Fullerton - Federal Courts - Outline PDF

Preview

Summary

Notes on all cases and concepts covered during the semester...

Description

FEDERAL COURTS OUTLINE

History of the Federal Courts....................................................................................................................... 3 Nature of the Judicial Function.................................................................................................................... 4 STANDING – “CASES” AND “CONTROVERSIES”............................................................................................... 6 Ripeness.................................................................................................................................................. 9 Mootness............................................................................................................................................... 10 Political Question.................................................................................................................................... 11 CONGRESSIONAL CONTROL OF JUDICIAL POWER—REGULATION OF JURISDICTION.......................................13 Congressional Power over Lower Federal Courts.................................................................................. 13 Congressional elimination of lower federal courts..............................................................................15 Congressional Power over Supreme Court’s Jurisdiction......................................................................16 Could Congress eliminate SCT appellate power, if it left the lower federal courts intact?..................18 Could Congress Withdraw All Federal Jurisdiction.................................................................................19 POLICY........................................................................................................................................... 19 Congressional Apportionment of Jurisdiction Among Federal Courts and Limitations on the Authority of Enforcement Courts............................................................................................................................... 20 Can Congress control the venue of an action to control the result of the case?....................................22 Summary................................................................................................................................................ 22 CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY TO ALLOCATE JUDICIAL POWER TO NON-ARTICLE III TRIBUNALS.....................24 Summary................................................................................................................................................ 30 CONGRESSIONAL POWER TO REGULATE STATE COURT JURISDICTION..........................................................32 FEDERAL QUESTION JURISDICTION............................................................................................................... 37 Summary................................................................................................................................................ 45 The Lawmaking Function Of Federal Courts..........................................................................................46 STATE SOVEREIGNTY AND THE 11TH AMENDMENT.........................................................................................55 Summary................................................................................................................................................ 61 STATUTORY LIMITATIONS.............................................................................................................................. 65 Anti-Injunction statute............................................................................................................................. 65 ABSTENTION............................................................................................................................................... 66 POLICY.................................................................................................................................................. 66 Pullman abstention................................................................................................................................. 66 Burford Abstention.................................................................................................................................. 67 Thibodaux Abstention............................................................................................................................ 68 Deference to Parallel State Court Proceedings......................................................................................68 Declaratory judgments........................................................................................................................... 68 Interference with Pending State Court Proceedings...............................................................................68 Criminal Cases................................................................................................................................... 68 SUPREME COURT REVIEW OF STATE COURT DECISIONS...............................................................................72 Independent and Adequate State Grounds............................................................................................ 74 Procedural Requirements for SCT Review.............................................................................................80 Cox Exceptions................................................................................................................................... 81 FINAL JUDGMENT RULE AND DISTRICT COURT DECISIONS............................................................................84 Comparative Law (end of outline) Statutes (end of outline)

1

28 USC § 1254, 85 28 USC § 1257, 40, 73 28 USC § 1291, 85 28 USC § 1331, 41 28 USC § 1441, 45 28 USC §1292, 85 Abbott Laboratories, 10 ACLU v. NSA, 8 Akins, 7 Alabama Public Service Comm., 68 Allen, 7 American Well Works Co., 43 Anti-Injunction statute, 66 Atlantic Coast Line, 66 Baker, 13 Barrows, 8 Batson, 82 Battaglia, 16, 22 Bellotti, 68 Brady, 83 Brown, 3 Burford, 68 Bush, 13 Chisholm, 57 Clarke, 10 Cohen, 85 Coleman, 13 Colorado River, 69 Cox Broadcasting, 84 Craig, 9 Crowell, 25 Curry, 83 Data Processing, 10 Defunis, 11 Dombrowski, 70 Doran, 72 Edelman, 59 Eisentrager, 16 Eleventh Amendment, 56 England, 67 Erie Railroad Co., 47 Ex Parte McCardle, 17 Ex Parte Yerger, 18 Ex Parte Young, 59

