Powers of the Court Review of congressional action: Marbury v. Madison (3) Why: • 1. The Constitution is the Supreme Law • 2. Judges determine the applicable law and apply it to a controversy Congressional control of Court jurisdiction. Ex. Parte McCardle (76) • Appellate jurisdiction may be stripped on an issue-by-issue basis, provided that the act stripping jurisdiction does not violate an express prohibition. (Equal protection, 1st amendment, etc.) • Some evidence exists that Congress may not strip essential judicial function from the court as a separation of powers issue. Plaut (80) Federal Review of state decisions Federal questions: Court has appellate jurisdiction given in Article III over all federal questions regardless of the original source of the litigation – they must because federal trial courts are optional. State issues intertwined with federal issues. Michigan v. Long (71) • State language may be unambiguously interpreted to hold the state to a higher standard than the federal standard or state judges may leave all mention of federal issues from their decision. • If the language is ambiguous, the Supreme Court assumes the state was basing their decision on federal issues and may review the decision. • Where does this stand after Bush v. Palm Beach County? Apparently the S.C. can vacate and remand for clarification of federal question jurisdiction. Justiciability Standing. Warth (30) • Article III standing ♦ Specific harm must be alleged to a specific plaintiff ♦ Must be a nexus between acts of defendant and harm to the plaintiff ♦ Plaintiff may only assert own rights not harm to others. (Wong Sun standard) • Prudential standing. ♦ Injury must be reasonably likely to be redressible by the judiciary ♦ Congress may create prudential standing by defining the right/injury and specific redress. Lujan (38) • If conduct forces plaintiff into an unconstitutional act, standing is automatic • Non-person groups only have standing if each member of the group has standing • Large groups frequently do not have standing on a separation of powers issue – if there are too many members of the class the issue may be a legislative issue instead. Political Question • Issue committed to another branch. Baker v. Carr (47) ♦ If branch did not exceed their constitutional grant of power the court will not examine. ♦ If it is necessary for the issue to be final & unexamined, the court will not examine. • If there are no judicially manageable standards, court will not examine. • If non-adjudication will result in constitutional violation by another branch of government, the court might examine. Congressional Powers: Necessary & Proper Constitution is not required to define all means as it limits Congressional power to act in unforeseen situations. McCullogh v. Maryland (89) Power is plenary, Congress may take action necessary inside their own grant of power. Gibbons v. Ogden Commerce defined as more than merely the interchange of commodities but the commercial intercourse between foreign states. Gibbons (160) Gibbons interpretation allows regulation of intrastate activities where they are inextricable from the interstate activity, or for a special case and a national purpose incidental to an express power. (161) Channels of interstate commerce May protect the means of interstate commerce from intrastate threats. Shreveport Rate (166) Activities with a substantial effect on the movement of goods or people. Heart of Atlanta Motel (203) Persons and Things in (Instrumentalities of) Interstate Commerce. (Regulation of means) Currently in commerce: May stop items in interstate commerce with deference to Congressional decision regarding which items to exclude. Champion v. Ames (Lottery case, p. 169); Hammner v. Degenhart dissent, (174), US v. Darby (192) Things that once moved in interstate commerce may be regulated at their destination. • Regulated activities must have a substantial effect on interstate commerce (like discouragement of movement). Hippolite Egg (172) • Aggregation: Where there is a substantial effect, de minimis intrastate prohibitions are permitted. Wickard (189) • Court will analyze the regulation to determine whether Congress might have a rational basis for believing that the regulation will actually deter the conduct but deference given to Congress’ decision that the means are effective to accomplish the ends. Things with a substantial effect on Interstate commerce. US v. Lopez (142) What commerce-related ends may be regulated. (146) • Regulated activity must arise out of or be connected to a commercial transaction. ♦ Substantial effect = “Such that control is necessary to protect commerce from burdens or obstructions.” NRLB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel (187) ♦ Means may be used, even if the means are not connected to commerce, if the ends aid accomplishing a goal within Congress’ constitutional power. Darby (193) • In aggregation, the activity must have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. However, aggregation of non-commercial activities prohibited by Morrison (handout.) • Jurisdictional element required. Statute may be construed to include jurisdiction requirement. • Congressional findings encouraged/required to aid court in finding substantiality of affect. However, court will examine rationality of Congress’ basis for believing that there is a substantial affect. Morrison Limits: • “Connection with/effect on” interstate commerce must pose some restrictions on federal power or risk 10th amendment challenge. • Court will closely examine the substantial effects to prevent violation of states rights. (147, concurrence, 149.) 