Constitutional Law I Justiciability – Part I Jan. 20, 2006

Spring, 2005Con Law I - Manheim2 Types of Limits on Judicial Power Interpretive Limits Statutory Limits Article III Limits (justiciability doctrines)

Spring, 2005Con Law I - Manheim3 Types of Limits on Judicial Power Interpretive Limits Statutory Limits Article III Limits (justiciability doctrines)

Spring, 2005Con Law I - Manheim4 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, 2005Con Law I - Manheim5 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, 2005Con Law I - Manheim6 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, 2005Con Law I - Manheim7 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, 2005Con Law I - Manheim8 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."

Spring, 2005Con Law I - Manheim9 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

Spring, 2005Con Law I - Manheim10 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, 2005Con Law I - Manheim11 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, 2005Con Law I - Manheim12 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, § 8Michigan Constitution, Art. III, § 8

Spring, 2005Con Law I - Manheim13 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

Spring, 2005Con Law I - Manheim14 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