Federal Maritime Commission, 65 Federalist No. 81, 56 Felker, 18 Firestone, 85 Fitzpatrick, 64 Flast, 10 Fox Film, 75 Franchise Tax Board, 42 FRCP 54(b), 85 FRCP 56(e), 10 Granfinanciera, 31 Griswold, 8 Hamdan, 30 Hans, 57 Hayburn’s Case, 5, 15 Herndon, 79 Hicks, 72 Huffman, 72 Hunter’s Lessee, 16, 74 In re Ayers, 58 Johnson Act, 67 Katz, 65 Klein, 15, 18 Laidlaw, 11 Lapides, 65 Lauf, 15 Lockerty, 21 Long, 76 Lujan, 12 Luther, 13 Lyons, 12 Marbury, 5, 14 Mendoza-Lopez, 22 Merrell Dow, 44 Military Commission Act of 2006, 31 Milliken, 60 Mills, 82 Mitchum, 66 Moore, 43 Mottley, 41 Murdock, 74 National Credit Union Administration, 10

Arising under Const. and federal laws United States a party

Ambassadors and other public ministers and consuls (diplomats) Between two or more states

Between states

Between citizens of the same state fighting over federal land grants

citizens

of

different

2

National Tea, 78 New York, 36 Nixon, 13 NOPSI, 73 Northern Pipeline, 26 Osborn, 38, 58 Pap’s A.M., 12 Pennhurst, 61 Pierce, 9 Plaut, 15 Powell, 13 Powers, 9 Prouse, 78 Pullman, 67 Quackenbush, 68 Raddatz, 26 Radio Station WOW, 83 Real ID Act, 16 Roe, 12 Samuels, 71 Schor, 28 Seminole Tribe, 64 Sheldon, 14 Sierra, 9 Sioux Nation, 15, 19 Skelly Oil, 42 Smith, 43 Snyder’s Drug Stores, 83 Standard Oil, 78 Steffel, 71 Stewart, 83 Swift, 47 Tax Injunction Act, 67 Textile Workers, 39 Thibodaux, 69 Toilet Goods Association, 11 Totten, 10 Union Carbide, 28 Verlinden, 40 Virginia Coupon Cases, 58 Wilton, 69 Wooley, 72 Yakus, 21 Younger, 69 Youngstown, 31 Admiralty and maritime Between state and citizen of another state Between a state or citizens and a foreign state or citizens thereof

I. INTRODUCTION A. History of the Federal Courts 1.

Articles of Confederation = There was no independent federal judiciary. Congress itself had adjudicative authority. But everyone recognized the need for a national court to secure uniformity of federal law.

2.

Constitution a.

Powerful and independent federal judiciary   

b.

Madisonian Compromise = Everyone agreed on the need for the Supreme Court, but there was disagreement on the need for lower federal courts.  

c.

Judges got life tenure Judicial role confined to adjudication—courts would decide cases not politics Rejected Madison’s counsel of revision to review legislation for constitutionality b/f enactment. Post-enactment review only.

Tension b/w need to protect specific federal powers and rights and fear that federal courts would usurp state court authority. So the big guys compromised. There would be SCT + lower courts if and only if Congress felt the need to create them.

First Judiciary Act of 1789 = Congress immediately began to establish the federal judiciary. Act is given quasi-constitutional status by Hart & Wechsler b/c so many of the framers participated. Taken as statement of framers’ original view of Constitution. (1) Creation of courts = Established SCT + two systems of lower courts (a) SCT = comprised of chief justice and five other justices. (b) DCT= trial courts (c) Circuit courts = Circuit courts were trial courts with limited appellate responsibilities. No circuit court judges, SCT and district court judges rode circuit. (2) Grant of jurisdiction (a) DCT = Heard largely diversity and admiralty cases as original matters. Also had power to hear suits by federal government and cases involving federal crimes. No appellate power. No federal question jurisdiction (except criminal cases). (b) Circuit Courts = Original jurisdiction + appellate review of final district court decisions in civil cases where amount in controversy > $50 and in admiralty and maritime cases where amount in controversy > $300. (c) SCT = Original jurisdiction tracked language of Art. III, § 2 (ambassadors, state as party). Appellate jurisdiction was as follows:  

Review in civil cases > $2000 Review of state court decisions where federal claim lost (either by striking federal law as unconstitutional or by upholding state laws against claim of unconstitutionality)

(3) Problems    d.

