When construction/meaning of any fed provision is drawn into question and the person asserting the fed right loses This could be the case in Martin Martin v. Hunters Lessee (1816, 45) FACTS: Hunter claims property by VA forfeiture law / Martin claims property by federal law (peace treaty) / Martin loses at first but then SC reverses / VA doesnt listen (claims the SC cant control state SC decisions Sec. 25 appellate review is unconstitutional) to SC ruling and the case goes back to the SC. VA court did not think there was a conflict between the peace treaty and the VA statute, and that they get the final word on the meaning of the treaty. ISSUE: Whether 25 of Judiciary Act of 1789 is constitutional / main issue concerns the supremacy of federal law & Supreme Court determinations HOLDING: 25 of Judiciary Act of 1789 is constitutional / the appellate power of the Supreme Court does extend to cases arising in state courts (in this case the VA SC) Why SCOTUS can review state court decisions: Parody Argument (structural) If federal courts can review actions of State Legislators and executives, why cant they do the same with State courts? Separation of Powers if all branches are equal the analysis should stay the same Uniformity Argument (structural) SC must be able to review state decisions for uniformity purposes keep the circuit courts in line with one another (note: not always the case; SC doesnt take up every conflict case)
Why did 25 of the Judiciary Act apply in this case? - Questioning the validity of a statute is in question (N/A here) - Questioning the validity of a state statute on the ground that it conflicts with the constitution and the state law wins (applies) - When you assert a right under the US Const or treaties or other federal law and that right is rejected (applies) RESULT: Both categories 2 and 3 apply in this case, NOT category 1 Why didnt Story come down more harshly on VA when they took the case the second time? Story wanted to stay politically neutral / decision relates to federal power in a broad sense, it wasnt directed toward the VA SC / Story assumes the VA court will fall in line, no need to be overly harsh Adequate & Independent State Grounds Doctrine concerns instances where STATE courts deal with interpreting FEDERAL laws Federal law issues resolved by State courts will NOT be reviewed by federal courts if the State court judgment rests on an Adequate and Independent State grounds. Adequacy if the procedural decision by a State court not to decide a federal issues is Adequate, the Supreme Court cant review the State court decision Independence a decision invalidating both State and Federal constitutional grounds cant be reviewed by the Supreme Court even if a bulk of the decision concerned the US Constitution. Michigan v. Long (1983, 52) FACTS: D arrested under a MI drug law / D wanted to exclude evidence under the 4th Amendment AND a MI constitutional provision / MI SC held that there was an illegal search and the evidence was gathered in a way that violated BOTH the US and MI constitutions / MI SC didnt make it clear whether they were relying on STATE or FEDERAL grounds in making their final decision RULE: In cases of ambiguity, SCOTUS will default (presumption) in favor of federal review UNLESS the state court expressly states it is relying on adequate and independent state law. [OConnor] What was the basis for the default rule? - Avoid advisory opinions (where outcome wouldnt change) - Respect the independence of State Courts (they have an opportunity to say what they are doing) What were the problems with the default rule? - Doesnt follow the rationale upon which it is based - AMAR (1) The presumption should disfavor federal review if SCOTUS really wanted to respect the independence of state court decisions (2) It is unclear what constitutes fairly and primarily / no bright line as to when a state court fairly and
Were there any political aspects of the case? - The MI SC was trying to stay politically neutral (do not have to own the result) when they ambiguously referenced both state and federal laws This way the MI Supreme Court can blame the outcome on SCOTUS instead of taking the blame themselves after the case is over and done with MI SC thinking about elections / voters What if the State Court has rejected Long's interpretation of the 4th Amendment (upheld the search)? - Then SCOTUS COULD EASILY have taken the case / SCOTUS could have changed the outcome of the case by granting cert. / AND the D would have implicated a federal law which was denied JUSTICIABILITY The idea that a case is only properly bringable / hearable in federal court if certain criteria are met. Justiciability is the ability of a federal court to entertain the merits of a lawsuit in the first place. Policy Justifications - Article III limits the Federal Courts to only those cases presenting CASES & CONTROVERSARIES - Separation of Powers demands that the courts dont intrude on other branches and become legislatures - the Adversarial System demands that there be real clashes in opinions among interested parties that are actually affected - the courts dont want to be bogged down with sham disputes AMAR Criticisms - The doctrine is not rooted in any real authority (prudential limitations and not constitutional limitations). - Every time the court strikes a statue down as unconstitutional it steps on the other branch's toes - Public interest groups with funding/interest often dont have standing, while people with 1 penny claims and unskilled lawyers have standing. Doctrine Elements (1) Standing parties must show (a) injury in fact (b) but for causation and (c) redressability (2) Ripeness unripe cases are not true Cases and Controversies (C&C) (3) Mootness Art III requires a lack of mootness for C&C (note: $ cases are never moot) (4) Political Question There are some issues courts will just leave to congress to decide
10
11
12
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992, 76) FACTS: Ps challenge Bushs interpretation of a Wildlife Protection Act / Bush didnt think that it applied overseas / Ps claimed that it did / example of a congressional CITIZEN SUIT provision HELD: Congress citizen suit provision was unconstitutional because it attempted to circumvent Article III standing rules / the Ps had not suffered any injury in fact and therefore couldnt bring suit.
