Government the substantial risk the court is saying

This preview shows page 4 - 6 out of 24 pages.

Government: The substantial risk the court is saying the plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate is being held to a higher bar. The court is worried about allowing this type of challenge to come into court because it will inevitably fall to the court to make national security judgments which the court is ill-equipped to make. Problem 1 - Rosales, Rosenblatt, & Hussein, LLC v. Harris et al. Harris and a team of fellow FBI agents searched the offices of the Rosales law firm without a warrant, causing substantial property damage and seizing several confidential client files. In turn, Rosales has filed suit alleging that Harris and his team violated the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution. The firm seeks money damages and an injunction ordering the FBI to return its files. Does the firm have Article III standing to bring suit? o ISSUE: Whether R, R & H has Article III standing to sue Harris for violating the 4 th Amendment. o RULE : Article III requires a concrete and particularized injury in fact; fairly traceable to the allegedly unlawful conduct; and redressable by a favorable judgement. o ARGUMENTS : R,R, & H have clearly suffered a concrete injury that sets them apart from the general public – property damage and invasion of privacy. The injury was also clearly caused by the defendants’ allegedly unlawful conduct and
would be redressed by a judgment awarding damages and ordering the return of the seized files. o CONCLUSION : Therefore, R, R, & H has Article III standing. Problem 2 - Moore v. Trump. Comedian and left-wing activist Michael Moore has filed suit against President Donald Trump alleging that he hates Trump and also that Trump is daily violating many constitutional provisions including the 4th Amendment (by wiretapping American lawyers and journalists) and the Emoluments Clause (by taking the business of foreign governments) in ways that Moore profoundly disagrees with. Does Moore have standing to bring suit? o ISSUE : Whether Moore has Article III standing to sue Trump for violating the 4 th Amendment and Emoluments Clause o RULE : Article III requires a concrete and particularized injury in fact; fairly traceable to the allegedly unlawful conduct; and redressable by a favorable judgement. o APPLICATION : Moore has clearly not suffered any concrete or particularized injury fairly traceable to Trump’s conduct that could be redressed by a favorable judgment. His only injury is an abstract ideological grievance. o CONCLUSION : Therefore, he lacks Article III standing. Problem 3 - Nelson v. Collins. Roberta Nelson and Maurice Williams are a married couple who would like to use contraceptives for family planning purposes. The use and purchase of contraceptives, however, are prohibited by the criminal laws of the state of Connecticut. On the other hand, contraceptive devices of various kinds are sold openly in Connecticut state pharmacies and the state has not prosecuted anyone for violating this law for more than thirty years. The plaintiffs have brought suit against Connecticut

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture