1. Constitutional Law I Schiavo v. Schiavo April 5, 2005

2. Spring, 2005Con Law I - Manheim2 Pub. L. 109-3 “RELIEF OF THE PARENTS OF THERESA MARIE SCHIAVO” Act - Section 1 - The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida shall have jurisdiction to hear, determine, and render judgment on a suit or claim by or on behalf of Theresa Marie Schiavo for the alleged violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution or laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.

3. Spring, 2005Con Law I - Manheim3 Pub. L. 109-3 Section 2 - Any parent of Theresa Marie Schiavo shall have standing to bring a suit under this Act…. the District Court shall determine de novo any claim of a violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo within the scope of this Act, not- withstanding any prior State court determination and regardless of whether such a claim has previously been raised, considered, or decided in State court proceedings. The District Court shall entertain and determine the suit without any delay or abstention in favor of State court proceedings, and regardless of whether remedies available in the State courts have been exhausted.

4. Spring, 2005Con Law I - Manheim4 General Propositions Abstention Doctrines Ex parte Younger: Cases pending in state court may not be reviewed (collateral challenge) in federal court  Based on “Our Federalism”  Statutory and decisional exceptions Rooker-Feldman Doctrine Precludes federal court review of final state- court proceedings, except in USSC  Based on statutory interpretation of § 1331  Can be overriden by statute (e.g., this Act)

5. Spring, 2005Con Law I - Manheim5 General Propositions Habeas Corpus Constitutional (Art. I, § 9, ¶ 2) and statutory exception to Rooker-Feldman doctrine  Only to test the constitutionality of state court proceedings; not necessarily the outcome Exhaustion Requirements Ordinarily, neither direct appeal nor habeas will lie if further proceedings may be had in state ct  Final judgment rule Removal Removed cases come as is (incl. state orders)

6. Spring, 2005Con Law I - Manheim6 Constitutionality of Pub. L. 109-3 Jurisdiction Principles Congress may vest jdx up to limits of Art. III  To this extent, Section 1 is constitutional Unless Ex Parte Young is constitutionally required Separation of Powers principles Congress cannot interfere w/ judicial function  Cannot reopen decided cases (Plaut) Is state court proceeding over?  Cannot prescribe outcome of pending cases (Klein)  Can change underlying substantive law (Robertson) Act does not do this

7. Spring, 2005Con Law I - Manheim7 Constitutionality of Pub. L. 109-3 How Congress prescribed the outcome of a pending cases (Klein) If the District Court is bound by state court findings and conclusions  except where constitutionally infirm  then this Act is the functional equivalent of Habeas But Act requires District Court to disregard state proceedings and provide de novo review  abstention & exhaustion requirements also set aside  Interferes with state judicial function in Big Way  In this sense, the Act prescribes “rules of decision” contra Klein

8. Spring, 2005Con Law I - Manheim8 Severability Object: sever unconstitutional provisions, leaving remainder of Act in place Generally a question of legislative intent  Would congress have wanted the Act to operate without the severed portion? Birch: Leaving just Section 1 (jdx), without new standards suggesting a stay, would frustrate congress’ intent If not severable, entire statute fails

9. Spring, 2005Con Law I - Manheim9 Congressional Power Could congress have changed underlying substantive law, per Robertson? Would have had to create cause of action relating to right to live/die What power would it have used?