13
Limiting Citizenship Based Standing - Separation of Powers Concerns? - Courts dont want to hear cases like this because Article III (standing) would end up swallowing parts of Article II (president takes care clause) It is the presidents responsibility, and not the courts, to take care that the laws are not violated except when the order is needed to preserve the rights of someone. Why is Lujan different than Trafficante? - Court says that in Trafficante the Ps had ACTUAL injury (congress made it injury for a white to be deprived of the opportunity to live in a diverse community) and in Lujan there was NO actual injury Amar citizenship suit provisions are ok IF congress creates actionable injury / congress cant override Article III injury in fact requirements Federal Election Commission v. Akins (1998, 87) FACTS: Political groups are supposed to disclose specific information to the FEC for regulation purpose / Ps sue the FEC in an attempt to get them to regulate more stringently and do their jobs. HELD: Ps had standing to the extent they were being deprived of information that greater FEC enforcement would allow them to receive How is FEC different from Lujan? - Very difficult (but possible) to distinguish the two cases. - Although congress created a right of the people to political info in FEC, this right is NOT an injury in fact / court could have made similar arguments in Lujan: people have a right to healthy wildlife reg. Raines v. Byrd (1997, 81) [Line Item Veto Act]
FACTS: A congressman challenges the line item veto act which allows the president to remove certain parts of a bill, opposed to approving or rejecting the bill in full
HELD: The Congressman did NOT have standing to sue RULE: Political injury is distinguishable from personal injury and will not serve as a basis for standing / although the Ps vote may be impacted, his person was not injured by the Act How is Byrd different than Powell? - Powell was excluded from his actual seat (wages, job) whereas Byrd was not able to allege similar personal injuries - Even if Powell got wages and just no voting rights, the lack of voting rights associated with a job is an injury whereas the loss of prestige in Byrd is not an injury. How is Byrd different than Coleman v. Miller? - Miller involved a majority of state senators suing collectively (functioned like an institution) b/c the governor had reported to DC that the senate had voted in favor of a bill they actually defeated Amar difficult to distinguish the two cases and SCOTUS should really just overturn Miller How is Byrd different than Clinton?
14
Ripeness Presents the flipside temporal problem that mootness encompasses: a case thats moot is no longer appropriate for judicial resolution a case thats unripe does not present a meaningful conflict appropriate for judicial resolution. Amar mootness and ripeness are two sides of the same temporal coin Note: suits for damages ($) are never unripe Injunctive Relief typical situation where ripeness will be a big factor What makes a case unripe? (1) Uncertainty about whether a P will violate a law EX: either I stop my reproductive rights OR I go to jail (2) Uncertainty about whether a State will prosecute a P for violating a law Poe v. Ulman no chance the State would prosecute the P under an ancient law (3) Uncertainty concerning other future occurrences City of Los Angeles v. Lyons (1983, 95) FACTS: P suing city over a police chokehold policy allowing cops to use maneuver on citizens. P endured a chokehold. P wants an injunction against the LAPD barring them from using the chokehold move HELD: Ps case was unripe the likelihood the P, himself, would be choked again was too small so the
15
- allows the city of LA to just buy their way around the constitution
DISSENT: Effectively prevents ever getting an injunction against LAPDs potentially unconst. practice P has a damages claim which is always judiciable!! *Court is basically setting up a toll system for violating the Constitution (you can break the law, but you just have to pay when you do buy your way out). *An injunction would make non-compliance contempt of court making the consequences a lot greater than damages Other ripeness cases Younger v. Harris Syndicalism law that prevents communism is not ripe if you haven't been prosecuted [doesn't even matter that their friend is being prosecuted] Cannot challenge anti-birth control law because it was never enforced. If others had been prosecuted, then law could be challenged. AMAR: Unsatisfactorily conclusion because no way to contest the law before taking the risk of being punished if they are wrong on the constitutional issue. Law created against political activity. Plaintiffs that want to engage in political activity claim do not have a ripe claim because not clear they are doing something that implicated the law. But if one is being prosecuted because of the political activity that claim is ripe. Law requiring teachers who are part of subversive groups to be discharged is ripe Adler is a facial challenge--law is unconstitutional. Mitchell is an as applied challenge--law cannot be applied to you as consistent to constitution Perhaps more concreteness is necessary when challenging it as applied to you.
