FedJur Checklist
Page 1
 Federal Court Jurisdiction
 Personal
 Subject Matter
 Appellate
 Original (Supreme Court)
 Justiciability
 No advisory opinions
 Constitutional Standing
o π has suffered or imminently will suffer an injury
 Injuries to common law rights, constitutional rights,
statutory rights, claim of an aesthetic or environmental
harm, possible diminution of water allocations,
economic harms or facing possible criminal
prosecutions, loss of right to sue in the forum of one’s
choice
o π’s injury must be fairly traceable to ∆’s conduct
 Allen v. Wright/Massachusetts v. EPA
o Favorable federal court decision is likely to redress π’s injury
 Prudential Standing
o Party may assert only his or her own rights and cannot raise
claims of 3rd parties not before the court
 Exception: where the 3rd part is unlikely to be able to
sue
 Exception: close relationship between π and 3rd party
o Generalized grievance: party may not sue as a taxpayer who
shares a grievance in common with all other taxpayers
 Flast/Hein
o Party must raise a claim within the zone of interests protected
by the statute in questions
 Administrative agency regulation ONLY
 Ripeness
o Whether there is a controversy between the parties that
requires adjudication and has two components: (1) the fitness
of the issues for judicial decision and (2) the hardship to the
parties of withholding court consideration. (Doe v. Bush)
o Real threat of enforcement necessary (Poe v. Ullman)
 Mootness
o Whether the controversy between the parties has ended in
such a manner that there remains no useful relief that a court
could give
o Exception: collateral consequences
o Exception: wrongs capable of repetition yet evading review
o Exception: voluntary cessation
o Exception: class actions
FedJur Checklist
Page 2
Political questions: Certain allegations of unconstitutional
government conduct should not be ruled on by the federal courts even
though all the jurisdictional and other justiciability requirements are
met
o Textually demonstrable commitment to the other branches
o Lack of judicially manageable standards
 Congress & the Courts
 Congress taking away appellate jurisdiction from the Supreme Court
o Ex parte McCardle/Klein/Robertson
 Congress taking away jurisdiction from lower federal courts
o Sheldon v. Sill/Webster v. Doe
 Congress trying to interfere with judicial decision-making
o Plaut/Miller
 Congress giving another branch power to have review over the courts
o Hayburn’s Case
 Congress creating non-Article III courts
o Northern Pipeline/CFTC v. Schor
 Congress trying to abrogate state sovereign immunity? NO
o Seminole Tribe/Alden
 Congress changing the statutory federal habeas jurisdiction
o Boumedienne
 Implied Statutory Rights
o Borak/Cort v. Ash/Cannon
o Court will create a private right of action only if there is
affirmative evidence of Congress’s intent to create a private
right of action. (Sandoval)
 Remedies for Constitutional Violations
o Bivens: Individuals have an implied cause of action against
federal government officials who have violated their
constitutional rights.
o Exceptions recognized in Bivens
 No cause of action if there are “special factors
counseling hesitation in the absence of affirmative
action by Congress”
 Court would not create a cause of action if Congress has
specified an alternative mechanism that Congress
believes provides an equally effective substitute
 Final Judgment Rule
o Supreme Court generally may only review the final judgment
of a state’s highest court or the final judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals
o Decision is final if it “ends the litigation on the merits and
leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment”
o Four exceptions to the traditional rule of finality
 If no doubt as to the outcome of remaining proceedings