10th Amendment and other positive prohibitions: Requires review by the court as part of the checks & balances system. Lopez Balancing test: Hodel (208), Garcia (209) • Statute must regulate states acting as sovereign • Must regulate area historically of state interest • Compliance must directly impair state ability to structure integral operations in areas of traditional governmental function. • Unless federal interest justifies state submission Congressional procedure alone preserves 10th amendment rights. Not explicitly rejected by Lopez, but likely. Garcia (210) Congress may never require a state executive or legislative branch to act. • If two options are given and one option is unconstitutional, this is a requirement to act. NY v. US • Congress may not require a state executive to act. US v. Printz (Handout.) Dormant Commerce Clause State laws may not promote state interests at the expense of out of state interests. • It is the sole jurisdiction of Congress to regulate Interstate Commerce • Encouraging in-state interests at the expense of out-of-state interests impedes interstate commerce. • Attempt by one state to isolate itself from the national economy is prohibited. Express prohibitions for commercial purposes are forbidden Implied prohibitions. Philadelphia v. New Jersey (271) • Effect and intent will be examined by the court. • Validity of explicit health & safety regulations is presumed. Kassel (306) May be rebutted by: ♦ Actual effect of the regulation. ♦ Stated legislative intent during sessions. • Weigh legitimate public interest vs. severity of effect on interstate commerce. Spending Power Conditional spending: • Goal of legislation must be for the general welfare. Extreme deference to Congressional determination. • Condition and consequences must be clearly stated. • Condition must be related to the allocation. • Condition must not be disproportionate to the interest promoted. Taxation power: Legislature may only tax own constituency. Court may find state tax unconstitutional if it taxes those who are not represented in the government. Therefore a state may not tax an instrument of the federal government. McCullogh v. Maryland (89) War Power: Woods (250) Congress may take whatever action is necessary and proper to solve domestic problems stemming from the war. Judicial examination does not go further than whether Congress is extending the technical state of war to justify exercise of excessive power. War Powers Act: An attempt to curb executive initiation of war. However Art. I requires Congress to start a war through bicameralism & presentation. Separation of Powers Executive encroachment Functional three part test: Youngstown Steel concurrence (356) • President may act to the full power of the federal government when empowered to do so by Congress, either explicitly or implicitly through a positive statement. • President may act within federal power when situationally necessary when Congress has not objected to the Presidential use of power ♦ Long silence may constitute acquiescence ♦ Resolutions of approval or reference in legislation may constitute approval. Dames & Moore v. Regan (367) • President not act outside enumerated powers in the face of express or implicit legislative disapproval. Legislative acts: • Acts that affect the rights and privileges of citizens or other entities. Youngstown Steel (356) • Acts which amend, enact or repeal statutes. [No line-item veto] Clinton v. New York (Handout) Congressional encroachment Congress may not enforce or execute the laws. Bowsher v. Synar (385) • May not retain hiring or firing power over someone who takes an executive act. • Executive acts: ♦ Interpret the law to determine where and when it should be enforced. ♦ Choose facts necessary to base application of the law on. Congress may act legislatively only through bicameralism & presentation. This is required to preserve INS v. Chadha Appointments Officers of the United States: • People who exercise significant rulemaking, enforcement or adjudicative power • Appointment by president, approval by Congress. • Discretionary firing power of executive officers by president, impeachment power by Congress. Inferior officers: Morrison (391) • Congress may delegate appointment power to any branch or head of department. • President’s right to fire executive officers at-will may only be abridged if situationally and restriction does not interfere with the President’s duty to enforce and implement the laws.