Poe v. Ullman
Mitchell
Adler
Political Question Some disputes are better suited for resolution by the political branches of government / determined before the court reaches the merits of a case / aspects of both prudential (judicial discretion) and constitutional (text) considerations Possible Types of Review Non-Justiciable court punts to political branches Justiciable political question is reviewed de novo Middle Ground justiciable but court is highly deferential to political question (rational basis) Baker v. Carr (1962, 102) FACTS: Ps sue over a reapportionment law that created districts based on geography rather than
16
17
AMAR: courts should stay out of picking the President because the President picks justices the case could have easily been nonjusticiable under the political question doctrine / Amar says this is why no justices stepped down during Bushs 1st term because of taint.
[THE SCOPE OF FEDERAL / NATIONAL POWER] Federal Government State Government Enumerated powers Federal government can only exercise powers that are given to it, and none that are not given to it 10th AMENDMENT The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Powers not given to federal government are reserved to the states and the people respectively Major clashes occur when the federal government passes laws which affect how state governments function. There are several important questions that need to be asked when these situations occur. Doctrinal Questions 1. Is Congress Acting Within its Enumerated Authority? - federal gov is one of limited enumerated powers (see 10th amend) 2. Are States Limited When Congress Hasnt Acted But Could? - see preemption doctrine / certain realms of regulation are reserved to congress, not states 3. What Happens When One Level of Government Regulates Another? - minimum wage laws, state regulations of federal business 4. Does the Government Enjoy Immunities From Private Suits? - see doctrine of sovereign immunity
18
19
20
21
The Congress shall have power to . . . regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states
What is the commerce clause? Congress has power to regulate commerce among the several states according to Article I *Basis for a huge number of federal laws Commerce Categories [from Lopez] 1. Channels Roadways, air, maritime are all channels of commerce 2. Persons/Things [instrumentalities, persons, or things of interstate commerce] Goods and people crossing state lines 3. Activities [activities that have a substantially effect or relate to interstate commerce] If economic activity being regulated, then need substantial effect to interstate commerce. Congress cannot regulate non-economic activity by finding that the cumulative impact has an
22
23
24
25
26
Commerce Clause Table Case Wickard Heart of Atlanta Lopez Morrison Raich Issue personal wheat consumption local discrimination by hotel Gun Free School Zone Act Gender discrimination Controlled Substances Act (home-grown marijuana) Held regulation OK aggregation of effects regulation OK rational basis inquiry regulation NOT OK econ args were too attenuated regulation NOT OK discrim. is not economic / can only aggregate if activity is economic to start regulation OK definition of economic: consumption, distribution, and possession of commodities
GENERAL FEDERAL POWERS The Taxing Power [Art. I, 8, Cl. 1] The Congress shall have power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises . . . but all Duties, Imposts, and excises will be uniform throughout the United States The power to tax was one of the biggest problems with the Articles of Confederation. It is an inherently legislative power and courts demonstrate deference to congressional taxing. 16th Amendment = federal income tax power Uniformity Clause = federal taxes must be same anywhere in US (feds cant discriminate geographically) Sonzinsky v. US (1937, 193) [taxes as a regulatory tool] FACTS: sues government over the National Firearms Act which imposed a $200 tax on firearm dealers refused to pay the tax and argues Congress trying to regulate gun possession, not generate tax revenue HELD: SCOTUS upholds the tax b/c it was within the scope of congressional taxing power RULE: Congress can use tax to regulate as long as tax produces some meaningful revenue SCOTUS will not attempt to discern the hidden or secret motives of congressional taxation Was the tax too much of a regulation? - Every tax constitutes a regulation of some form (changes peoples incentives to buy, not to buy) *All congress needs is a rational basis and the court will defer NOTE: Similar to Katzenbach & Heart of Atlanta but NOT similar to McCulloch where court says they can look to motive US v. Ptasynski (1983, 195) (Uniformity Clause Case)
27
28
29
Woods v. Cloyd Miller Co. (1948, 205) FACTS: Challenge to the Housing and Rental Act which regulated housing prices during war time Landlord violated the act by raising rent, despite WWII being over HELD: Congress has the power to pass the act under the war powers b/c rent control was related to the war RULE: War powers dont necessarily end with the cessation of physical hostilities so long as there is a traceable rationale between the war-related effect and the power being exercised War power extends to the effects of the war. Why not a Commerce Clause case? - In 1948 Congress wasnt sure if SCOTUS would uphold the Act under the Commerce Clause (due to recent restrictive holdings) *Today, it would be a Commerce Clause issue (rent = $) CONCURRENCE: [Jackson] - Narrow the test for war powers application *Under majoritys test, anything might be traced back to war b/c it has lasting effects *Like minority in Lopez, he is worried that this reasoning destroys the doctrine of limited enumerated powers *The majority identifies this as a concern, but decides to deal with this issue in the future The Treaty Powers Hierarchy of Authority [Supremacy Clause; Art. VI, Cl. 2] Constitution Fed statutes/treaties Fed exec agreements State law Supremacy Rules o Constitution prevails over federal statute (Marbury) o Constitution prevails over federal treaty (Reid v. Covert) o Federal statute prevails over state law (Martin v. Hunters Lessee) o Federal treaty prevails over state law (Hauenstein v. Lynham) o Executive agreements prevail over state law (Belmont; Pink)
