This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

Law Outlines Federal Courts Outlines

Attack Outline

Updated Attack Notes

Federal Courts Outlines

Federal Courts

Approximately 119 pages

This is a four-part package of notes including:

1. An exhaustive outline of Federal Courts, taught by Prof. Caleb Nelson using Hart and Wechsler's 7th Edition. Topics covered included justiciability (standing, ripeness, mootness, and political questions), the original and appellate jurisdiction of SCOTUS and lower Article III courts, federal regulation of state court jurisdiction, the function and powers of non-Article III courts, rule of decision (including Erie, Hanna, choice of law doctrine...

Available here

The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Federal Courts Outlines. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

Federal Courts Attack Outline

Fall 2015

Justiciability: A limit on subject matter jurisdiction. Parties must meet the constitutional elements of standing, ripeness, and mootness. If these are not met, courts MUST raise them sua sponte.

  • A3 requires a case or controversy with adverse parties with (1) litigable interests who are (2) at risk of being bound by the judgment.

    • Adversity: Determined by interests, not arguments (so OK if parties desire same result, see Windsor)

    • Advisory Opinion: fail for lack of adversity and bindingness.

  • Finality: Once a court reaches a final decision on a private right in a suit for $, it is a vested right that cannot be displaced by the legislature. Injunctions are nonvested rights, can be modified by Congress or the courts.

  • Standing: (1) Does P meet case or controversy requirement, with an injury in fact (A3)? AND (2) Does the applicable substantive law give P a COA against this D in this court for this remedy (Prudential)?

    • Prudential/COA: Is this interest within those protected by the law invoked, or is it more of a generalized grievance? (see Allen v. Wright, or Linda RS for illustration, child support != criminal prosecution)

      • COA v. Jurisdiciton: COA is the substantive legal principle that confers P a remedial right to come into court. Jurisdiction is court’s power to hear a suit based on a COA.

      • Sources of COAs: (1) Explicit statute, (2) common law, (3) implied from statute, (4) implied from constitution, (5) Ex Parte Young (injunction based on unconstitutionality)

        • (3) Implied Statutory COA: None will be found today. Alexander v. Sandoval

          • Previously found implied COA’s are recognized by stare decisis.

          • See main outline: Borak and Warren/Burger-era tests.

        • (4) Bivens Actions (Implied Constitutional COA): A COA for money damages exists against any federal officer who violates 4A, 5A, or 8A rights UNLESS Congress has provided an equally effective substitute remedy.

          • Wilkie v. Robbins test for new Bivens actions (always fails): (1) Is there an alternate process/comprehensive statutory remedial scheme such that courts shouldn’t provide new remedy? (2) Would it be better to hesitate (yes it would)?

          • No Bivens for state officers. Use 42 U.S.C. §1983 instead.(5)

        • (5) Ex Parte Young: Injunctive COA against state/fed officer who is violating the constitution.

    • A3:

      • Three requirements

        • Injury in fact: (1) Actual or Imminent (2) real world harm to a (2) concrete interest that (3) belongs to P

          • !abstract harm suffered by people generally when government violates law

          • !merely speculated or threatened harms

          • Legislatures: A concrete power must have been taken away. Abstract dilution of power !enough.

        • Causation

        • Redressability: Court can alleviate harm with a remedy

      • Organizational Standing: Lujan test: (1) Does any individual member have standing under all A3/COA reqs? (2) Interest affected germane to the org? (3) Injury likely to be redressed by favorable ruling?

      • Taxpayer Standing: Frothingham Principle: Mere status as state/federal taxpayer whose money goes toward a challenged program is not enough. Must show that you specifically suffer as a result of the statute’s enforcement. (Exception: for local taxes)

        • Flast: Exception to Frothingham, Nelson/modern SCOTUS doesn’t like.

      • Third Party Standing: Generally NO. Test: (1) Hinderance to 3rd party’s ability to protect his own interests, (2) Close relationship between litigant and 3rd party.

        • May be used to facially challenge a law that is overbroad and chills free speech. (E.g. law is valid as applied to P, but unconstitutional because it chills 3rd parties).

          • BUT: If law as applied to P is invalid, simple first party standing, and can only void law as it applies to P’s case. Brockett v. Spokane Arcades

        • NELSON: Most valid 3rd party standing can be rephrased as 1st party standing; e.g. Craig v. Boren (about her rights to not discriminate in selling beer, not 18 yo’s right to buy beer).

      • Public v. Private Rights: Is the harm to P as an individual or the public as a whole?

        • Furthest Possible Extension of “Private” (Voter Standing): FEC v. Aiken: Breyer says harm done to any voter who is unable to access records meets irreducible constitutional minimum. Nelson/Scalia disagree: harm done to all voters is not concrete to any individual.

        • Public Rights: Is the public right sovereign (e.g. prosecute crimes) or proprietary (related to government property)?

          • Sovereign Public Rights: Individuals can never litigate these.

          • Proprietary: Can be assigned to private party through qui tam statute.

            • Interest in qui tam is the govt’s; gov’t must meet injury req.

          • If Qui Tam Doesn’t Apply: Congress can’t authorize private party litigation of public rights because:

            • Unitary Executive: Only executive branch can enforce laws; Congress can’t give this power to anyone else.

            • Appointments Clause: Only officers can litigate on behalf of the public; officers are appointed by president or a court, not Congress.

  • Mootness: Issues presented in case are no longer live due to factual change or legal change. A lower level of adversity is needed to avoid mooting than for standing to initiate a lawsuit in these 2 cases: (1) Voluntary Cessation/Potential for Repetition; (2) Capable of Repetition/Evading Review

    • (1) Voluntary Cessation/Potential for Repetition: Case will not be moot if D ceases offensive action unless D can prove action “cannot reasonably be expected to recur in the absence of an injunction.” Already v. Nike

    • (2) Capable of Repetition/Evading Review: Case will not be moot if (1) unreasonable to expect case to make its way thru courts before interests no longer live AND (2) similar issues likely to arise between these parties in the future. FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life.

    • Mootness and Class Actions: If named P’s case becomes moot, action can continue so long as (1) members of the class still have live litigable interests AND (2) named P...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Federal Courts Outlines.

More Federal Courts Samples