Fundamentals of U S Law Outline 2008

1
Fundamentals of U.S. Law 2008 Outline

Table of Contents
Judicial Review: Acts of the Executive and Legislative................................................9
Concepts................................................................................................................. 9
Essential features....................................................................................................... 9
Powers of court......................................................................................................... 9
Constitution- Bill of rights......................................................................................... 10
Constitution- Civil war amendments............................................................................. 10
Additional aspects of federal system.............................................................................10
Common law.......................................................................................................... 10
Jury system............................................................................................................ 10
Case Law............................................................................................................... 11
Ma!u" v. Madison #page 1$%............................................................................ 11
&acts................................................................................................................ 11
Relevant 'tatutes............................................................................................ 11
(ecision !" the 'upe)e Cout......................................................................1*
+))igation and ,atuali-ation 'evice v. Chadha #page *.%............................1/
&acts of case................................................................................................... 1/
Relevant 'tatutes............................................................................................ 1/
(ecision !" the 'upe)e Cout......................................................................1$
Judicial Review: (ecisions of 'tate Couts................................................................1$
Case Law............................................................................................................... 1$
Martin v. Hunters !essee "page #$%.............................................................................1$
&acts................................................................................................................ 1$
Bush v. &ore "page '(%.............................................................................................. 11
&acts................................................................................................................ 11
2he 'upe)e Cout (ecided...........................................................................1.
(issent............................................................................................................ 13
2he 4olitical 5uestion (octine................................................................................. 13
Concepts............................................................................................................... 13
Case Law............................................................................................................... 13
6a7e v. Ca....................................................................................................... 13
1
*
,ixon v. 8nited 'tates........................................................................................ 19
Co))on Law and &edeal Law................................................................................. *0
Legislation............................................................................................................. *0
Case Law............................................................................................................... *0
4ullia) v. Allen #193$%....................................................................................... *0
&acts................................................................................................................ *0
9eld................................................................................................................ *0
Lessons........................................................................................................... *1
6a7e v. McCollan #19.9%................................................................................... *1
&acts................................................................................................................ *1
4ocedual 9isto"........................................................................................... *1
9eld................................................................................................................ *1
Lessons........................................................................................................... *1
: 193/ and the ;it of 9a!eas Copus.....................................................................*1
'tatuto" 6asis...................................................................................................... *1
<eneal :193/ and 9a!eas Copus....................................................................*1
4eise 'peci=c................................................................................................... **
Concepts............................................................................................................... */
9a!eas copus................................................................................................... */
'uspension of the ;it of 9a!eas Copus..........................................................*/
Case Law............................................................................................................... */
4eise v. Rodigue-............................................................................................ */
&acts > 4ostue............................................................................................... */
Lessons of the Case........................................................................................ *$
Cout '"ste): 2he 6ig 4ictue.................................................................................. *$
&edeal Couts 'tuctue....................................................................................... *$
Appeal 4ocess...................................................................................................... *0
'u!?ect Matte Juisdiction of &edeal Couts.........................................................*1
*3 8.'.C. 1332 (ivesit" of Citi-enship.............................................................*.
Concuent Juisdiction.......................................................................................... *3
'upple)ental Juisdiction...................................................................................... *3
Counteclai)......................................................................................................... *3
Joinde @ +ntevention............................................................................................. *3
AE,8E ;hee the suit can !e !ought..............................................................*9
ReBuie)ents &o Law"es.................................................................................... /0
*
/
Re)oval................................................................................................................ /0
&edeal Juisdiction................................................................................................... /0
Concepts............................................................................................................... /1
Case Law C 6ieD"................................................................................................ /1
<allaghe v. 4hiladelphia p. 1*3........................................................................./1
'osa v. Alvae-EMachain p. 1/$.......................................................................... /1
Case Law C (etailed............................................................................................. /*
<allaghe v. 4hiladelphia p. 1*3........................................................................./*
'osa v. Alvae-EMachain p. 1/$.......................................................................... //
2eitoial Juisdiction................................................................................................ /1
Concepts............................................................................................................... /1
Case law................................................................................................................ /1
Asahi Metal +ndus Co v. 'upeio Cout of Califonia........................................../1
&acts................................................................................................................ /1
4ocedual 9isto"........................................................................................... /1
+ssues.............................................................................................................. /1
9olding............................................................................................................ /1
Rationale......................................................................................................... /1
;ien Ai Alas7a v. 6andt................................................................................... /.
&acts................................................................................................................ /.
4ocedual 9isto"........................................................................................... /3
+ssues.............................................................................................................. /3
9olding............................................................................................................ /3
Rationale......................................................................................................... /3
&edeal Civil 4ocedue: 2he Ju".............................................................................. /9
'tatuto" 6asis...................................................................................................... /9
Concepts............................................................................................................... /9
Legal e)edies................................................................................................... /9
EBuita!le e)edies............................................................................................ /9
6asic de=nitions................................................................................................. $0
Case Law............................................................................................................... $0
ChauFeusG 2ea)stes > 9elpes v. 2e"...........................................................$0
&acts................................................................................................................ $0
Lessons of the Case........................................................................................ $1
;aldop v. 'outhen Co. 'evicesG +nc................................................................$1
/
$
&acts................................................................................................................ $1
Lessons of the Case........................................................................................ $*
'u))a" Judg)ent.................................................................................................. $*
Concepts............................................................................................................... $*
Case Law............................................................................................................... $/
Celotex Cop. v. Catett...................................................................................... $/
Huto) Cop v. Cente Line................................................................................ $$
&edeal Civil 4ocedue: 4etial and 2ial.................................................................$0
<eneal.................................................................................................................. $0
4etial................................................................................................................... $0
Rule 1*#!% )otions #Motions to dis)iss%............................................................$0
,otice pleading..................................................................................................... $1
I!ligations of the Attone" #Rule 11%....................................................................$1
(iscove" #Rule *1%............................................................................................... $1
'ettle)ent............................................................................................................. $.
4etial Ide......................................................................................................... $.
Ju"........................................................................................................................ $.
Ipening state)ent............................................................................................... $.
;itnesses.............................................................................................................. $.
(uing tial............................................................................................................ $.
(o)estic AFais....................................................................................................... $3
Case Law............................................................................................................... $3
Joungstown 'teel > 2u!e Co. v. 'aw"e #'teel 'ei-ue Case% 190*...................$3
Iutco)e......................................................................................................... $3
'teel 'ei-ue Case in (a)es and Mooe v. Regan..........................................01
,ew)an v. 8nited 'tates................................................................................... 01
&edeal Executive 4owe: 4ivileges and +))unit"...................................................0*
Concepts............................................................................................................... 0*
Case Law............................................................................................................... 0/
8.'. v. ,ixon *03................................................................................................ 0/
&acts > 4ostue............................................................................................... 0/
(ecision !" the 'upe)e Cout......................................................................0/
Lessons of the Case........................................................................................ 00
9alow v. &it-geald *.0..................................................................................... 00
&acts................................................................................................................ 00
$
0
(ecision !" the 'upe)e Cout......................................................................01
Clinton v. Jones *.9............................................................................................ 01
&acts................................................................................................................ 01
6efoe 'upe)e Cout..................................................................................... 0.
+ssues.............................................................................................................. 0.
Lessons of the Case........................................................................................ 0.
&edeal Executive 4owe: &oeign AFais..................................................................0.
Legislation............................................................................................................. 0.
Concepts............................................................................................................... 0.
Case Law............................................................................................................... 03
(a)es > Mooe v. Regan................................................................................... 03
&acts................................................................................................................ 03
4ocedual 9isto"........................................................................................... 03
Ipinion............................................................................................................ 03
Lessons of (a)es > Mooe............................................................................. 09
9a)di v. Ru)sfeld............................................................................................. 09
&acts................................................................................................................ 09
Ma?oit": J. IKConno....................................................................................... 09
;hat was held in this caseL............................................................................ 10
J. 2ho)as: (issent.......................................................................................... 10
J. 'oute and <ins!ug: dissenting in pat.......................................................10
Lessons of 9a)di............................................................................................ 10
Congessional Authoit"........................................................................................... 11
Concepts............................................................................................................... 11
Case law................................................................................................................ 11
McCulloch v. Ma"land........................................................................................ 11
+ssues.............................................................................................................. 11
<i!!ons v. Igden............................................................................................... 1*
+ssues.............................................................................................................. 1/
EBual 4otection: Race > Education.......................................................................... 1$
Concepts............................................................................................................... 1$
Legislation............................................................................................................. 1$
Case Law............................................................................................................... 1$
0
1
6own v. 6oad of Education.............................................................................. 1$
&acts and (ecision.......................................................................................... 1$
Ithe He" issues............................................................................................. 10
<utte v. 6ollinge............................................................................................. 10
&acts and (ecision.......................................................................................... 10
(issentes....................................................................................................... 11
EBual 4otection: Co))ecial and <ende...............................................................11
'tatutes................................................................................................................. 11
Concepts............................................................................................................... 11
Case Law............................................................................................................... 11
;illia)son v. Lee Iptical #p//.%........................................................................11
Michael M. v. 'upeio Cout of 'ono)a Count" #1931%.....................................1.