30
What if federal statute conflicts with federal treaty? o The one later in time prevails o Same rule as resolving two conflicting statutes o Treaties can replace statutes even though House of Representatives is cut out of process NOTE: if conflict between a federal statute and a treaty, whichever was passed LAST prevails *Same result when there is a conflict between two treaties Types of international agreements o Treaties; (Hauenstein) o Executive agreements (Belmont; Pink) Missouri v. Holland (1920, 222) FACTS: Missouri wants to prevent the US game warden form enforcing the Migratory Bird Treaty w/ Canada Congress passed it once and a District Court struck it down as violative of federalism President takes the idea and gets it passed via his treaty power ISSUE: How can Congress be said to violate the Constitution when it passes the bird regulation BUT when the president does it things are OK? HELD: SCOTUS upholds the federal treaty Federal treaty power is broader than Congress power to make federal statutes Federal treaty gave 10th Amendment basis to pass Congressional statute regulating Migratory Birds What is the difference between treaties and statutes? Statutes must be in pursuance of the Constitution Treaties valid under the Supremacy Clause whenever made under the authority of the Constitution CONSTITUTION > TREATIES Are treaties inferior to the constitution? - YES, although treaties may trump federal statues, they are not exceptions to the Constitution Reid v. Covert FACTS: President makes an executive agreement with Britain permitting the court martial of United State civilians who commit crimes in Great Britain. HELD: Executive agreement (or treaty, if it had been) unconstitutionally violated individual 5th amendment rights under the constitution invalid The Property Power [Art. IV, 3, Cl. 2] The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State. Federal and state governments have broad powers regarding the regulation of all things w/in US territories Police power The police power is an inherent residual power that states have to regulate Police power is always a regulatory power
31
Con Law I Outline Amar Spring 2012 The needful language in the property power is akin to the necessary language in McCulloch. Necessary could mean just something helpful. Thus, needful can be similarly interpreted.
Kleppe v. New Mexico (1976, 228) FACTS: NM challenges the Free-Roaming Horses Act Ranchers argue that b/c the horses were not federal property (they only happened to be on federal lands) the government couldnt regulate them Ranchers had permission to graze their cattle on federal land. NM law = ranchers had rounded the horses up on federal property b/c they were interfering with the grazing of their cattle. HELD: Property Clause allows the federal government to regulate all things on federal lands, even if the things themselves are not federal property Federal government can regulate federal properties any way it wants Amar: regardless of who owned them, they were having an effect on a federal property interest
[STATE SOVEREIGNTY & FEDERAL REGULATION] Federal Government State Government Previous section dealt with federalism issues / the relationship between the federal government and the state government with respect to regulations of the PEOPLE. This section concerns the federal government regulation STATE government. STATE IMMUNITY Main issue is whether states should be exempt from federal regulation / until 1976 constitutional attacks on federal regulations were rejected (court favored fed regulation over states objections) / National League of Cities was the first case to overturn a federal statute based on state immunity grounds National League of Cities v. Usery (1976, 237) FACTS: Federal minimum wage law imposed on state and local government employees Federal regulation of state government employees HELD: SCOTUS invalidated federal regulation [overruled Wirtz (and previous cases)] RULE: Federal govt cant limit the freedom of States to make decisions in areas that are traditional government functions [states have limited immunity from federal govt regulation] How is federalism (federal v. state) different from Lopez, Morrison, Reich, etc? - This case involves federal regulation of STATE employees, the other cases involve federal regulation of individual CITIZENS ( different federalism concerns) What is a traditional government function? - Difficult to define; government doesnt always do the same thing b/c tradition can change
32
33
What is the difference between commandeering (bad) and bribing or pre-empting (ok)? - Example of a new federalism situation - General policy is to leave the state laboratories alone so forcing them to act a certain way is the most evil of the three options *Amar: but the preemption option (by supremacy power) doesnt leave states alone at all - Commandeering is so harsh that it prevents states from forming any form of an identity at all NY VERSUS Garcia *NY: law doesnt regulate anything but state governments; targeted law [TOO SPECIFIC] *Garcia: law is general and regulates all employers Printz v. US (1997, 261) FACTS: Congress passed the Brady Gun Control Act to require states perform background checks to buy guns Act forced state and local law enforcement personnel to do the background checks States objected claiming the fed govt couldnt force them do to the background checks HELD: The background check portion of the Act was unconstitutional [the requirement was like commandeering in NY] Legislative vs. Executive vs. Judicial commandeering? - Federal government CANNOT commandeer a state executive or legislative branch NY Congress was telling the state legislature how to legislate Printz Congress was telling the state executive branch how to execute - Federal government CAN commandeer the state judiciary *State courts have to process federal causes of action if told to do so
