Justiciability - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 14
About This Presentation
Title:

Justiciability

Description:

legal dispute between litigants based on facts. Spring, 2005. Con Law I - Manheim. 7 ... based on real facts, real injuries. Spring, 2005. Con Law I ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:195
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 15
Provided by: karlma
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Justiciability


1
  • Justiciability Part I
  • Jan. 20, 2006

2
Types of Limits on Judicial Power
  • Interpretive Limits
  • Statutory Limits
  • Article III Limits (justiciability doctrines)

3
Types of Limits on Judicial Power
  • Interpretive Limits
  • Statutory Limits
  • Article III Limits (justiciability doctrines)

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 "

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 "

The power to apply the law to legal disputes
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 "

legal dispute between litigants based on facts
7
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"
8
Case or Controversy requirement
  • Legal dispute between litigants based on actual
    facts
  • No advisory opinions
  • No conjectural, premature or stale cases
  • Only litigants with real personal disputes of
    adversarial character
  • No political disputes (i.e., matters not suited
    for adjudication in court of law)

Marshall Questions, in their nature political,
or which are, by the Constitution and laws,
submitted to the executive, can never be made in
this Court."
9
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
  • 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

avoidance
10
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

11
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."

12
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 Jays letter, Washingtons 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

13
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
  • Adversarial, based on real facts, real injuries

14
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 Courts 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
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com