Mississippi 8nivesit" fo ;o)en.......................................................................13
&eedo) of 'peech................................................................................................... 19
,J ti)es v. 'ullivan #191$%................................................................................... .0
9olding............................................................................................................... .1
Aiginia v. 6lac7 #*00/% #p/1/%...............................................................................*
He" 4oints........................................................................................................... ./
2ots.......................................................................................................................... .$
Concepts............................................................................................................... .$
Case Law............................................................................................................... .$
Mission Petroleum Carriers) *nc. v. +olomon #$,..............................................................$
&acts................................................................................................................ .0
Relevant 4oints............................................................................................... .0
(ecision !" the 2exas 'upe)e Cout..............................................................0
Class Co))ents............................................................................................. .0
Lessons of the Case........................................................................................ .1
Crain v. Cleveland !odge #-...................................................................................... .1
&acts................................................................................................................ .1
(ecision !" the Mississippi 'upe)e Cout......................................................1
Class Co))ents............................................................................................. .1
Lessons of the Case........................................................................................ ..
!i v. /ellow Ca0...................................................................................................... ..
1
.
&acts................................................................................................................ ..
(ecision !" Califonia 'upe)e Cout...............................................................
Lessons of the Case........................................................................................ ..
2edla v. Ell)an................................................................................................... ..
&acts................................................................................................................ .3
(ecision !" LLL............................................................................................... .3
Lessons of the Case........................................................................................ .3
Copoations............................................................................................................. .3
6asic concepts...................................................................................................... .3
+n Re ;alt (isne" Co. 'ec. Litig............................................................................ .9
&AC2'................................................................................................................. .9
4RICE(8RAL 9+'2IRJ....................................................................................... .9
+''8E.................................................................................................................. .9
9IL(+,<............................................................................................................ 30
RA2+I,ALE......................................................................................................... 30
R8LE................................................................................................................... 30
6asicG +nc. v. Levinson........................................................................................... 31
&AC2'................................................................................................................. 31
4RICE(8RAL 9+'2IRJ....................................................................................... 31
+''8E.................................................................................................................. 3*
RA2+I,ALE......................................................................................................... 3*
R8LE................................................................................................................... 3/
8neasona!le 'eaches > 'ei-ues..........................................................................3/
'tatutes................................................................................................................. 3/
Concepts............................................................................................................... 3/
Case Law............................................................................................................... 3$
Hat- v. 8nited 'tates #191.%............................................................................... 3$
&acts................................................................................................................ 3$
9olding............................................................................................................ 30
Lessons........................................................................................................... 30
+llinois v. Ca!alles #*000%................................................................................... 30
&acts................................................................................................................ 30
9olding............................................................................................................ 31
Lessons........................................................................................................... 31
.
3
Judicial Review !cts of t"e #$ecutive and Le%islative
Conce&ts
Essential features
o Constitution
LegislatueE 'enateM 9ouse
ExecutiveE4esident
Couts
o &edeal s"ste)
o Chec7s and 6alances
o Co))on law s"ste)
o Ju"
'enatos epesent states.
Executive powe C 4esident. 9e delegates it to agencies.
Powers of court
o !'t. ((( C )ainl" fedeal cout s"ste). !'t ((( esta!lishes the
?uisdiction of 8.'. couts.
Constitutional issuesG teatiesG fedeal law
(ivesit"
!'t ((( )ud%es ae fede'al )ud%es.
*a%ist'ates and ban+'u&tc, )ud%es ae -OT !'t ((( )ud%es.
NAt. +++ JudgesO ae also those ?udges who ae ceated !" the congess
C )eaning all fedeal ?udges.
o Judicial powe of the 8nited 'tates should !e vested in one 'upe)e
Cout and in such othe infeio couts esta!lished !" Congess
o &edeal Couts:
1* egional couts of appealsG 1 special couts of appeal #fedeal
cicuit%G 9$ distict coutsG including (Cs and !an7uptc" coutsG
cout of intenational tadeG and cout of fedeal clai)s.
&edeal Judges:
o At. +++ ?udges:
3
9
'upe)e CoutG Appellate coutsG (CsG cout of intenational
tade
Appointed !" the 4esidentG con=)ed !" the 'enateG and
appointed fo life
o ,on At. +++ fedeal ?udges:
6an7uptc" ?udges #1$ "s%G cout of fedeal clai)s #10 "s%G and
fedeal )agistate ?udges #3 "s%.
Inl" hea disputes authoi-ed !" At. +++. Cout of li)ited
?uisdiction. #'u!?ect )atte ?uisdiction%
o 'tate couts:
Each state has its own cout s"ste)
Judges )a" !e electedP appointed !" the state govenoG o a
co)!ination of appoint)ent and election.
Cases not authoi-ed in fedeal cout ae t"picall" =led in state
cout.
o Concuent ?uisdiction:
Most cases could !e !ought in eithe cout.
Fede'al Law and State Law.
;hateve is not unde ?uisdiction of the fedeal goven)ent lies unde the
?uisdiction of the state.
Constitution- Bill of rights
o &ist 10 a)end)ents
o Esta!lish individual ights against the goven)ent
o &eedo) of speechG asse)!l"G ight to !ea a)s
Constitution- Civil war amendments
o A!olition of slave"
o EBual potection of the laws
o (ue pocess
Additional aspects of federal system
o Congess can onl" enact laws as authoi-ed unde the constitution
o +f Congess has the authoit" to enact lawsG and it has done soG those
laws pee)pt an" conDicting state law.
Common law
o ;hat ealie ?udicial decisions sa" is the law.
o ;hat ealie decisions should !e followedL
+t depends on what cout is )a7ing the decision.
All couts el" on )ost ecent 'upe)e Cout ponounce)ents of
the )atte.
9
10
Jury system
o Ci)inal cases: constitutional ights #a)end)ent A+%
o Civil cases: Li)ited to cases at co))on law #a)end)ent A++%
Case Law
*a'bu', v. *adison .&a%e /01
Marbury fo)s the !asis fo the execise of ?udicial eview in the 8nited 'tates
unde Aticle +++ of the Constitution.
Facts
2he Constitution was !ael" 10 "eas old.
*idni%"t )ud%es.
o ;illia) Ma!u" had !een appointed as Justice of the 4eace in the
(istict of Colu)!ia !" 2'esident Jo"n !dams shotl" !efoe
leaving oQceG !ut his commission was not deliveed as eBuied.
Commission C is an oQcial docu)ent.
o ;hen T"omas Je3e'son assu)ed oQceG he odeed the new
'eceta" of 'tateG Ja)es MadisonG to withhold Ma!u"Rs and
seveal othe )enRs co))issions. 6eing una!le to assu)e the
appointed oQces without the co))ission docu)entsG Ma!u" and
thee othes &etitioned t"e Su&'eme Cou't #diectl"S% to foce
Madison to delive the co))ission to Ma!u". 2he 'upe)e Cout
denied Ma!u"Rs petitionG holding that the statute upon which he
!ased his clai) was unconstitutional.
2he" 4le di'ectl, !ecause of the Judicia', !ct ./5681.
7/8 C '.C. shall have appellate ?uisdiction.
Relevant Statutes
o 8.'. Const. at. +++G 'ection * Clause *
T+n all Cases aFecting A)!assadosG othe pu!lic Ministes
and ConsulsG and those in which a 'tate shall !e a 4at"G the
supe)e Cout shall have oiginal Juisdiction. +n all the othe
Cases !efoe )entioned Uwithin the ?udicial powe of the
8nited 'tatesVG the supe)e Cout shall have appellate
JuisdictionG !oth as to Law and &actG with such ExceptionsG
and unde such Regulations as the Congess shall )a7e.T
o Judicia" Act of 1.39G : 1/
T2he 'upe)e Cout shall also have appellate ?uisdiction
fo) the cicuit couts and couts of the seveal statesG in the
cases heein afte povided foP and shall have powe to issue
10
11
wits of pohi!ition to the distict couts . . . and wits of
)anda)us . . . to an" couts appointedG o pesons holding
oQceG unde the authoit" of the 8nited 'tates.T
+f the Constitution esta!lished a 4$ed listG "ou cannot ceate new ite)s.
Decision by the Supreme Court
o 2hee wee thee sepaate issues:
(id Ma!u" have a ight to the co))issionL
(o the laws of the count" give Ma!u" a legal e)ed"L
+s as7ing the 'upe)e Cout fo a wit of )anda)us the
coect legal e)ed"L
o 2he 'upe)e Cout answeed "es to the =st two Buestions. &ailue
to delive the co))ission was Tviolative of a vested legal ight.T
o 8' has goven)ent of laws and not of )enG and fo eve" violation
of a legal ightG thee )ust !e a legal e)ed"
o 9oweveG the 'upe)e Cout is not the appopiate fou)
o At. +++G :*G Cl. * esta!lishes the cases in which the 'upe)e Cout
has oiginal ?uisdiction.
o Congess could not esta!lishG though : 1/ of the Judicia" ActG that
the 'upe)e Cout would have oiginal ?uisdiction in cicu)stances
othe than those povided fo !" the Constitution.
o 2husG the cout uled : 1/ of the Judicia" Act to !e unconstitutionalG
and esta!lished N+t is e)phaticall" the povince and dut" of the
?udicial depat)ent to sa" what the law isO.
6ut fo eve" violation of ight "ou have to have a e)ed".
9oweveG we cannot give "ou this e)ed" !ecause we donKt have ?uisdiction.
;h" no ?uisdictionL
6ecause the law is unconstitutional.