34
Fed / State Regulation Table Case Nat. League of Cities Garcia New York Printz Reno Law Federal Minimum Wage Federal Minimum Wage Radioactive Waste Brady Gun Act / background check DMV Disclosure Holding Unconstitutional Constitutional Unconstitutional Unconstitutional Constitutional Scope General Application BUT traditional gov function test was applied here General Application (applied to citizens and the state) Specific Application (commandeering / take title provision) Specific Application Specific Application, but Constitutional
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
The Prize Cases (1863, 414) FACTS: Lincoln declares a blockade of southern ports Union ship owners in South sue the government HOLDING: SCOTUS upholds the Presidents power RULE: President does NOT have the power to declare war (see Art. I), BUT the president DOES have the power to use the military against invasions and to suppress insurrections against the government Mora v. McNamara (1967, 415) HOLDING: SCOTUS refuses to discuss whether the Vietnam war was illegal b/c Congress had never officially declared war
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2006, 417) [OCONNOR] FACTS: President claims military tribunals involving no due process fall w/in military force powers that Congress gave him after 9/11 (broad military powers). President arrests and detains US citizen fighting for the Al Qaeda and detain him as a terrorist. HOLDING: Congresss act allowed the President to detain Hamdi during war time. * But Hamdi, as a US citizen had the due process right to contest his enemy combatant status in front of a neutral decision-maker. * Neutral decision-maker can be member of military, but cant be person who arrested or captured you. * Presumption in favor of the government is fine as long as presumption is rebuttable Probably a #2 or #3 case b/c Congress was pretty opposed to the military Tribunals RULE: How much process is due [Due Process] requires case-by-case weighing of PRIVATE interests (Hamdi) against the GOVERNMENTAL interests (Military Tribunals) ASK: 1] How much does the individual have at stake? 2] How much would more procedure enhance determination? How much are we getting by adding another layer of process? 3] How much does additional procedure cost? Non-Delegation Doctrine Congress CANNOT constitutionally delegate away its legislative power to other branches/agency of government Textual underpinning: derived from Art. I, 1 all legislative power herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States Theoretical underpinning: all acts of govt should be traceable to particular body to which people conferred permission to make such decisions But Supreme Court is generally unwilling to find that Congress has delegated its power incorrectly to the
42
43
44
45
PRESIDENT ARGUES: (1) Justiciability President claims ct has no jx to decide the matter b/c it involves dispute exclusively between two executive authorities (intrabranch dispute) and therefore should not be subject to judicial resolution (2) President cannot do his job well, if his staff are not free to discuss things with him without fear that it wont be confidential. MAJORITY response to (1): Doctrine of separation of powers does not preclude judicial review of executive claim of privilege
46
Clinton v. Jones (1997, 494) FACTS: Jones sues Clinton after he becomes president for sexual harassment done while he was gov. of AR Jones sues just before SoL ran Could have been thrown out based on latches: if you unreasonably delay in bringing suit and other side relies detrimentally then your claim is barred By waiting until after he becomes President, Jones drastically increased the cost of litigation President claims immunity from prosecution while he is sitting in office HOLDING: President does NOT receive immunity from this lawsuit just because he is in office RULE: Presidential immunity DOES NOT apply to civil damages arising out of unofficial events occurring prior to the assumption of office MAJORITY [Stevens] Civil suit where immunity was granted. Nixon v. Fitzgerald *Immunity here is more narrow b/c Nixon was acting w/n his official capacity as president
47
Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (Supplement): FACTS: SEC forms an oversight board that sets accounting standards (Sarbanes-Oxley), initiates investigations, and sanctions those who fail to follow the standards. SEC commissioners are appointed by President, but cannot be removed by President w/o good cause. Oversight board can only be removed by the SEC for good cause. President cannot remove the board. HOLDING: Separation of powers issue here unlike in Morrison, because the President cannot remove SEC commissioners, while he can remove the Attorney General in Morrison. Here, the oversight board has a double
48
IMPEACHMENT [Art. II, 4] The President, Vice President and all other civil officers are subject to congressional impeachment House votes to impeach; Senate votes to remove Note: Congressmen are NOT subject to impeachment but can still be removed by 2/3rd vote Amar although there is not a lot of judicial precedent on the issue, courts look to past congressional activity and textual references in the constitution to guide their analysis of impeachment cases / one area where political question doctrine is strong (courts are deferential to congressional decision making) High Crimes & Misdemeanors - High implies impeachable activities must be worse than regular crimes - Bribery and treason are examples of high crimes (well-defined in penal sense) - Act doesnt have to be an enumerated crime to be impeachable [AMAR: not restricted to criminal acts] *ASK: Is official engaged in something that renders them incapable of doing their job? *EXAMPLE: If VP is insane, system must allow him to be removable although