Threshold Doctrines “The most important thing we do is not doing.” Justice Brandeis

Jurisdiction Definition: the power, right, or authority to interpret and apply the law Constitution defines courts’ jurisdiction as “all cases, in law or equity” and “controversies between two or more states”

Standing The ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation

Justiciability That which is capable of being determined by a court of law. The case must present a legal question, rather than a question of politics, or a question in which there is no clear legal standard.

Jurisdiction Doctrines – Advisory Opinions – Ripeness – Mootness

Advisory Opinions No non-adversarial proceedings Used to gain judicial “blessing” in some state proceedings Used in many European legal systems

Ripeness Issue has not matured. There are still alternative forms of resolution, no harm has occurred or imminent Poe v. Ullman (1962). CT had not prosecuted anyone for using contraception in years.

Mootness A dispute in which the alleged potential harm is no longer present DeFunis v. Odegaard (1974). After DeFunis alleged reverse discrimination, District Court ordered him admitted to law school. Was in final semester when heard in Sup Ct, which found case moot as DeFunish would graduate irregardless of whether he won or not

Standing Injury: Must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury Causation: Defendant is responsible for injury Redressability: Must be asking for relief that a court is capable of providing.

Standing Problem in constitutional law: Injury must be particularized to individuals. Keeps courts out of public policy Preserves legislative supremacy

Frothingham v. Mellon (1924) Frothingham sues to stop federal spending under Maternity Act of 1921 Claims that welfare is state, not federal, function (companion case: MA v. Mellon) Court denies standing as no particularized injury No single taxpayer is sufficiently harmed, as all our dollars are just drops in a bucket

Flast v. Cohen Congress enacts Elementary and Secondary School Act of 1965, includes funding for non-public schools, including parochial schools, serving poor students

Flast v. Cohen “Double Nexus" test: 1.“logical link between [taxpayer] status and the type of legislative enactment attacked." 2.“taxpayer must show the challenged enactment is generally beyond the powers delegated to Congress by Article I, Section 8."

Valley Forge Coll. v. Americans United

Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation FFRF challenged the use of discretionary executive branch funding to support the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives Sup Ct found that lack of congressional action meant that FFRF lacked standing under the 2 part test

Berg v. Obama (3 rd Circuit, 2009) Berg, a “birther,” challenged Obama’s status as a “natural born” citizen and thus his qualifications to serve as President Court denied Berg standing, noting that he shared any possible injury w/ >300 million others, and noting multiple political remedies (electoral college, Congress) and other litigants (states, other candidates, political parties, members of Congress, etc)

Arizonans for Official English v. AZ (1997) Arizonans passed initiative requiring all official state acts to be carried out in English District Court struck down part of initiative as overbroad. AZ chose not to appeal, AOE files to appeal District Court ruling Sup Ct denies for other reasons, but also notes that AOE was not “authorized by state law to represent the State's interests” and denies standing

Environmental Standing Legal Personality: A person or organization that can legally enter into a contract, and may therefore be sued for failure to comply with the terms of the contract. Also includes: Corporations, Ships

Sierra Club v. Morton (1972)

The Threat to Mineral King

Sierra Club v. Morton (1972) Sierra Club challenges Forest Service permit for ski resort in valley then near (now in) Sequoia Nat’l Park Question was: Should Sierra Club have standing to sue? Majority found no injury to SC members, rather than generalized harm

Sierra Club v. Morton (1972) “The river as plaintiff speaks for the ecological unit of life that is part of it. Those people who have a meaningful relation to that body of water - whether it be a fisherman, a canoeist, a zoologist, or a logger - must be able to speak for the values which the river represents and which are threatened with destruction....” William O. Douglas (dissenting)

U. S. v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (S.C.R.A.P.) (1973) SCRAP challenges railroad rate setting that made shipping recyclables more expensive Claims standing because each member’s outdoor experience “was disturbed by the adverse environmental impact caused by the nonuse of recyclable goods brought about by a rate increase on those commodities.”

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992) Defenders challenge U.S. A.I.D. grants to Egypt and Sri Lanka by suing Secretary of Interior to require that he take action to stop disbursement of funds under Endangered Species Act.

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992)

Two questions: 1. Do plaintiffs have particularized interest in welfare of endangered animals? 2. Is Lujan the proper defendant, as dams are primarily funded and erected by other governments, and USAID is part of State Dept?

Massachusetts v. EPA (2007) Majority grant MA standing to challenge EPA inaction on greenhouse gases as “the State has an interest independent of and behind the titles of its citizens, in all the earth and air within its domain. It has the last word as to whether its mountains shall be stripped of their forests and its inhabitants shall breathe pure air."

Enforcement Provisions – Private Attorney Generals Civil Rights Act of Allows any individual to sue a public accommodation on account of discrimination in service. Americans with Disabilities Act of Provides disabled individual right to sue a public accommodation on account of discrimination because of lack of access.

Justiciability That which is capable of being determined by a court of law. The case must present a legal question, rather than a question of politics, or a question in which there is no clear legal standard.

Luther v. Borden (1849) During Dorr’s Rebellion, citizens attempted to overthrow the charter government of Rhode Island in order to expand the franchise to non-propertied white males. Dorr’s supporters adopted a “People's Constitution” while state's General Assembly drafted the “Freemen's Constitution.” Each side held elections and “took office.”

Luther v. Borden (1849) Martin Luther, a Dorr supporter, was arrested by Luther M. Borden, a state official, and sued Borden for illegal search and seizure and damage to his property. Key Question: Was Borden acting with proper state authority? Question required Court to decide which was proper government.

Luther v. Borden (1849) Court had to decide applicability of guarantee of a “republican form of government” (Art. IV) “as the United States guarantee to each State a republican government, Congress must necessarily decide what government is established in the State before it can determine whether it is republican or not.” C. J. Taney

Baker v. Carr

Political Questions Republican Form of Government Mode of amending Constitution Partisan Gerrymandering Termination of Treaties Recognition of Indian Tribes Form of Senate Impeachment Trials

Goldwater v. Carter