Federal courts were hamstrung by lack of appellate jurisdiction Caseload grew with growth of interstate transportation Civil War resulted in a lot of new federal legislation

Federal Question Jurisdiction = During the Reconstruction Era, the legislature was busy churning out new civil rights legislation and creating administrative agencies to help enforce its new

3

laws. There was a concomitant enlargement of the court system. In 1867, Congress enlarged habeas corpus jurisdiction. And federal question jurisdiction was created in 1875. The resulting problems were:  

e.

FQJ put a big strain on the federal courts and created a massive backlog. DCTs exercised massive discretion without effective appellate review.

Evarts Act = Created the current structure of federal courts in 1891 (1) Created Courts of Appeal = CTAs replaced circuit courts. Idea was to increase appellate jurisdiction and encourage uniformity of federal law at the same time. CTAs would ensure intra-circuit uniformity, and inter-circuit disputes would be resolved by SCT. (2) SCT discretionary jurisdiction = Relieved SCT of mandatory jurisdiction, freeing it up to deal with most important issues.

f.

Current crisis = Most scholars believe that the current court structure no longer works. The lower courts have huge dockets, and SCT contends that it’s overworked, although its docket has actually gotten smaller. ABA is considering changes:     

Increase number of courts. But this would shift too much power to DCTs and ruin the “small and elite” reputation of federal courts. Decrease caseload by cutting back on jurisdiction (e.g., increase amount in controversy). SCT has already cut its docket, leaving more circuit splits. Privatize civil cases w/ mediators and arbitrators Create new set of courts Create specialized courts

g. Countervailing politics = Arguments about jurisdiction are often a substitute for a substantive stance on controversial issues. It’s easier, for example, to talk about jurisdiction than it is to talk about affirmative action. Politicians have a habit of cutting back jurisdiction in areas that would seem most important—welfare, deportation hearings, habeas review. They affect rights w/o ever talking about them. B. Nature of the Judicial Function 1.

Marbury v. Madison (1803, p. 67) 1800 election resulted in tie b/w Adams (incumbent) and Jefferson, so went to HR. Becomes clear that Adams won’t win. Adams appoints Marshall (Secretary of State) to serve as Chief Judge of SCT. In order to preserve federalist power, Congress passes Midnight Judges Act, creating 16 new Article III judgeships to be filled with federalists. Also shrinks SCT down to 5 to take away opportunity for appointment. Jefferson wins shortly after. Next day, Congress passes Justices of the Peace Act, creating 42 Article I judgeships to be filled with federalists before Jefferson’s inauguration. Marshall comes (in secretarial capacity) to sign them in. At midnight on inaugural day, Madison comes in and tells Marshall to get the hell out. 6 judgeships have been signed, but not delivered. Question is whether they are valid. Funny enough, the guy who signed them is the one that decides the opinion. Surprise, surprise…Marshall says that appointments are valid, but that SCT does not have power to issue mandamus to order them delivered. a.

General principles (1) Judiciary says what the law is = Marshall states that “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” It’s not the job of Congress or the executive branch. (2) Judiciary has power to declare legislation unconstitutional = Because judges interpret the Constitution, they have the power to strike down the laws of Congress that violate it. (3) For every right, there must be a remedy = In order for the Constitution to have any meaning, there must be a forum to vindicate federal rights. (4) Article III creates ceiling on SCT jurisdiction = Congress cannot enlarge scope of jurisdiction granted to SCT in Article III. Provision of 1789 Judiciary Act empowered court to issue writs of mandamus. As such, it enlarged SCT original jurisdiction and was invalid.