insanity not legally indictable - Applies to conduct committed outside of capacity of office (in Presidents private life) *AMAR: history and common sense have to say it does apply in this situation *EXAMPLE: President commits murder completely private, but murderer cant be in office - Capacity abused in some way? *Relevant question, but not dispostive - Perjury = high crime or misdemeanor? *AMAR: depends on perjury (context) what are you covering up and why? *Clinton impeached for perjury and others have in past w/o regard to whether the perjury he committed would have been prosecuted in the real world *AMAR: alternatives besides impeachment were available [censure] * Cant impose sanctions or fines on President due to Bill of Attainder * Less clear if censure without sanctions or fines are allowed * Suggestion to President to apologize to public should have been fine. * Contextual inquiry that is hard to generalize. Deference Courts are deferential to legislative decision making regarding what presidential actions are impeachable *Separation of powers concerns b/c it takes a lot of votes to impeach in the senate Duty or Power Congress does NOT have a duty to impeach, its just a power / House must use its discretion and should look to the people for advice as they represent them / Const. requires that std. be met before action taken
49
50
Con Law I Outline Amar Spring 2012 PRESIDENTIAL SELECTION [Electoral College vs. National Popular Vote (NPV]
i. Complicated voting process state-by-state for selecting electors 3. This group of electors consists of 538 persons a. Number of representatives of each state plus 2 (535) plus DC which is treated like a state (538) ii. Why dont we have a NPV? 4. Rejection of parliamentarianism a. Framers did not want to give selection of the President to Congress (unlike Parliamentary system) b. Wanted the Executive to be able to stand up to/counteract legislature 5. Lack of communication and transportation btw states a. Awareness in 1700s was locally restricted b. The logistical wherewithal/electoral infrastructure to implement NPV was nonexistent c. Changed by 1800: Political parties formed that serve as a surrogate (Constitution doesnt really take a stance on parties) 6. Slavery a. NPV would have hurt southern states b. Formula for states representation in electoral college is based on number of house members and southern states received house member representation based on 3/5 compromise for slaves even though they dont vote c. NPV would have incentivized states to maximize regional clout by allowing groups like slaves and women to vote 7. Electoral college thought to help small states a. Would not have agreed to join NPV because their voices would have been drowned out by bigger states b. Senators plus two regardless of size c. counterargument: winner-takes-all model adopted by almost all states has hurt small states and favors large states and especially swing states d. Swing states w/ sizable electoral representation where the mean vote matters iii. Reasons to keep electoral college 8. Protect small states a. Rebuttal: small states dont usually generate presidential candidates 9. National popular vote would allow 3rd party candidates to win w/ small percentage of overall vote than if electoral college existed a. Rebuttal: governors in all states are elected directly (could just use run-offs btw candidates) 10. Best argument for keeping it: cant have NPV scheme unless all states are administering elections the same way a. Would require national administration of presidential elections Rebuttal: dont need all states to enact it, only 11 biggest states to account for more than 50% of electoral college these states could enact national election w/o total national participation Bush v. Gore (2000) FACTS: 2nd time it had gone to SC / decision locked-in vote count HOLDING: Recount in FL violated Equal Protection Clause of 14th Amendment States can take back electoral system but as long as it is in place they must respect it CRITICISM 1. Political question: SC should have abstained from hearing the case 2. Line up: Political dispositions of majority: SC decided election based on 5-4 split decision which mirrored party alignment of 9 justices respectively 3. New law: SC is saying that letting counties use different rules for evaluating ballots means that people in different parts of the state are being treated differently
51
Procedural and Substantive Due Process: Procedure steps that government can take in order to accomplish its goals NOT in terms of what government goals are out of bounds all together i. Has there been a deprivation of life, liberty, or property? 1. Liberty = Loss of significant freedom provided by Constitution or statute. a. Does not include prisoners w/in prison. 2. Property = Entitlement that is reasonably expected and has not been fulfilled. a. Includes the continued receipt of a benefit. ii. If so, what procedures are required? EX: hearings, counsel, appeal rights (ordinary procedural safeguards) Hamdi v. Rumsfeld ISSUE: what does procedural fairness require before you lock them up? HELD: military tribunal is OK if: 1) there is counsel 2) evidence explanation 3) appeal rights Substance the question is not HOW but WHETHER the government can accomplish a particular goal (see abortion cases / see Lochner) / in these cases increasing procedural due process will NOT remedy a problem relating to substantive due process
52
it up SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS 1. Is there an adequate reason for the govt taking a persons life, liberty, or property? 2. Economic Liberties regulations get Rational Basis Review a. Minimum wage laws. b. Consumer protection laws. c. Professional regulations. Economic Regulatory Legislation Lochner v. NY (554, 1905) [**OLD, PRE-NEW DEAL RULE**]