'oG the '.C. had a powe to decide what is constitutional
and what is not.
2his case was the 4'st ste& fo the %ove'nment to "ave cont'ol.
!ll )ud%es can do t"at9
6ut the distict cout can !e eviewed !" the appellate cout.
+f the '.C. decides it is !inding.
'o as a little tin, dist'ict cou't )ud%e + can sti7e down the
statute.
11
1*
Can 'tate ?udges sti7e down fedeal lawL
:es; if t"at is wit"in "is )u'isdiction.
(mmi%'ation and -atu'ali<ation Se'vice v. C"ad"a .&a%e 251
+,' v. Chadha is a 'upe)e Cout case uling that a legislative veto ove a decision
issued !" the Executive !anch #Attone" <eneal% violated the constitutional
sepaation of powes.
+f thee is a foeigne in 8.'. fo less than . "eas and he is illegal alien and he is
caught C he can !e depotedG unless thee is exte)e hadship.
2he attone" geneal can gant his a sta"G howeveG he should info) Congess.
An" of houses can veto that.
2he gu" =les an action against the 9ouse of Repesentatives.
2he issues was whethe thee was a pocedual ight fo the 9oR to do soL
Facts of case
o Respondent Chadha was a foeign !on #Hen"a% citi-en. 9e ca)e to
the 8' as a foeign exchange studentP afte his noni))igant student
visa expiedG his ho)e count" would not accept hi) !ac7.
o 2he +,' initiated depotation poceedings against Chadha. Chadha
sought to suspend his depotationG and the +,' acco))odated his
eBuest pusuant to : *$$#a%#1%G and tans)itted a epot of the
suspension to Congess pusuant to : *$$#c%#*%.
o 2he 9ouse of Repesentatives vetoed the suspension of ChadhaRs
depotationG and the +,' su!seBuentl" esu)ed depotation
poceedings. 2he i))igation ?udge declined to execise ?uisdiction
ove the constitutional o!?ections of ChadhaG and odeed hi)
depoted. Chadha then appealed to the 6oad of +))igation AppealsG
which dis)issed his constitutional o!?ections. Chadha and the +,'G
which now suppoted his challenge to the constitutionalit" of : *$$#c%
#*%G then appealed to the Cout of Appeals fo the ,inth CicuitG which
endeed ?udg)ent in his favo and odeed the suspension of
depotation poceedings.
o Congess appealed to the 'upe)e Cout.
Relevant Statutes
o 8' Const. At. +G : .G cl. *
NEve" !ill which shall have passed the 9ouse of
Repesentatives and t"e SenateG !efoe it !eco)e a law and
be &'esented to t"e 2'esident of the 8nited 'tates WO
1*
1/
T"e'efo'e; t"e veto s"ould "ave been establis"ed b, bot" "ouses; not onl,
=oR.
>#TO is an e?uivalent of a new law.
o +))igation and ,ationalit" Act
: *$$#a%#1% of the +))igation and ,ationalit" ActG 3 8.'.C. :
1*0$#a%#1%G authoi-ed the +,' to suspend depotation of aliens
continuall" esident in the 8nited 'tates fo at least seven "eas
whee the Attone" <enealG in his discetionG found that
Tdepotation would . . . esult in exte)e hadship.T Afte such a
=nding !" the Attone" <enealG a epot would !e tans)itted
to Congess pusuant to : *$$#c%#1%G and eithe house of
Congess had the powe to veto the Attone" <enealRs
dete)ination pusuant to : *$$#c%#*%.
;hat ae the eBuie)ents fo the eviewL
Jou can depot this gu"G !ut ,ou s"ould %o to bot" "ouses and t"e
2'esident.
o (ssue is the esolution of the 9ouse of Repesentatives vetoing the
Attone" <enealRs dete)ination unconstitutionalL
o ;hen the Constitution povides expess poceduesG such pocedues
)ust !e stictl" o!seved. 2wo such povisions ae !ica)ealis) and
pesent)ent in the enact)ent of law.
o 2he pesent)ent pocess #the o!ligation of Congess to send the !ills
to the 4esident fo appoval o veto% and the !ica)ealis)
eBuie)ent #o!ligation of appoval !" !oth houses of Congess% was
esta!lished in the constitution as a )echanis) to pevent legislative
encoach)ent and illEconceived policies.
o 2he action !" the 9ouse of Repesentatives which veto the Attone"
<enealKs dete)ination is legislative in natue !ecause #a% it )odi=es
ights and duties of individuals outside the legislative !anchP #!% the
enact)ent would othewise have eBuied a pivate lawG which is a
legislative functionP and #c% the natue of the action is inheentl"
legislative.
o +f itKs a legislative actionG it eBuies !ica)eal appoval and
pesent)ent to the 4esident unde At.
o 2he Constitution esta!lishes the exceptions in which a 9ouse of
Congess can act alone #i)peach)entG tial conduct following
i)peach)entG appovals of appoint)entG and ati=cation of teaties.%.
Except fo those clausesG the Congess should follow the pocedues.
1/
1$
Judicial Review @ecisions of State Cou'ts
Case Law
Martin v. Hunters !essee "page #$%
Martin v. Hunter's Lessee is the =st case to asset ulti)ate 'upe)e
Cout authoit" ove state couts in )attes of fedeal law.
Facts
o (uing the A)eican RevolutionG the state of Aiginia enacted
legislation that allowed it to con=scate Lo"alistsK popet". 4laintiF
Matin had his popet" con=scated and sued on the gounds that
teaties with A'eat B'itain %ua'anteed &'otection of Lo,alist
&'o&e't,. 2he >i'%inia state 'upe)e Cout upheld the
con4scation. +t did not do so on the gounds that Aiginia law was
supeio to 8.'. teatiesG !ut athe !ecause it agued that its own
intepetation of the teat" evealed that the teat" did notG in factG
cove the dispute. In eviewG the 8.'. 'upe)e Cout disageed with
this conclusionG uling that the teat" did in fact cove the disputeG and
e)anded the case !ac7 to the Aiginia 'upe)e CoutG !ut the Aiginia
cout then agued that the 8.'. 'upe)e Cout did not have authoit"
ove cases oiginating in state cout.
2he" had t'eat, afte the wa ended. -o con4scations.
o 2he 8.'. 'upe)e Cout 'eve'sed the state coutKs decision on appealG
uling that Buestions of fedeal law wee within its ?uisdictionG and
thee!" esta!lishing its own supe)ac" in )attes of constitutional
intepetation.
o AA 'upe)e Cout sa"s to 'upe)e Cout: Nsc'ew ,ouO. C"o a'e
,ouD Just a U.S. Su&'eme Cou't.
Relevant Statutes
o 8.'. Const. at. +++G 'ection * Clause *
T2he ?udicial 4owe shall extend to all CasesG in Law and EBuit"G
aising unde this ConstitutionG the Laws of the 8nited 'tatesG
and 2eaties )adeG o which shall !e )adeG unde thei
Authoit"P W to Contovesies to which the 8nited 'tates shall !e
a 4at"P to Contovesies !etween two o )oe 'tatesP !etween
a 'tate and Citi-ens of anothe 'tateP !etween Citi-ens of
diFeent 'tatesP !etween Citi-ens of the sa)e 'tate clai)ing
Lands unde <ants of diFeent 'tatesG and !etween a 'tateG o
the Citi-ens theeofG and foeign 'tatesG Citi-ens o 'u!?ects. +n
all the othe Cases !efoe )entionedG the 'upe)e Cout shall
have appellate JuisdictionG !oth as to Law and &actG with such
ExceptionsG and unde such Regulations as the Congess shall
)a7e.T
1$
10
T"e Su&'eme Cou't decided
o Aticle +++G 'ec. *G Cl. *G stating that Tin all othe cases !efoe
)entioned the 'upe)e Cout shall have appellate ?uisdictionT
esta!lished the possi!ilit" of the 'upe)e Cout eviewing statesK
decisions.
o +f the 'upe)e Cout could not eview decisions fo) the highest 'tate
coutG the 'tate couts would !e excluded fo) eve heaing a case in
an" wa" involving a &edeal BuestionG !ecause the 'upe)e Cout
would !e depived of appellate ?uisdiction in those cases.
o 2husG !ecause it was esta!lished that 'tate Couts had the powe to
decide !ased on &edeal Law #concuent ?uisdiction%G it )ust !e tue
that the 'upe)e Cout can eview the decision o the 'upe)e Cout
would not have appellate ?uisdiction in Tall othe cases.T &uthe)oeG
the 'upe)ac" Clause declaes that the &edeal intepetation will
tu)p the 'tates intepetation.
o 2he 'upe)e Cout could alead" eviews state executive and
legislative decisions when the" confonted fedeal law and the eview
of state couts decisions is no diFeent.
o ,ecessit" of unifo)it" of intepetation of &edeal law in all 'tates.
o 2hee is also consideation of the existence of state attach)entsG state
pe?udicesG state ?ealousiesG and state inteests.
o Constitution intended to !ene=t all people and not ?ust those who =le
suit in &edeal Couts.
+f '.C. cannot eview state coutsG state couts have =nal sa" on constitution. T"at
is nonsense9
Bush v. &ore "page '(%
+t all %oes down to Flo'ida. And Eueen #ste'.
+n Bush v. Gore the 8nited 'tates 'upe)e Cout esolved the *000 pesidential
election in favo of <eoge ;. 6ush.