FedJur Checklist
Page 3

Federal law issues will survive and necessitate Supreme
Court review
 When review is now or never
 Preserving Supreme Court review of important federal
issues
o Collateral order doctrine
 Cunningham/Mohawk
 Federal Courts & States
 State sovereign immunity: cannot name a state/anyone in an attempt
to get judgment on state treasury funds (Young/Jordan)
 State waived sovereign immunity, NO sovereign immunity
 Official prospective relief, NO sovereign immunity
 U.S. suing a state, NO sovereign immunity
 Congress trying to abrogate state sovereign immunity (see above)
 Federal Courts & State Officials – §1983 Claims
 Official must be acting under color of state law
 §1983 is only available to enforce federal statutes that create rights
(Gonzaga University v. Doe)
 Federal statute violation (v. constitutional violation) = Sea Clammers
o Comprehensive enforcement mechanisms in statutes
demonstrate congressional intent to preclude the remedy of
suits under §1983
o Statutory enforcement scheme will be deemed comprehensive
only when it provides for both administrative and judicial
remedies
 Constitutional violation
o Miranda v. Arizona = NO §1983
o Negligent conduct ≠ deprivation of due process
o Random and unauthorized deprivation of property and liberty
≠ due process violations where π seeks a post-deprivation
remedy and an adequate one is available under state law
o The government generally has no duty to protect individuals
from privately inflicted harms
Defendant
State
State Official (official
capacity)
Money Damages
§ 1983
Immunity?
“person”?
No
Sovereign
No
Sovereign
State Official (individual Yes
capacity)
City
Yes (Monell)
City Official (official
Yes
Injunction
§ 1983 “person”?
Immunity?
Sovereign
Ex parte Young
Official
No
No, to extent acting
constitutionally (kind of
yes, kind of no)
Yes
None
None
Yes
Yes
None 
None
None
FedJur Checklist
capacity)
City Official (individual
capacity)
Page 4
Yes
Official
Yes
None
 Supreme Court Review of State Courts
 Murdock: Supreme Court will look at the federal law, but will not
consider a state court’s decisions resting solely on state law
 Claim must be a final judgment or decree from the highest court in the
state that raises a federal question (see above)
 Independent and adequate state ground for decision
 Federal court presented with an injunction to stay pending proceedings in
state court
 Anti-Injunction Act = NO
o Exception: Injunctions that are expressly authorized by statute
o Exception: Injunctions in aid of jurisdiction
o Exception: injunctions to promote or effectuate a federal
court’s judgment
 Also check for Younger Abstention
 Abstention Doctrines
 Federal court abstention because of unclear state law
o Pullman: abstention to avoid federal court constitutional
rulings, two prerequisites
 There must be substantial uncertainty as to the
meaning of the state’s law and
 There must be a reasonable probability that the state
court’s clarification of state law might obviate the need
for a federal constitutional ruling
o Burford: abstention to defer to complex state administrative
procedures
 Not appropriate in suits for monetary damages
 Federal court abstention to avoid interference with pending state
proceedings
o Younger: federal courts may not enjoin pending state criminal
proceedings
o Applies outside of injunctions to include declaratory judgments
 Federal court abstention to avoid duplicative litigation
o Colorado River: Under exceptional circumstances, a federal
district court may abstain out of deference to state proceedings
to avoid duplicative or piecemeal litigation.
o [see chart of factors from notes]
 Rooker-Feldman: limited to circumstances where the loser in state
court proceeding was seeking to have the federal court overturn that
judgment
 Habeas Corpus
 Individual must be in custody
FedJur Checklist






Page 5
Individual must be alleging a violation of federal law
Habeas claim must be cognizable
o Constitutional claim
 4th Amendment NO (Stone)
 Miranda YES (Williams)
 Other constitutional claims are probably cognizable
o Statutory claim: π may NOT substitute an appeal by filing
habeas (must be raised on direct appeal UNLESS miscarriage of
justice)
Habeas claim must be exhausted on direct review/habeas review in
state courts
o Exception: absence of state corrective process
o Exception: circumstances render process ineffective to protect
rights of applicant
State court’s decision = “contrary to” or “an unreasonable application”
of clearly established federal law
π asking for a new legal rule on habeas review = NO (Teague)
o Exception: places certain kinds of primary private individual
conduct the power of the criminal law-making authority to
proscribe
o Exception: if it requires the observance of those procedures
that are implicit in the concept of ordered liberty
Habeas violation on the merits of the claim
o If YES, check if the violation is harmless
 If YES, dismiss!
 If NO, probably grant new trial!