FACTS: Constitutionality of NY law that prescribes maximum hours for bakers to work HELD: Law is invalid under the 14th Amendments due process clause b/c infringed on individual contract right [State cant infringe upon that employee-employer contractual arrangement] NOTE Same court that brings Lochner is the same court that is invalidating federal attempts to regulate the same workplace restrictions on the grounds that commerce does not have enough commerce clause powers to reach it Federal strikes under commerce clause State strikes under substantive due process (14th restricts) TEST: To determine whether state law is within states police powers: [whether law fails or not] ASK: Is law fair, reasonable, and appropriate exercise of police power? Non-arbitrary exercise? VALID if fair, reasonable, and appropriate exercise of states police powers INVALID if unreasonable, unnecessary, and/or arbitrary APPLIED HERE: Law is not about protecting consumers from purchasing unsafe products *Court views the law interfering with citizens rights to contract and work *If bakers dont want to work certain hours, they should just say no to employers **SCOTUS ignores unequal bargaining power of employees Max. hour law doesnt affect quality of the bread DISSENT: [Harlan] Statute isnt to protect consumers BUT designed to protect the well-being of employers and employees State is protecting employees from their otherwise lack of market power to protect themselves *They want jobs so they will work; unequal bargaining power Doesnt matter if the court thinks the law is wise legislation *Choice of economic theory is not for the judiciary (laissez-faire vs. govt regulation) *Court should not sit as a super legislature and impose policy on the rest of us without constitutional grounding Many other federal restrictions on freedom of contract [majoritys rule is arbitrary] *Freedom of contract is not absolute (prostitution contracts, prohibition on lotteries, etc) DISSENT: [Holmes]
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
MAJORITY [OConnor] undue burden = substantial obstacle - Informed consent provision - Constitutional i. Legitimate govt objective: facilitate thoughtful well-informed decision a. Might it make decision for woman to get an abortion more difficult? Yes, but not enough to constitute substantial obstacle - Mandatory 24 hour waiting period - Constitutional i. Govt objective: to give mother time to reflect upon decision ii. SCOTUS admits that mandatory waiting period could be legitimate obstacle, but not an undue burden. NOT AN UNDUE BURDEN because: 1. Law is not a significant obstacle to sufficient number of people sufficiently often 2. Even though some women may be unduly burdened, the specific (Ps) are not iii. Facial challenge: asks SCOTUS to enjoin the law as a whole very existence of that law is detrimental 1. Only allowed if law risks chilling effect on certain rights such as free speech 2. Remedy is so extreme, incidents of constitutional violation must be numerous enough to justify a facial challenge 3. Individuals who have an undue burden can bring a non-facial challenge that the law as applied to them imposes an undue burden. a. AMAR: Unrealistic for individuals to raise a claim in time. - Minors - Parental consent provision - Constitutional i. As long as judicial bypass provision is in place, then (minor can get permission to not seek parental permission from a judge) parental consent provision is OK - Spousal notification - Unconstitutional i. Govt objective: womans decision would be more informed if she consulted spouse ii. SCOTUS says interest of the father legitimate, but not powerful enough to overcome burden placed on victims of spousal abuse ii. Three Reasons to get rid of an old case that was incorrectly decided in the Abortion Context (See Notes on Stare Decisis): 1. The doctrine is unworkable. 2. Erosion of the law around the given doctrine 3. The decision was based on a factual error c. Gonzales v. Carhardt (2007, 693) FACTS: Congress passed statute criminalizing doctors who conducted partial birth abortions
61
62
63
64
Congruence & Proportionality Congress can pass laws based on Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment if the laws are congruent and proportional (e.g. Congress passed law to prohibit literacy tests to block illiterate people from voting. Compare (1) what the Constitution prohibits and (2) what congress is prohibiting. If there is LOTS of overlap then C&P is probably satisfied but if there is LITTLE overlap C&P probably is not satisfied Remedy & Cure Court says that the remedy CAN be broader than the disease BUT if the remedy is too broad and encompassing it will probably fail C&P test Note after Bourne, SCOTUS applied the Congruence and Proportionality Test with a vengeance Board of Trustees of University of Alabama v. Garrett (2001, 1286) Why Section 5 instead of Commerce Clause?: Section 5 allows Congress to abrogate state sovereign immunity under section 5, while it cannot strip states of sovereign immunity under the commerce clause. FACTS: Federal statute (like RFRA) required local govt agencies to accommodate disability through the ADA Employment provisions were specifically at issue; employers must make reasonable accommodations to fit the employees needs HERE, University of Alabama didnt accommodate a nurse ISSUE: Whether the employer provisions of the ADA are Congruent and Proportional. Whether a state who violates the ADA can be sued for damages HELD: Employer provisions of the ADA are INVALID b/c they are not properly enacted pursuant to 5 Court reemphasizes the C&P test from Boerne / Note: 5-4 AGAINST claimant in Garrett ANALYSIS: Congruent & Proportional Analysis Equal Protection Clause vs. ADA employer requirements Held There was LITTLE overlap between the ADA employer requirements and the EPC. Compare every instance where a state or local government refuses to accommodate a disabled person with the instances where such activity violates the Constitutions EPC. Since the state can discriminate under the EPC as long as it meets a minimal rationality review standard, many violations of the ADA wont be violations of the EPC. Therefore, the provisions were NOT necessary and proper Note court is not friendly to legislative history / congressional findings claiming that the instances of discrimination were not very prevalent Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center FACTS: EP challenge to a city ordinance that treated disabled living group differently HELD: Disability did NOT invoke heightened scrutiny. Not a suspect class Amar Criticism Clenburne actually came out in favor of the disabled plaintiffs