Facts
(uing the *000 pesidential election the oQcial esults showed a victo" fo <eoge
6ush with a diFeence of less than 0G0XG which )a7es a ecount )andato". As
allowed unde &loida law #each 'tate has its own electoal laws% Al <oe eBuested
a manual 'ecount of the votes in speci=c counties.
&loida law also eBuied all counties to cetif" thei election etuns to the &loida
'eceta" of 'tate within seven da"s of the electionG and seveal of the counties
conducting )anual ecounts could not )eet this deadline. 2he &loida Cicuit Cout
uled that the sevenEda" deadline was )andato"G !ut that the counties could
a)end thei etuns at a late date. 2he cout also uled that the Flo'ida Sec'eta',
of State #lin7%G afte Tconsideing all attendant facts and cicu)stancesGT had
discetion to include an" late a)ended etuns in the statewide ceti=cation.
10
11
'eceta" of 'tate 9ais #fo) the Repu!lican 4at"% issued a set of citeia !"
which she would dete)ine whethe to allow late =lings. &ou counties su!)itted
state)entsG and afte eviewing the su!)issions 9ais dete)ined that none
?usti=ed an extension of the =ling deadline. In ,ove)!e *1G *000 she ceti=ed
6ush the winne in &loida.
2he &loida 'upe)e Cout intevened and dete)ined a statewide )anual ecount.
2he following da" the 'upe)e Cout odeed a sta" of the ecountG and two da"s
late head oal agu)ents fo) the patiesG issuing its decision in less than *$
hous.
Relevant Statutes
o &outeenth A)end)ent:
N,o 'tate shall ... den" to an" peson within its ?uisdiction the
eBual potection of the lawsO.
o Aticle ++G : 1G cl. *:
NEach 'tate shall appointG in such Manne as the Legislatue
theeof )a" diectG a ,u)!e of Electos....O
o 8 U.S.C. 7F egulates the contoves" as to appoint)ent of electos
#who cast the 'tate electoal votes% in 4esidential electionsG and it
esta!lished a soEcalled Tsafe ha!oT povision allowing states to
appoint thei electos without Congessional intefeence if done !" a
speci=ed deadline:
N+f an" 'tate shall have povided ... fo its =nal dete)ination
of ... the appoint)ent of all o an" of the electos of such
'tate ... at least six da"s !efoe the ti)e =xed fo the )eeting of
the electosG such dete)ination ... shall !e conclusiveO. #2he
Tsafe ha!oT deadline was (ece)!e 1*G ?ust one da" afte the
Cout head oal agu)ents in this case%.
he Supreme Court Deci!e!
2hat was a fastest '.C. decision eve.
o 2he elevant issues unde discussion wee:
Ae the ecountsG as the" wee !eing conductedG constitutionalL
+f the ecounts ae unconstitutionalG what is the e)ed"L
o Even though the issue unde discussion was centeed on &loida 'tate
Electoal lawsG the 'upe)e Cout decided to hea the case unde the
agu)ent that the &loida 'upe)e Cout decision:
Aiolated the Constitution:
a. At. ++G 'ec.1G Cl.*: the )ethod of electing pesident
!. / 8.'.C. 'ec. 0: 'tatute egulating the election of
pesident
c. &outeenth A)end)ent: EBual potection clause
2o potect the &loida legislatueKs intentions.
11
1.
o 2he 'upe)e Cout uled .Y* that the &loida 'upe)e CoutRs decision
fo a statewide ecount violated the EBual 4otection Clause. 2he Cout
stated that the EBual 4otection clause guaantees individuals that
thei !allots cannot !e devalued !" Tlate a!ita" and dispaate
teat)entT. Even if the ecount was fai in theo"G it was unfai in
pacticeG since diFeent standads wee see)ingl" applied to the
ecount fo) !allot to !allotG pecinct to pecinctG and count" to count".
o Accoding to the opinionG the statewide standad #that a Tlegal voteT is
Tone in which thee is a Rclea indication of the intent of the voteRT%
could not guaantee that each count" would count the votes using the
exact sa)e standadsG and thus it was possi!le that a vote consideed
valid in one count" would !e dee)ed null in anotheG which was not
pe)issi!le unde the EBual 4otection Clause.
o 2he Cout uled 0Y$ that no constitutionall" valid ecount could !e
co)pleted !" a (ece)!e 1* Tsafe ha!oT deadline esta!lished in /
8.'.C. :0G and odeed the ecount to stop.
o 2he cout esta!lished that the decision did not ceate a !inding
pecedent fo othe cases !ecause of the peculiaities of the situation.
6ush agues it violates #?ual 2'otection.
'o)e counties do one wa"G othes do othe wa". 2hat got 5$2 decision.
6ut the stopping of ecount got F$0.
2he funn" thing is 'calia was a stong opponent of ?udicial eview fo the
state cout.
Cout said this is not a !inding caseP it shall appl" to the pesent situation
onl,.
Dissent
o 2his is !e"ond the authoit" of 'upe)e Cout !ecause it is stateKs
!usiness. &edeal couts defe to state couts on )attes of state law.
&edeal couts should sta" out of intenal state govenance )attes in
which the state cout constues legislative enact)ents
o &ou ?ustices #Justices 'tevensG <ins!ugG 'oute and 6e"e% dissented
as to stopping the ecountG and opined that a new ecountG confo)ing
to EBual 4otection eBuie)entsG should ta7e place.
T"e 2olitical Euestion @oct'ine
Conce&ts
4olitical Buestions have !een consideed unsuita!le fo ?udicial decision. a political
Buestion is Twhen its esolution is co))itted !" the Constitution to a !anch of the
fedeal <oven)ent othe than this coutT. 2he standads fo political Buestions #+n
e 6a7e%:
1.
13
A textuall" de)onsta!le co))it)ent of an issue to a coodinate political
depat)entP
A lac7 of ?udiciall" discovea!le and )anagea!le standads fo esolving itP
2he i)possi!ilit" of deciding without an initial polic" dete)ination of a 7ind cleal"
fo non ?udicial discetionP
A coutRs ina!ilit" to esolve an issue without expessing disespect fo a coodinate
!anchP
An unusual need to defe to a pio political decisionP
A situation whee goven)ent )ust spea7 in one voice.
Case Law
Ba+e' v. Ca''
#8nited 'tates 'upe)e Cout Y 191*%
2he plaintiF agues that 2ennessee had not edisticted the voting distict fo 10
"easG theefoe the outco)e is that the votes in the ual aeas of 2ennessee eBuals
)oe than the votes in othe aeas of the state.
2he plaintiFs =st =les a Class action complaint, brought under 42 U.S.C. Section
1983, which authoi-es a clai) against state oQcials fo violation of constitutional
ights and unde $* 8'C 'ection 1933 which allows application of state law if
fedeal law does not give a suita!le e)ed".
2he (istict Cout in 2ennessee dis)issed the clai) !ecause of lac7 of su!?ect
)atte ?uisdiction and fo failue to state a clai) upon which elief can !e ganted.
2he distict cout held that !ecause the clai) concened a )atte not suita!le fo
?udicial inBui" the clai) was not ?usti=a!le.
2he plaintiF appeal to the 'upe)e CoutG agued that it was a violation if his ight
fo eBual potection unde the 1$ a)end)ent of the constitution.
2he state of 2ennessee agues that the edistict is a political issue and not unde
the ?uisdiction of the cout.
2he 'upe)e Cout held:
A not unsu!stantial clai) Taises undeT Constitution.
2he Clai) =ts within *3 8'C 'ection 1/$/G gives an individual the powe to =le the
suit and to the distict cout the ?uisdiction.
the Clai)s =ts within $* 8'C 'ection 193/ and theefoe aises unde &edeal Law.
2he $* u.s.c. section 193/ is a speci=c statute to ensue the ight of people who
have !een disci)inated. 2his is an act of congess theefoe it is within the
?uisdiction of the supe)e cout.
2he cout held that the Case not within 4olitical 5uestion (octine #45(%:
2he fedeal couts applied the EBual potection clause to i)pose standads on
states as to thei voting disticts.
2he fact that the suit see7s potection of political ight does not )ean it pesents a
political Buestion. 2he 'upe)e Cout is the ulti)ate intepete of the constitution.
13
19
2he Case does not est on <uaant" ClauseG ConstitutionG At. +AG section $. At. +AG
sec. $: 8' shall guaantee to eve" 'tate a Repu!lican &o) of goven)ent. ,ot
applica!le !ecause hee the case involves the fedeal ?udicia"Ks elationship to the
'tatesG not a coodinate !anch of goven)ent
-i$on v. United States
#8nited 'tates 'upe)e Cout Y 191*%
+n e ,ixon v. the 8nited 'tates the cout held that ,ixonRs challenge aised a nonE
?usticia!le political Buestion. 2he Constitution co))itted the issue of +)peach)ent
to the 'enate.
2he decision dete)ined that the Buestion of whethe the 'enate had popel"
TtiedT an i)peach)ent was a political BuestionG and theefoe could not !e
esolved in the Couts.
A 8nited 'tates fedeal ?udge na)ed ;alte ,ixon was convicted of co))itting
pe?u" !efoe a gand ?u"G !ut efused to esign fo) oQce even afte he had
!een incaceated. ,ixon was su!seBuentl" i)peached !" the 8nited 'tates
9ouse of RepesentativesG and the )atte was efeed to the 8nited 'tates
'enate fo a vote on ,ixonRs e)oval.
