LS500
Legal Method and Process
Unit 4
Judicial Review & Federal Jurisdiction
Dr. Christie L. Richardson
Kaplan University
Federal Court Structure
United States
Supreme Court
Court of
Federal
Claims
Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit
Court of Appeals
(13 Circuits)
GA - 11th Cir.
Court of
International
Trade
District Courts
(94 Districts)
Court of
Veterans’
Appeals
Court of
Appeals for the
Armed Forces
Tax Court
Courts
Martial
Judicial Review
• Does anyone know the name of the landmark case
that introduced judicial review and it still remains
constitutional today?
• Marbury v. Madison, 1803
– First time the U.S. Supreme Court declared something
“unconstitutional”;
– Established judicial review; and
– Defined the checks and balances system we have in the
U.S. government.
United States Supreme Court
• 3 ways the Supreme Court will hear a case:
– File directly in the Supreme Court (original jurisdiction);
– File in a lower federal court, such as a district court,
and appeal up to the Supreme Court (appellate
jurisdiction); or
– File in a state court, appeal up through the state's
highest courts, and then appealing to the Supreme
Court on an issue of federal law (appellate jurisdiction).
• Writ of Certiorari
United States Supreme Court
• The constitutional issue on which Marbury v. Madison was
decided was whether Congress could expand the original
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
• William Marbury, was designated as a justice of the peace
in the District of Columbia. Marbury and several others
were appointed to government posts created by Congress
in the last days of John Adams's presidency, but these lastminute appointments were never fully finalized. The
disgruntled appointees invoked an act of Congress and
sued for their jobs in the Supreme Court.
United States Supreme Court
• Because Marbury filed his petition directly in the Supreme
Court, the Court needed to be able to exercise original
jurisdiction over the case in order to have the power to hear
it.
• Marbury argued that the Constitution was only intended to
set a floor for original jurisdiction that Congress could add
to (Article III). The Court disagreed and held that Congress
does not have the power to modify the Supreme Court's
original jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court found that the
Constitution and the Judiciary Act conflict.
United States Supreme Court
• Acts of Congress that conflict with the Constitution are not
law and the Courts are bound instead to follow the
Constitution, affirming the principle of judicial review.
• Since it is a court's duty to decide cases, courts have to be
able to decide what law applies to each case. Therefore, if
two laws conflict with each other, a court must decide
which law applies.
United States Supreme Court
• The justices held, through forceful
argument, that the Constitution was "the
fundamental and paramount law of the
nation" and that "an act of the legislature
repugnant to the constitution is void." In
other words, when the Constitution--the
nation's highest law--conflicts with an act of
the legislature, that act is invalid.
• Decision 6-0 for Madison.
• Today we have 9 Justices on the Court.
Mootness
• If the outcome of a case will have no significant impact on
the litigants, it is moot - “neither side would gain in the
immediate dispute no matter how the court ruled”.
– The case will generally be thrown out.
• If ripeness involves a plaintiff filing a premature claim,
mootness represents the opposite situation.
– A plaintiff being too late to seek relief from the courts.
– Courts do not decide dead issues.
• The passage of time or a change in circumstances may
make an issue moot.
Standing
Layman’s Terms
• In a noncriminal case, a litigant must
have standing - he or she must have a
personal stake in the outcome of the
controversy so that the adversarial
model will be fully operative.
Standing
• 3 basic components (elements) provide some degree of specificity.
– Case involves an actual dispute and not merely a theoretical one.
• Must be “definite and concrete”.
• Must be a real and substantial controversy.
• Courts will only hear concrete disputes and not abstract issues.
– Incorporates the requirement adversity.
• Courts require that the parties in the lawsuit have something to lose and
therefore will argue and present issues with an intensity and vigor not
found in a disinterested litigant who has not personal stake in the case
outcome.
• Tries to rule out “friendly” lawsuits - lacking true adversity.
– Legal injury suffered by the plaintiff must be direct.
• Litigant must have a substantial and immediate interest in the litigation.
• One may not bring a lawsuit solely on behalf of a third party (neighbor),
except legal guardian or next-of-kin.
Class Actions
• Standing requirements for group use in courts have
4 prerequisites.
– There must be so many people in the class (group) that it
would be impractical to name them all as individual
parties.
– The class must be clearly recognizable by virtue of its
well-defined interest that raises the same questions of
law and fact.
– The representative parties’ claims must be typical of the
class’s claims.
– The representative parties must fairly and adequately
protect the interests of the class.
• If all 4 requirements are met, the court will certify
that the class may maintain the lawsuit.
Ripeness Doctrine
• In order to bring a case, the plaintiff must
demonstrate harm that is specific rather than merely
theoretical or speculative.
• Not every case is specific . . . At some point the harm
moves from theoretical to specific (live).
• When this occurs, the legal issues involved have
evolved to a point that a clear decision can be
reached.
Ripeness - Demonstrated
• Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497 (1961)
– Litigation contesting Connecticut’s law
prohibiting the sale of birth control devices and
also the dissemination of information about birth
control.
– To clear away legal obstacles to the opening of a
birth control clinic in New Haven, the law was
challenged, but the Court dismissed the case on
the grounds that the law had never been
enforced.
Ripeness - Demonstrated
• Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
– Poe reached Griswold.
– The issue could no longer be dismissed for lack
of ripeness, and the Court overturned the
Connecticut law as a violation of the newly
discovered constitutional right to privacy.
References
• Altschuler, B. E., Sgroi, C. A., & Ryniker, M. R. (2010).
Understanding law in a changing society. (3rd ed.).
Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.
• Nowak, J. E., & Rotunda, R. D. (2010). Principles of
constitutional law. (Fourth ed.). St. Paul, MN: Thomson
Reuters.