Front | Back |
Marbury v. Madison
|
Established judicial reviewSupremacy of the Constitution is establishedLays out court interpretation of Article 3-Con. outlines cases where SC has original jxn-SC has original and appellate jxn
|
Ex Parte McCardle
|
Congress can repeal SC's jxn in certain instances (ie if authority isn't given specifically by the Con.)
|
United States v. Klein
|
Even though Congress can take away appellate jxn, it cannot direct the verdict of a case
|
Plaut v. Spendthrift
|
Congress can change the substantive law that applies but cannot tell court how to interpret evidence
|
Advisory opinions
|
Court cannot issue advisory opinions./Can only rule on actual cases
|
Constitutional standing requirements
|
1. Injury2. stemming from the D's conduct (causation)3. favorable opinion would alleviate the injury (redressability)
|
Prudential standing requirements
|
1. generally a party can only assert his or her own rights and not rights for a 3 party2. Tax-payers cannot sue for a grievance that is common to all taxpayers
|
Allen v. Wright
|
Failure to meet Constitutional standing in racial school case because did not show harm to their children directly by the defendant.
|
Massachusetts v. EPA
|
3 standing requirements are easier met by a state than by an individual
|
Singleton v. Wuff
|
Third party standing allowed sometimes.2 requirements:1. closeness of relationship between the P and the third party2. likelihood that person could not sue on their own behalf
|
Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow
|
Third party standing denied because it would interfere in domestic relations.
|
United States v. Richardson
|
No standing for general grievances.Guy wanted disclosure of CIA spending as a tax-payer.
|
Flast v. Cohen
|
An exception to the general grievances rule is given when the case involves the establishment clause of the first amendment.
|
Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation
|
Not allowed to sue as taxpayer for an establishment clause case when the money is executive discretionary funding.
|
Ripeness doctrine
|
P must allege actual harm or imminent harm that is happening now or in cases challenging government action must show that the government action that is being challenged is final.
|