65
66
Hibbs
SECTION OVERVIEW SCOTUSs Authority Federal judicial power extends through Art. III, Section 2 to cases arising under the Constitution but not cases decided purely on state law grounds. Even if a state Constitution mirrors the U.S. Constitution, if a state court decision is based on the states Constitutional provision, no federal law is involved and SCOTUS has no jdx. Federal judicial power does not extend to SCOTUS review of any state court case for which there is an independent and adequate state ground. The finding has to be pretty clearly on state-law sources or else state ground isnt truly independent. Constitution gives Congress full control over jdx of the lower federal courts. These courts cant even exist without Congress creating them. See Article III, Section 1- Congress can grant judicial power to SCOTUS and to such inferior courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. This can be read to mean that Congress may also define the cases that may be heard by the lower federal courts, and Congress may refuse to let lower federal courts hear cases that fall within the general federal judicial power (diversity cases, for example.) Federalism and Federal Power: McCulloch- when Congress is acting of a constitutionally-specified objective, the means chosen merely have to rationally related to the objective, not necessary to the objectives attainment. [ The court will show great deference to Congresss choice of the means to attain constitutionally-enumerated objectives.] Federal Commerce Power Before Lopez, it was enough that there was a rational basis for Congresss belief that a regulated activity affects interstate commerce. But Lopez establishes that the activity which Congress is regulating must in fact have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Commercial Activity When an activity is commercial the Court seems to find regulation of it to be within Commerce power even if the specific act is wholly interstate, as long as the act is part of a class of activities which, collectively, substantially affect interstate commerce. Once the Court finds that the activity substantially affects, all that you need from there is that the means selected by Congress be rationally related to the objective being sought. Refer to: Raich where the Court held that Congress could regulate a purely intrastate but commercially-oriented activity regarding a commodity (marijuana cultivation for personal medicinal use) because such regulation was reasonably tied to Congresss regulation of the interstate commercial aspects of that same commodity. Even when a statute falls within Congresss power to regulate Congress, a state can argue that the Constitution
67
68
Intergovernmental Immunities Federal Immunity from State Taxation- The federal government is itself immune from taxation from any state. Refer to McCulloch. But this immunity generally does not extend to federal government employees or to contractors who work the federal government. So long as the govt is not directly obliged to pay taxes, the fact that a burden may eventually fall on govt as a result of a tax does not matter. Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV- Article IV, Section 2 provides that each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states. This prevents states from discriminating against out-ofstate individuals and applies only to rights that are fundamental to national unitythe right to practice ones profession is such a right. Once a fundamental right is shown to be at stake, then the defenders of the state will lose unless they show that the non-resident is the peculiar source of evil which the law enacted to remedy AND there was no less discriminatory way of dealing with the problem. Separation of Powers Presentment Clause- Legislative veto under which Congress keep oversight over administrative action by reserving the power to cancel that administrative action by means of a Resolution. You are essentially depriving the President of the opportunity to veto. Refer to Chadha. Theory behind the invalidity of legislative veto is that the Resolution is itself the exercise of legislative power, so it must be carried out by the same procedures as for any other legislative act. i.e. passage by a majority of each house and presentment to the President for his signature. Declaring War- Article II, Section 2 explicitly grants the President the power of Commander in Chief. However, President must use this power subject to Congressional oversight. Power to declare war is given just to Congress in Art 1, Section 8. While the President may, without a declaration of war commit troops to repel an immediate emergency, it is unlikely that the President may wage a prolonged ground war without a declaration from Congress --especially when the U.S. hasnt been attacked. Refer to Hamdan which indicates that in cases where the President asserts broad power to act in wartime, and it is not clear that Congress has acquiesced to what he is doing, the Court will favor Congress over the President. State Action Be sure to check to make sure that the action that you see as violating DP or EP or whatever is being taken by the state. If a private actor is doing something that would constitute a violation if a government were doing it then thats a tip off to a state action problem. Public Function- You can have a situation where a private party is doing something that is traditionally the EXCLUSIVELY by the states in which case you can get around the apparent lack of state action. ALSO, look for
69
70