Federal-Courts-Fridman-Sp06 - FEDERAL COURTS OUTLINE Prof...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
FEDERAL COURTS OUTLINE Prof. Barry Friedman Spring 2006 1 • THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION AND THE ROLE OF COURTS I. T HE N ATURE OF THE J UDICIAL F UNCTION A. Marbury v. Madison (1803) 1. three basic questions a) does Marbury have a vested rt? yes b) is there a legal remedy? yes – no right without a remedy c) is that remedy mandamus? yes, it’s mandamus but SC doesn’t have original jurisdiction to issue mandamus 2. conflict b/t Judiciary Act provision granting such jurisdiction, and Art. III a) Const is supreme, will always govern in face of conflict with Σ b) in face of such conflict, SC must enforce the Const c) SC is enabled so to do since this is a case before it – set of facts in which an actual injury resulted very essence of what cts do – remedying a violated set of vested rts, where there’s a legal injury where there’s a legal injury, judges must look at Const and uphold it 3. question: did SC even need a statute to have jurisdiction? a) judicial power is vested in the SC (reading of Art. III) b) had this case gone to state ct, that ct would need a Σ granting jurisdiction c) SC has power from Art. III, §1; lower cts have power just from Cong’l Σs B. injury model, vs. lawsaying model 1. injury model – power to say what the law is in context of specific/actual injury a) this is the traditional position, and the avowed position of the cts b) cts don’t issue advisory opinions… 2. lawsaying – less circumscribed; making clear announcement of what law actually is a) recognition that Marbury is one big advisory opinion b) cts exist as bodies charged w/giving meaning to the const, perhaps as a check to other powers in the fed system c) note: judges do have enormous discretion in taking cases, etc. 3. question Gov. Faubus poses to SC in Cooper v. Aaron – what are the obligations of officials, faced w/a judicial interp about the const with which they disagree? a) when F sent in fed troops to prevent enforcement of Brown, was he acting consistently or inconsistently with his const’l obligation? b) SC holding: F was a state governor, no power to interpret fed const c) once SC speaks to meaning of const, it’s a “Thus saith the Lord” 4. primary value animating decision that F can’t send in troops – rule of law , respecting the cts C. Federalist 78 1. judiciary branch is the weakest of the branches, since it has no enforcement power 2. cts designed to be an intermediate body b/t the ppl and the legis, in order to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority a) interp of law is the “proper and peculiar province of the courts” 3. const as the fundamental law, supreme to statutes in face of conflicts II. S UPREMACY A. correspondence of the Justices (p.78-80) 1. Cabinet has three questions re actions touching on treaties w/France and UK 1
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
2. response: SC cannot issue advisory opinions a) advisory opinion = question that hasn’t come up in context of a case b) concreteness – w/o a case/controversy, there aren’t any facts/context
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page1 / 43

Federal-Courts-Fridman-Sp06 - FEDERAL COURTS OUTLINE Prof...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online