4

b.

Theories of judicial decision-making (1) Interpretative justification = Judicial review is an interpretative artifact. The judiciary does not create law, but merely gleans the law from the text of the Constitution. (2) Structural justification = By necessity, the Court must decide whether Congress is overstepping its bounds when it creates a particular law. Without judicial review, we would have an omnipotent legislature.

2.

Origin of concept of judicial review - Dr. Bonham’s Case (1610 Sir Edmund Coke) – “[I]n many cases the common law will controul acts of Parliament and sometimes adjudge them to be utterly void: for when an Act of Parliament is against common right or reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be performed, the common law will controul it and adjudge such Act to be void.” – dictum but greatly influenced Americans.

3.

Hayburn’s Case (1792, p. 99) Pensions Act of 1792 gave federal circuit courts job of entertaining petitions from persons claiming entitlement to pensions. Courts were supposed to hear evidence to determine whether petitioners were entitled to pensions, and then submit names of qualified persons to Secretary of War. Congress can’t give SCT non-judicial functions = Court held that Act was unconstitutional. Neither Congress nor executive branch can give judiciary non-judicial duties. To do so would be “radically inconsistent” with the independence of the judiciary.

5

II. STANDING – “cases” and “controversies” 1.

Allen v. Wright (US 1984) a. FACTS: Parents of black public school children sue the IRS seeking a declaratory judgment that the IRS has violated the law by providing tax-exempt status to certain racially segregated private schools contrary to IRS policy. They also seek an injunction requiring the IRS to deny tax-exempt status to a class of private schools serving desegregating public school districts that are continuing to foster segregation. The plaintiffs allege two injuries: (1) that they are harmed by the mere fact of Government aid to discriminatory public schools and (2) that the tax exemptions to discriminatory private schools impairs the desegregation of public schools. SC considers the question of standing. Class here consists of parents of black children who, at the time the complaint was filed, were attending public schools in seven States in school districts undergoing desegregation. No one in the class alleges that their children have applied or would ever apply to private school. Their challenge is that allowing an alternative to desegregation in racially segregated private schools inhibits desegregation in public schools by drawing whites out of public schools and into private schools. b. HOLDING: Court finds that the (1) first injury fails because it is not a judicially cognizable injury because the plaintiffs have not been personally denied equal treatment, rather plaintiffs only claim abstract injury (no “injury in fact”). The court finds that the (2) second injury fails because the alleged injury is not “fairly traceable” to the purported wrongful conduct of the IRS. The court finds the connection between IRS tax-exemption benefits to private schools and the hampering of desegregation of private schools to be attenuated at best and speculative – because no one knows whether or not things would change if private schools were denied tax-exempt status. Too many other things that would have to happen for relief to be effective – too attenuated. Furthermore, on separation of powers grounds “a federal court is not the proper forum to address “general complaints about the way in which the government goes about its business” – rather it is the duty of the Executive Branch to “take care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” c. POLICY: Standing comprises several general prohibitions: (1) prohibition against a person raising a third person’s legal rights, (2) prohibition against addressing generalized grievances better addressed in the representative branches, (3) requirement that the complaint fall within the zone of interests protected by the law invoked. d. BRENAN DISSENT: The doctrine of standing is most concerned with ensuring that the complainants have a “personal stake” in the suit – that is that the person seeking redress has suffered or is threatened with a “distinct and palpable injury.” Brennan states that the plaintiffs second injury alleges a direct causal relationship between receiving a racially integrated education and IRS tax-exempt benefits to private schools. Brennan argues that this should end the inquiry but that instead the Court explores to the causation element and determines it to be too attenuated which essentially is making a determination on the merits before the evidence has been presented. e. STEVENS DISSENT: Stevens argues that the causation element is not too attenuated since logically a school that receives tax-exempt status will have a competitive edge over those who do not and therefore encourage not hamper integration. Standing focuses on “the party” not the merits of the underlying issues: here the parties have asserted an injury they trace dire...