High Level Outline

Federal Courts High Level Overview

Fall 2015

Themes

• Public v. Private Rights

  • A3 Standing, Qui Tam

    • Gov’t Standing

  • Trapper Hypo/Bindingness Problem: if we give standing to everyone . . . thousands of suits?

  • Political questions: political branches’ decisions must implicate a public right in order for it to be possibly binding on the courts.

  • Non-A3 Courts: cannot adjudicate purely private rights (only privileges and public rights)

• Rights vs. Privileges

  • Finality: is it a vested right yet?

  • Privileges: Was this “right” created by government or natural law?

• Do you have to wait for a criminal proceeding to raise a constitutional argument?

  • Craig v. Boren (3rd party standing, beer vendor sues so 18-year-old doesn’t have to get arrested)

  • Steffel (allowed to seek injunction against enforcement of trespassing law so he doesn’t have to get arrested for trespassing, suit was ripe and not subject to Younger Doctrine)

• When do courts wait to resolve an issue?

  • Ripeness

  • Waiting for highest state court/exhaust state court procedure

    • Writ of Habeas Corupus

    • 1257 Appeals from State Courts to SCOTUS

  • Someone else should decide it

    • Political Question Doctrine (these are FINAL)

    • Pullman Abstention

    • Younger Doctrine

    • Burford Abstention

• When should federal court use someone else’s resolution of an issue instead of doing it on their own?

  • Political Questions: use the political branches’ determinations (these are FINAL)

  • Erie Doctrine: for matters of unwritten state law and interpretation of state statutes, use the state’s highest court (unless you expect them to rule differently on the issue next time it comes up)

  • Pullman Abstention: if case involving conlaw could be resolved on a distinct, unsettled state question, let the state answer the question first

  • Younger Doctrine: let the state criminal court hear the argument instead of issuing injunction

• Congressional Regulation of what state courts can hear

  • Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction (Jurisdiction-Stripping Statutes)

  • Removal Jurisdiction

• Why State Procedure Matters

  • Adequate and Independent State Law Grounds (Procedural Forfeiture)

  • Habeas and Procedural Default

• Federal Common Law: when? how? from where? why?

• Substance vs. Procedure

  • Erie/Hanna (when state vs. federal rules apply)

• When you imply something

  • FCL

  • Preemption

  • COA

• Purposivism (Warren Court) to Textualism (Rehnquist/Roberts courts)

  • Implied Causes of Action (Bivens and statutory)

  • Habeas Corpus

• Appellate Function of District Courts

  • Review of findings of non-A3 !Courts

  • Rooker-Feldman prohibition

  • Habeas Corpus

ATTACK!!!

• Justiciability, 1

  • A3 Case/Controversy: Where adverse parties have litigable interests and are at risk of a binding judgment, 1, 2, 4, 7, 15, 16, 18, 39, 40, 46, 48

  • Advisory Opinions: A3 courts cannot do this, 1, 2, 4, 7, 48

  • Declaratory Judgment, 4, 5, 15, 16, 18, 37, 38, 70, 80, 83

  • Federal Standing (Need both A3 + Prudential, sometimes SCOTUS doesn’t distinguish), 4-12, 18

    • Prudential/Cause of Action: Is there some law or doctrine giving you a right to come into court to litigate this interest? 4-5, 8-9, 11-12

    • Constitutional/A3: Do you have a litigable interest (injury in fact or imminent harm) and are you at risk of being bound by the judgment? 5-12

      • Legislator Standing, 6-7

      • Organizational Standing, 7-8

      • Government Standing, 8

      • Voter Standing, 8

      • Taxpayer Standing (also raises COA questions), 8-9

      • Qui Tam Suits: relator standing, 10-11

      • Bindingness Problem/Trapper Hypo: what if each citizen could sue? 8

    • Third (3rd) Party Standing, 7, 11-12, 13, 14

    • Note: there is also state law standing

  • Separability of Challenged Laws: presumption of separability, 12-14, 33

    • Ways to overcome the presumption:

      • Statutory Interpretation, 12

      • Overbreadth (Constitutional): only 1A, can strike down the entire statute, 13

      • Vagueness (Constitutional)): 13

    • Facial and As-Applied Challenges, 13-14

  • Mootness: To remain in court, a lower level of adversity is required than standing, 14-17, 18, 28, 49

    • Voluntary Cessation with Potential for Repetition, 15

    • Capable of Repetition, but Evading Review, 15-16

    • Class Actions, 16

    • Appeal, 16-17

  • Ripeness, 15, 17-19, 83

    • Constitutional Aspect: Injury in Fact/Imminence, 17-18

    • Nonconstitutional (Prudential) Aspect: fitness of issue for judicial decision, hardship of withholding adjudication, 18-19

  • Political Question Doctrine: 19-21, 25, 58

    • Six elements from Baker v. Carr, 19-20

    • Relation to Public vs. Private Rights and Non-Judicial Finality (issue preclusion), 20

    • Non-judicial finality: issue preclusion, 20-21

    • Enrolled Bill Doctrine, 21

• Non-A3 Adjudicative Bodies (!courts), 22-25

  • Public rights vs. Private rights v. Privileges, 22-23

    • Purely private rights can only be adjudicated by an A3 court (or state court), 22

      • Today: SCOTUS doesn’t use the formal public/private distinction, but this is still the framework in which it thinks. See Thomas, 24 and Stern, 25

  • Roles of non-A3 !Courts, 23-25

    • Fact-Finding Adjunct to A3 Court, 23

    • Parties may voluntarily consent to non-A3 proceedings, 24

  • A3 Court review of non-A3 !Court adjudication, 25

    • Preclusive effect in subsequent A3 court proceedings, 25

• Jurisdiction Stripping: Congress ability to add and take away jurisdiction, 25-32

  • SCOTUS, 25-26, 46-49

    • Constitution: gives congress power to exclude things from SCOTUS appellate jurisdiction, 26-27, 46-49

    • Stencil Theory (McCardle): Congress excludes areas from SCOTUS’ appellate jurisdiction through the absence of a statute granting jurisdiction. 26, 46

    • Limits on how much congress can exclude: academic question 26-27

  • Lower A3 Courts, 27-28, 33-45

    • 9 categories of A3S2 as outer limits of jurisdiction, 27

  • State Courts, 28-32, 42, 46

    • Congress Stripping Jurisdiction, 28-30

    • Congress Conferring Jurisdiction (Nelson: NO), 30

    • Constitutional Regulation, 29-31

      • Stripping, 29-30

      • Requiring the States not Strip Themselves, 30-31

  • Federal Sovereign Immunity, 31-32

• Conferral of jurisdiction: SMJ 33

  • Arising...

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