2he 'enate appointed a co))ittee to hea the evidence against ,ixonG and then
epot to the !od" as a whole. 2he 'enate then head the epot of the co))ittee
and voted to e)ove ,ixon fo) oQce.
,ixon contended that this did not )eet the constitutional eBuie)ent of Aticle +
of the Constitution that the case !e Ttied !" the 'enate.T
2he cout held that the couts )a" not eview the i)peach)ent and tial of a
fedeal oQce !ecause:
2he Constitution eseves that function to a coodinate political !anch.
Aticle +. 'ec. / of the Constitution gave the 'enate the TsoleT powe to Tt"T
i)peach)ents.
2he wod TsoleT it is clea that the ?udicial !anch was not to !e included.
2he wod Tt"T was oiginall" undestood to include factE=nding co))itteesG thee
was a textuall" de)onsta!le co))it)ent to give !oad discetion to the 'enate in
i)peach)ents.
2he &a)es !elieved that epesentatives of the people should t" i)peach)ents
and the Cout was too s)all to ?ustl" t" i)peach)ents.
2he ?udicial !anch is Tchec7edT !" i)peach)entsG so that ?udicial involve)ent in
i)peach)ents )ight violate the doctine of sepaation of powes. ,oteG the 'enate
is also Tchec7edT !ecause onl" the 9ouse can decide who to i)peach.
2he Cout futhe uled that involving the ?udicia" would pevent =nalit" without
clea e)ed"G and !ias postEi)peach)ent ci)inal o civil posecutions which the
Constitution explicitl" allows.
Common Law and Fede'al Law
19
*0
Le%islation
$* 8'C 193/. Eve" state oQcial who causes a depivation of an" ight secued !"
the constitution shall !e lia!le to the in?ued pat" in an action in law #unless the
oQcial was a ?udicial oQce acting in oQcial capacit" Yadded in 1991%
$* 8'C 1933. Allows fo an awad of Attone"Ks fees in cases whee state
oQcial !eached constitutional ights
Case Law
2ulliam v. !llen ./6801
Facts
4ullia)G AA )agistateG odes Allen and ,icholson to pa" !ail fo an oFense
fo which the" could not !e put in ?ailP if !ail not )etG oF to ?ail the" go. Allen sought
an in?unction against 4ullia) unde :193/G and an awad of attone"Ks fees unde
:1933.
Hel!
2he decision intepeted the co))on law pinciple of N?udicial i))unit"O
though a histoic anal"sis and dete)ined that unde that pincipleG ?udges aenKt
i))une to attone"Ks fees. Cout =st decided and ganted in?unctive elief unde
42 USC 1983 (authories a person to sue state o!cials "or alleged #iolations to
constitutional rights and to see$ in%uncti#e relie" &hen the #iolation to the
constitutional rights is ta$ing place'. #'ee 42 USC 1988 re( attorne)*s "ees%. Judicial
i))unit" was not a !a to pospective in?unctive elief against a ?udicial oQce
acting in his ?udicial capacit" Y 4REAE,2 +,J8RJ 2I A 4E2+2+I,ER'
CI,'2+282+I,AL R+<92'. 2he cout also allowed an awad of attone"Ks fees unde
: 1933 as petitiones wee a!le to get in?unctive elief 2his decision in spite of the
doctine allowing ?udicial i))unit" to uphold the independence of the ?udicia".
:193/ is an explicit exception to the ?udicial i))unit" as it potects funda)ental
ights and was posci!ed !" Congess.
,ote: this decision !efoe the 1991 a)end)ent.
Lessons
+n?unction fo pospective elief can issue against a ?udge in a 193/ case.
Judges ae to this da" i))une to sues fo in?unctive elief #with exceptions.
2he plaintiF was awaded att fees in the case. Judges ae to this da" i))une fo)
attone"s fees #with exception%P
*0

*1
Ba+e' v. *cCollan ./6561
Facts
Leonad fa7ed !eing his !otheG Linnie. LeonadG as LinnieG aested in 4otte
Count" #A)aillo% and was eleased on !ail. 6onds)an got ode "an7ing !ail and
waant issued fo Linnie. Linnie #good gu"% pic7ed up fo unning ed light in
(allas. 9eld in (allas and then 4otte Count" fo a total of 3 da"s while he 7ept
sa"ing NJou got the wong gu".O Inl" / da"sG howeveG in 4otte Count".
"roce!ural History
Linnie sued 'heiF 6a7e fo depivation of constitutional ights unde :193/. Afte
tial in distict coutG diected vedict fo 6a7eG &ifth Cicuit said 6a7e could !e
lia!le fo a N193/ false i)pison)ent actionOG !ut that McCollan had not !een a!le
to pove that thee was a violation of his constitutional ights #due pocess% which
would have geneated a valid clai) unde the ConstitutionG thusG 6a7e entitled to
defense of Buali=ed i))unit". McCollan agued that he was depived of due pocess
once incaceatedG since the waant was issued unde due pocess and so was his
aestG thee is no violation. 2he fact that he was not the pevious oFende is not a
due pocess guaantee !ut a possi!le tots clai).
Hel!
$* 8'C 193/ did not guaantee that onl" the guilt" would !e aested. :193/
i)poses lia!ilit" fo violations potected !" the constitutionG not fo violations of
cae aising out of 2ot law clai) of negligence o false i)pison)ent.
Lessons
&edeal:
2o allow a constitutional action unde :193/ thee )ust !e:
an eFective depivation of constitutional ight.
'i)ple negligence and tot clai)s do not lead to a :193/ clai)G the" lead to a state
clai) fo tots.
7 /688 and t"e C'it of =abeas Co'&us
Statuto', Basis
Aene'al 7/688 and =abeas Co'&us
U.S. Const. a't. (; 7 6; cl. 2
2he pivilege of the w'it of "abeas co'&us shall not !e suspendedG unless when in
cases of e!ellion o invasion the pu!lic safet" )a" eBuie it.
02 U.S.C. 7 /688 Civil action fo depivation of ights
*1
**
Eve" #a% &e'son whoG unde colo of an" statuteG odinanceG egulationG custo)G o
usageG of an" 'tate o 2eito" o the (istict of Colu)!iaG sub)ects; o' causes to
be sub)ectedG an" citi<en of the 8nited 'tates o ot"e' &e'son wit"in t"e
)u'isdiction theeof to the de&'ivation of an, 'i%"ts; &'ivile%es; o'
immunities secued !" the Constitution and lawsG #b% shall !e liable to t"e &a't,
in)u'ed in an action at lawG suit in eBuit"G o othe pope poceeding fo edessG
except that in an" action !ought against a ?udicial oQce fo an act o o)ission
ta7en in such oQceKs ?udicial capacit"G in?unctive elief shall not !e ganted unless
a decla'ato', dec'ee was violated o declaato" elief was unavaila!le.
U@C #$ce&tionV &o the puposes of this sectionG an" Act of Congess
applica!le exclusivel" to the (istict of Colu)!ia shall !e consideed to !e a
statute of the (istict of Colu)!ia.
;heeas a is dispositionG b is sanction.
Z
2'eise' S&eci4c
28 U.S.C. 7220/: 4owe to gant wit
#a% ;its of ha!eas copus ma, be %'anted b, t"e Su&'eme Cou'tG an, )ustice
theeofG the dist'ict cou'ts and an, ci'cuit )ud%e within thei espective
?uisdictions. 2he ode of a cicuit ?udge shall !e enteed in the ecods of the
distict cout of the distict wheein the estaint co)plained of is had.
#!% U9ighe couts )a" tansfe to elevant lowe coutsV
#c% 2he wit of ha!eas copus s"all not e$tend to a &'isone' U-L#SSC
#/% U9e is in custod" unde' o' b, colo' of t"e aut"o'it, of the 8nited
'tatesVP o
#2% 9e is in custod" fo' an act done o' omitted in &u'suance of an !ct of
CongessG o an odeG pocessG )ud%ment o' dec'ee of a cou't o ?udge of
the United StatesP o
#8% 9e is in custod" in violation of t"e Constitution o' laws o' t'eaties
of t"e United StatesP o
#0% 9eG !eing a citi<en of a fo'ei%n state and do)iciled theein is in
custod, fo' an act done o' omitted unde an" alleged ightG titleG
authoit"G pivilegeG potectionG o exe)ption clai)ed unde' t"e
commission; o'de' o' sanction of an, fo'ei%n stateG o unde colo
theeofG the validit" and eFect of which depend upon the law of nationsP o
#F% +t is necessa', to b'in% hi) into cou't to testif, o fo tial.
#d% U+f state which contains two o )oe &edeal ?udicial disticts C =le to the
elevantV
#Ze% #1% U,o ?uisdiction ove application fo a wit =led !" ene)" co)!atantsV
#*% UExceptions povided !" @etainee T'eatment !ct of 200F #10 8.'.C. 301
note%V
28 U.S.C. 722F0 'tate custod"P e)edies in &edeal couts
#a% 2he 'upe)e CoutG a Justice theeofG a cicuit ?udgeG o a distict cout shall
entetain an application fo a w'it of "abeas co'&us in !ehalf of a peson in
**
*/
custod" pusuant to the ?udg)ent of a 'tate cout onl" on the gound that he is in
custod" in violation of the Constitution o laws o teaties of the 8nited 'tates.
#b% #/% An application fo a wit of ha!eas copus on !ehalf of a peson in custod"
pusuant to the ?udg)ent of a 'tate cout s"all not be %'anted U-L#SS it
appeas thatC
#!% the applicant has exhausted the e)edies availa!le in the couts of
the 'tateP o
#B% #i% thee is an a!sence of availa!le 'tate coective pocessP o
#ii% cicu)stances exist that ende such pocess ineFective to
potect the ights of the applicant.
#*% An application fo a wit of ha!eas copus )a" !e denied on the )eitsG
notwithstanding the failue of the applicant to exhaust the e)edies availa!le
in the couts of the 'tate. . . .
Conce&ts
=abeas co'&us
#Latin: U;e co))andV that "ou have the !od"% is the na)e of a legal actionG o witG
though which a peson can see7 elief fo) the unlawful detention of hi)self o
anothe peson. +t potects the individual fo) ha)ing hi)self o !eing ha)ed !"
the ?udicial s"ste). 2he wit of ha!eas copus has histoicall" !een an i)potant
instu)ent fo the safeguading of individual feedo) against a!ita" state action.
Also 7nown as NT"e A'eat C'itOG a wit of habeas corpus a! sub#icien!um is a
su))ons with the foce of a cout ode addessed to the custodian #such as a
pison oQcial% de)anding that a pisone !e !ought !efoe the coutG togethe with
poof of authoit"G allowing the cout to dete)ine whethe that custodian has
lawful authoit" to hold that pesonP if notG the peson shall !e eleased fo)
custod".
Sus&ension of t"e C'it of =abeas Co'&us
2he pocedue of ha!eas copus can !e suspended in ti)e of national e)egenc".
'o fa this happened onl" duing the Civil ;a. 2he each of ha!eas copus is
cuentl" !eing tested in the 8nited 'tates. Ial agu)ents on a consolidated
<uantana)o 6a" detention ca)p detainee ha!eas copus petitionG !l Oda" v.
United States wee head !" the 'upe)e Cout of the 8nited 'tates on (ece)!e
0G *00.. 8' coutsK ?uisdiction was alteed !" Congess in 9R 1900G 2he Aiolent
Radicali-ation and 9o)egown 2eois) 4evention Act of *001. In June 1*G *003G
the 'upe)e Cout uling in Boumediene v. Bus" ecogni-ed ha!eas copus ights
fo the Auantanamo &'isone's. In Icto!e .G *003G the =st <uantana)o
pisones wee odeed eleased !" a cout consideing a ha!eas copus petition.
Case Law
2'eise' v. Rod'i%ue<
2he appellate coutKs decision was 'eve'sed !" the Su&'eme Cou't !ecause state
pisones wee theefoe not a!le to poceed unde 7 /688 unless pisone =st
*/
*$
)eet the eBuie)ents of a sepaate fedeal statuteG 722F0G i.e. exhausted the
e)edies availa!le in the state couts.
Facts $ "osture
4etitioneG the -ew :o'+ State @e&a'tment of Co''ectionsG challenged a
decision in favo of espondent state pisones fo) the United States Cou't of
!&&eals fo' t"e Second Ci'cuit in the pisonesR actions unde 02 U.S.C. 7 /688
fo 'esto'ation of %oodGconductGtime c'edits and; as a 'esult; t"ei' 'elease
f'om &'ison. ,J 4ison in)ates sought an in)unction t"at would 'esto'e t"e
c'edits to the)G which would thus entitle t"em to immediate 'elease fo) the
,ew Jo7 pison.
Lessons of the Case
+f "ou ae see7ing to get out of ?ail "ou will have to e$"aust and go though
"abeas co'&us.
+f "ou want da)ages against 'tate oQcials "ou can sue unde 7/688 fo
unconstitutional con4nement.
#>#- (F the estoation of the espondentsK cedits COUL@ -OT have esulted in
thei immediate 'eleaseG BUT O-L: in shotening the length of thei actual
con=ne)ent in pisonG ha!eas copus would ST(LL have !een thei a&&'o&'iate
'emed,. &o ecent cases have esta!lished that ha!eas copus elief is not li)ited
to i))ediate elease fo) illegal custod"G !ut that the wit is availa!le as well to
attac7 futue con=ne)ent and o!tain futue eleases.
Justice 2otte' Stewa't in "reiser %&'()*
C", 'e?ui'e state e$"austionD
2o eli)inate fiction !etween state and fedeal couts if fedeal cout
ovetuned convictionP
2o let 'tate couts coect po!le)s =stP
Iut of due espect to the 'tate couts and 'tate ci)inal ?ustice s"ste).
C", does Cou't &'efe' "abeas to Section /688D
Clai) at issue sou%"t in)unctive 'eliefP
Clai) at issue was classic "abeas caseP
7/688 is b'oadP ha!eas copus is na''owe' 'ule applica!le to the case at
hand.
@issent b, Justice B'ennan:
suits aFecting con=ne)ent can still be b'ou%"t in 7/688 so the ma)o'it,
o&inion is illo%icalP
7/688 does not eBuie a caveEout of cetain clai)sP
7/688 is fedeal law and fedeal couts pla" an i)potant ole in enfocing
fedeal lawP
*$
*0
Rule of e$"austion does not satisf" 'tate needs !ecause no State cou't
decision was at issue
=oweve'G thee was a state administ'ative decision at issueP
7/688 conte)plated the ve" case that was !ought. ,ow thee is a
li7elihood of inceased fiction.
Cou't S,stem T"e Bi% 2ictu'e
Fede'al Cou'ts St'uctu'e
&edeal Couts can !e ceated and ?udges can !e appointed:
/1 Unde' !'t. (((
8.'. 'upe)e Cout 9 ?ustices
Cout of Appeals 1* Cicuits &edeal Cicuit
&edeal (istict CoutsG )oe than one ?udge in each cout
Couts of +ntenational 2ade
!'ticle ((( Jud%es:
Life Appoint)ent
Re)oved onl" though +)peach)ent
4esident no)inates
'enate Con=)s
2he" ae su!?ect to a Code of Conduct and 'enioit"
21 Unde' -onG !'t. (((
U.S. Fede'al *a%ist'ate Jud%es
Y 3 "ea appoint)ent
Y 'elected !" chief ?udge of local distict cout
Y Resolve )attes unde gant of Congessional authoit" #*3 8'C
section 1/1%
Y +n civil casesG pincipall" handle peEtial discove" !attlesP can !e used
to )ediate
Y Can )a7e =ndings and eco))endations on )attes that the distict
)ust eview
Y +n ci)inal casesG handles initial appeaance and othe )inisteial
)attes
Ban+'u&tc, )ud%e
Y Appointed !" the Cout of Appeals
*0
*1
Y 1$ "ea te)
Y &edeal statute esta!lishes authoit"@?uisdiction of fedeal distict
cout
Y (istict cout can delegation cetain authoit" to the)
Y IQces of the distict cout
Cou't of Fede'al Claim
Y Ceated unde Aticle +
Y 11 ?udges no)inated !" the 4esident and con=)ed !" 'enate fo 10
"ea te)s
Y Cases involving fedeal contactsG ta7ing of popet" !" fedeal
goven)entG tax efund suitsG civilian and )ilita" pa" Buestions
!&&eal 2'ocess
8.'. 'upe)e Cout
8.'. Cout of Appeals
8' (istict Cout
A pat" )a" appeal the ?udg)ent enteed !" a distict cout !efoe a Cout of
Appeal. #$ce&t: Appeals involving 4atent Law and cases that need to !e decided
!" cetain coutsG li7e fo exa)ple the Cout of &edeal Clai)s and the Cout of
+ntenational 2adeG whose decisions ae appealed !efoe the &edeal Cicuit fo
Cout of Appeals.
Rules:
+. ;e )ust 7now when and whee to appeal
++. Cou't of a&&eals doesnHt ma+e new fact 4ndin%sP defeence
given to facts as found !" tial cout #2ieEofEfact in the distict cout%
a. Cout of appeals can ode O'al a'%ument
b. !&&eal is decided b, 8 )ud%e &anel
c. Li)ited en banc eview
II Su&'eme Cou't would 'eview an !&&eal to a Ci'cuit Cou't o Cout of
appeals decision !":
1% <anting a C'it of Ce'tio'a'i to the lowe coutG ecod would pesented fo
futhe eview
a. Ci'cumstances unde' w"ic" a C'it of C. ma, be %'anted:
i. ConDict a)ong cicuit couts #2he goal is 8nifo)it"%
ii. 'tate cout decides a &5 that is in conDict with a decision ta7en
!" anothe 'tate cout of last esot o with a 8.'. Cout of
Appeals
*1
*.
iii. 'tate Cout o 8.'. Cout of appeals decided i)potant &5 that
has not !een settled !" 'C o is in conDict with elevant
decisions of 8.'. 'upe)e Cout.
Sub)ect *atte' Ju'isdiction of Fede'al Cou'ts
(. !'ticle ((( S*J Jclaims a'isin% unde'K
28 U.S.C. /88/ Fede'al Euestion as to clai)s Naising undeO
a. 2he constitution
!. Laws of the 8.'.
c. 2eaties of the 8.'.
J !'isin% Unde'KD
;ellEpleaded co)plaint ule: face of co)plaint and not !ased on a defense
o the plaintiFKs pleading of an anticipated defense
Li)ited exceptions to wellEpleaded co)plaint uleG e.g.G when a fedeal
statute co)pletel" pee)pts a cause of action
'how sa)ple fedeal Buestion co)plaint
+f clai) as pleaded aises unde fedeal lawG canKt !e dis)issed fo lac7 of
su!?ect )atte ?uisdictionP !ut if facts donKt =t unde the fedeal law pleadedG
case could !e dis)issed on the )eits and all clai)s that have o could have
!een asseted !" a)end)ent ae foeve !aed
28 U.S.C. 1332 @ive'sit, of Citi<ens"i&
28 USC section /882
Y Citi<ens of di3e'ent states
Y US citi<en and fo'ei%n citi<en
Y Citi<ens of di3e'ent states and in w"ic" fo'ei%n citi<ens a'e
additional &a'ties
Y Fo'ei%n state is &lainti3 and citi<en of a State o' of di3e'ent
States
Y L5F;000 in cont'ove's, not includin% inte'est and costs
a1 Com&lete @ive'sit,
!cce&table
4 #2exas% v. ( #,ew Jo7%
4 #2exas% v. ( 1 #,ew Jo7%G (* #(elawae%
4 1 #2exas%G 4* #A7ansas% v. (1 #,ew Jo7%G (* #(elawae%
Unacce&table
*.
*3
4 #2exas% v. ( #2exas%
4 #2exas% v. (1 #A7ansas%G (* #2exas%
41 #2exas%G 4* #Louisiana% v. ( #2exas%
41 #2exas%G 4s #Louisiana% v. (1 #,ew Jo7%G (* #Louisiana%
b1 !mount in Cont'ove's, 5F M
1332 (c) Copoations (ual citi-enship
o Co'&. is a citi<en of &lace of inco'&o'ation; andN
o 2'inci&al &lace of business
1333 !dmi'alt, .#$clusive Ju'isdiction1
1330 !ctions a%ainst fo'ei%n States
1343 Civil Ri%"ts
1345 U.S. is a 2lainti3
1346 U.S. is a @efendant .consistent wit" !'t. (((; Section 21
/8 U.S.C. Section 828/ o'i%inal )u'isdiction; e$clusive of t"e cou'ts of
t"e States; of all o3ences a%ainst t"e laws of t"e United States. T"is
)u'isdictional %'ant conce'ns acts t"at violate U.S. C'iminal Laws.
Concu''ent Ju'isdiction
'tate couts have inheent authoit" and ae pesu)ptivel" co)petent to
ad?udicate clai)s aising unde 8' laws
Exclusive ?uisdiction onl" if CongessG unde execise of authoit" unde
'upe)ac" ClauseG divests state couts of this authoit"
Su&&lemental Ju'isdiction
a% 'upple)ental Juisdiction: +f a fedeal cout has oiginal ?uisdiction ove a
caseG it also has the discetion to execise ?uisdiction ove A,J clai) Nso
elated to clai)s in the action within such oiginal ?uisdiction that the" fo)
pat of the sa)e case o contoves" unde At. +++.O Section /8O5.
4laintiF )a" plead a fedeal BuestionG fo exa)pleG violation of
'he)an Act #antitust clai)% and plead clai) !ased on state law #e.g.G
violation of state antitust lawsG faud%
&edeal distict cout has ?uisdiction ove the faud clai) if it is so
elated to the fedeal clai) that it fo)s pat of the sa)e case o
contoves" unde Aticle +++ #*3 8'C sec. 1/1.#a%%. 'tate and fedeal
*3
*9
clai)s )ust deive fo) a co))on nucleus of opeative facts so the"
would !e expected to !e tied in one case. #$ce&tion .28 USC sec.
/8O5.c11 w"en

Counte'claim
4 v. ( in fedeal cout !ased on fedeal BuestionP ( !ings a state law
counteclai) against 4 aising out of the facts at issue
4 v. ( in fedeal cout in divesit" and [100G000 in issueP ( !ings a state law
counteclai) against 4 fo [10G000
Joinde' N (nte'vention
A peson not a pat" to a lawsuit )a" !e added in o )a" decide to !eco)e a
pat"
A peson can !e added as a plaintiFG defendantG o thidEpat" defendant
'o in fedeal Buestion case:
Y 4 v. (1 unde 'he)an Act
Y 4 v. (* unde 'tate law and not divese
+n @ive'sit, CasesG cout can execise 'upple)ental ?uisdiction ove
cetain paties #!ut not ove the ?oindesLLLL% if execising ?uisdiction
ove the) is inconsistent with 1//*. #&ed. '"ste) does not want
people getting aound the povision of (ivesit" of Citi-enship in ode
to go to fedeal cout%.
Sam&le: 4 pesents clai) that includes a &5 #violation of 'he)an ActG
Antitust% and also plead a clai) !ased on state law violation of 'tate
Antitust laws%
o &( can 7eep the state law clai) if it aose out the Jcommon nucleus
of o&e'ative facts;K which )eans if it so elated to the &edeal clai)G
so that it fo)s pat of the sa)e contoves" o case unde !'t. (((
and 28 U.S.C. section /8O5 .a1; and s"ould be +ee& to%et"e'.
o #$ce&tion Section /8O5 .c1
o ,ovel o co)plex issue of 'tate law
o 'tate law clai) pedo)inates ove fedeal clai)
o Cout has dis)issed the fedeal clai)
o +n exceptional cicu)stancesG othe co)pelling easons
Limitations in @ive'sit, Cases
,o supple)ental ?uisdiction in divesit" cases as to clai)s !" a plaintiF as to
a pat" !ought into the lawsuit as:
*9
/0
Y 2hidEpat" defendant #&ed. R. Civ. 4. 1$%
Y Joinde #&ed. R. Civ. 4. 19G *0%
Y +ntevention #&ed. R. Civ. 4. *$%
8nless divesit" exists
#$am&le of im&'o&e' su&&lemental )u'isdiction
4 #<eogia% v. ( #Aiginia% fo [*00G000
( sa"s it is not esponsi!le fo the lia!ilit" !ut \ #<eogia citi-en% isP so (
!ings a thidEpat" clai) against \ #<eogia citi-en%
4 cannot sue \ diectl"
(n @ive'sit, Cases C"at law a&&liesD C"e'eD
+n (ivesit" CasesG &edeal (istict Couts would appl" su!stantive 'tate
law and fedeal pocedual ules. Also fedeal ules of Evidence goven the
tial in distict couts. 4ocedue in 'C is govened !" 'CKs ules.
Si%ni4cance of dive'sit, cases
;hen a fedeal cout sits in divesit" and decides Buestions of state lawG it
applies state law and sits as if it wee a state cout
+)potant decision as to what state law applies #choice of law%
>#-U# C"e'e t"e suit can be b'ou%"t
+f ( disagees with venueG he can =le a JC"an%e of >enueO *3 8'C 'ec. 1$0$.
( )ust )eet eBuie)ents unde such statute cout gants the )otions.
Concens the fedeal distict cout whee a clai) can !e !ought
(etails ules unde *3 8'C sections 1/91E9*G 1/91G 1/9.G 1$00G 1$01G 1$0*
goven
Re?ui'ements Fo' Law,e's
a1 Must !e ad)itted to appea in (istict Cout
a. Can appea in fede'al dist'ict cou't fo li)ited puposes !" motion
pro hoc vice.
b. (f not ad)ittedG F(-@ ! LOC!L COU-S#LG which is alwa"s a good
eco))endation.
b1 Also need to !e ad)itted to appea !efoe Cicuit Couts and 'C.
c1 +f going !efoe a 'tate coutG must be admitted to &'actice in t"at State
/0
/1
a. (f claim 'aises fede'al o' constitutional issue 4le C'it of
Ce'tio'a'i.
Removal
+f ( is unhapp" a!out !eing tied in a fou) state which is not his own stateG he )a"
e)ove the suit to a fedeal coutG distict in which the clai) was =led. 2itle 28
U.S.C. Section /00/.
Rules:
Re)oval is su!?ect to ti)e estictions and e)oval pocedue
+f e)oval i)popeG case would !e REMA,(E( to tansfeo cout
( CA,,I2 REMIAE +& 9E +' A C+2+]E, I& 29E '2A2E +, ;9+C9 '8+2 +'
&+LE(.
,ote: nothing in this su!section #1$$1% shall estict the authoit" of the distict
cout to tansfe o dis)iss an action of the gound of Ninconvenient fou)O
Section /00O 2'ocedu'e fo' Removal.
/0 da"s afte eceipt of co)plaint.
,otice of e)oval )ust !e =led in the fedeal cout within the Ndistict and
?uisdiction whee the case is pending.O
,otice also =led with the cle7 of the 'tate cout
,otice )ust !e seved to all paties involved in the case
+f Re)oval is i)popeG &C would e)and case to the state cout.
Fede'al Ju'isdiction
(ivesit" ?uisdiction Y Meaning of citi-en *3 8'C : 1//*
Conce&ts
Ele)ents of citi-enship @ Relevant date fo dete)ining citi-enship
2E'2: #Legal standad to dete)ine citi-enship%.
E 4esence in a state #)ailG 7ids living theeG pa" taxes thee #Iegon%G vote
egistationG ca egistationG dive license%.
E 4esonKs +ntention to live thee at the ti)e of the aival. #to Iegon%
/1
/*
Can a peson !e a citi-en of )oe than one state fo puposes of divesit"
?uisdictionL ,o. A peson onl" has one citi-enship. @ Also )a7e sue "ou 7now
whee the peson is citi-en at the ti)e the suit is =led.
Case Law B'ieP,
Aalla%"e' v. 2"iladel&"ia &. /28
+n this case the Cout sent !ac7 the case to the (istict Cout to appl" the legal
standad. 2he plaintiF is decided to !e citi-en of Iegon she wins the )one". +f she
would have !een declaed citi-en fo) 4enns"lvania the Cout wouldKve decide a
lac7 of su!?ect )atte ?uisdictionG the case wouldKve !een dis)issed and she
wouldKve lost the )one" ganted in the othe Cout.
Juisdictional 'tatue Y Alien 2ot 'tatue Judicia" Act 1.39 #allows fo intenational
law to !e intoduced into the 8' couts%
Sosa v. !lva'e<G*ac"ain &. /80
'osa got to the fedeal cout on the !asis that it was a violation of the law of
nations. 2he 'up. Ct. sa"s that the )ost i)potant Buestion is whethe the
co)plaints =t the A2'. +n Alvae- case does not. 2hen the Buestion is to 7now if the
A2' is a ?uisdictional statueL '. Ct. sa"s "esG !ut this does not ceate new causes of
action. #2his gave to the distict cout ?uisdiction%.
+n this case Alvae- co)plaint does not =t the A2' 'tatue in violation of the law of
,ationsG !ecause &edeal Couts should not ecogni-e pivate clai)s unde &edeal
Co))on Law fo violations of an" +ntKl law no).
2hee ae 0 li)its to use caution in adopting the Law of ,ations to pivate ights:
E(ecision to ceate a pivate ight of action is !ette to leave it to legislative. #+n the
geat )a?oit" of cases%.
ECo))on law is not deived an")oe !ut )ade: #+t changed since 1.39P now
estain in ?udiciall" appl"ing intenationall" geneated laws%.
E,o Congessional )andate to =nd new violations of the law of nations. Judges ae
not allowed to )a7e this law and intoduce it in &edeal Co))on Law.
ELoo7 fo legislative guidance !efoe execising innovative authoit".
E'ince we )a" !e ceating a pivate ight of actionG again loo7 to the legislatue fo
collateal conseBuences. E9igh !a to new pivate causes fo action fo violating +ntKl
law
E2hee is concen as to foeign aFais%.
2he A2' *3 8'C : 1/00 is a ?uisdictional gant and does not ceate a new cause of
action fo tots in violation of the law of nations. 6ut then Justice 'oute sa"s that
cetain clai)s can go fowad unde A2': 9ow does he get thee and which onesL:
/*
//
At the ti)e 8' was fo)ed the law of nations too7 two fo)s:
Relations !etween states and
Mechant law.
Const: At. +++G sec. * gave 'upe)e Cout oiginal ?uisdiction ove all A)!assados
cases. Judicia" Act included A2'. 8nde this one the A2' at the ti)e was appoved
onl" thee ecogni-ed situations existed: 4iac"G (iplo)ac" and Aiolations of safe
conduct.
,ow the '. Ct. stated that a clai) should !e !ased on a no) of intenational
chaacte accepted !" the civili-ed nations. #2his upset the ?udges and 'caliaG
!ecause now the" have to !e awae of the evolution of intenational law and the
co))on law itself%.
Case Law @etailed
Aalla%"e' v. 2"iladel&"ia &. /28
@ive'sit,
Meaning of citi-enship
4esence in a stateP
o 9aving 7ids theeP
o 4a"ing taxes theeK
o Aoting egistationP
o Mailing addessP
o Ca license.
4esonKs intention to live thee at the ti)e of aival.
'he has hus!and in ?ail in 2"iladel&"ia; 2!. And she taveled in Califo'nia.
9oweveG eve"thing else is in O'e%onL
Can peson have two citi-enships fo the puposes of divesit"L
,otG onl" oneS
,atual peson cannot.
6ut a co'&o'ation can. ;hat ae the citeiaL
4lace of incopoation
4lace of eFective !usiness.
2he ule is com&lete dive'sit,.
2hee is an exception fo insuance co)panies.
+f "ou have (isne" #egisteed in (elawae and headBuateed in AtlantaG
<eogia% and the two plaintiFs ae fo) (elawae and <eogia C thee is -O
@(>#RS(T:.
//
/$
(ispute: #<allaghe% 4laintiF in?uedG pesu)a!l" hut while iding@getting on 4hill"
!usG clai)ed negligence against tanspotation authoit"
'uit:
&iled in fedeal distict cout in 4enns"lvania
4 clai)ed she was a citi-en of IegonP ( is a citi-en of 4enns"lvania.
Evidence on ?uisdiction
4laintiFKs deposition
4laintiFKs tial testi)on"
4laintiFKs postEtial aQdavit
2ial:
4 won.
Relevant facts that helped the Cout to see the 4 intention:
;hen she went to Iegon it was he intention to )a7e a ho)e thee
,o hus!and and went to loo7 fo !othe suppot.
9asnKt etuned to 4enn except fo tial
,o !usiness@popet" left in 4enn
,o voting in 4enn
,ot even !otheed seeing hus!and in 4enn since 19$. when she went to Iegon
Sosa v. !lva'e<G*ac"ain &. /80
Ju'isdictional Statute
28 U.S.C. 7 /8F0G co))onl" efeed to as the T!lien To't Statute.T 2his
?uisdictional gantG which was esta!lished in the Judicia" Act of 1.39G allows fo
intenational law to !e intoduced into the 8.'. couts.
9ee we have violation of t"e law of nations #custo)a" intenational law%.
(oes the co)plaint feet in A2'L
-O. +t does not.
+s A2' ?uisdictional statuteL
:es. 6ut it does not ceate new causes of action.
&edeal couts s"ould not 'eco%ni<e &'ivate claims !ased on
intenational custo)a" law #piac"G diplo)ac"G violations of the safe
conduct%.
T"e, also establis" standa'd F limits t"e )ud%es s"ould conside' w"ile
establis"in% if citi<en 4ts wit"in !TSD
/$
/0
(espiteG Alvae- lost !ecause 'up. Ct. decides that in his case the A2' does not
ceate a cause of action fo tots in violation of the law of nationsG !ecause &edeal
Couts should not ecogni-e pivate clai)s unde &edeal Co))on Law fo
violations of an" +ntKl law no)P cetain clai)s can go fowad unde A2'. ,owG
lowe Couts will spend )oe ti)e and eneg" =guing out what clai)s can go
fowad. 'up. Ct. tied to shut the doo to )an" clai)sG !ut this is not cetain.
(ispute: 4G Mexican nationalG 7idnapped !" 8' (EA agentsP !ought to 8' fo
ci)inal chagesP afte 8' pesented caseG acBuitted !ased on distict cout ganting
)otion fo acBuittal #elease%. Alvae- sues 'osa #Mexican national who helped in
the a!duction% in a &edeal coutG the clai) !ased on *3 8'C :1/00G A2' #Alien 2ot
'tatute%. (istict Cout gants su))a" ?udg)ent in favo of Alvae- !ased on his
clai)s against 'osa fo 7idnapping and a!ita" detention E 6oth violate law of
nations. 9th Cicuit 4anel aQ)s. En !anc eview #in full cout%:
Alvae- loses on clai) that a!duction violated law of nations
Alvae- wins on clai) that extateitoial aest and detention wee a!ita" and in
violation of the law of nations
;hat issue in 8' 'upe)e Cout
4e the opinionG the issue is whethe Alvae-Ks clai)s =t within the A2'.
2he issue depends on whethe the A2' does )oe than esta!lish ?uisdictionP does
the A2' ceate a new cause of action fo tots in violation of the law of nationsL
+s this opinion confusing o whatL #Haa)anian co))enta"%
&istG 'oute sa"s Alvae- "ouKe wong W the A2' does not ceate a new cause of
action fo tots in violation of the law of nations
6utG then 'oute sa"s that cetain tots in violation of the law of nations ae within
the A2'.
9ow does he do thisL At ti)e 8' fo)edG law of nations too7 two fo)s:
Relations !etween states
Law )echant
Ivelap: violation of safe conductsG infinge)ent of a)!assadosK ights and piac"
Const: At. +++G sec. * gave 'upe)e Cout oiginal ?uisdiction ove all A)!assado
cases. Judicia" Act included A2' @ A2' designed to cove onl" a s)all nu)!e of
cases inside Co))on Law:
Co))on law ecogni-ed onl" thee ",b'id cases:
IFenses against a)!assadosP
Aiolations of safe conductP
+ndividual actions aising out of pi-e captues and piac".
6ut the A2' is not li)ited to onl" these thee cases. A clai) )ust !e !ased on a
no) of intenational chaacte accepted !" the civili-ed wold and de=ned with
speci=cit" li7e those thee in the 1.00s. 2hisG howeveG is a naow class of no)s.
/0
/1
+n this case Alvae- co)plaint does not =t the A2' 'tatue in violation of the law of
,ationsG !ecause &edeal Couts should not ecogni-e pivate clai)s unde &edeal
Co))on Law fo violations of an" +ntKl law no).
2hee ae F limits to use caution in ado&tin% the Law of ,ations to pivate
ights:
(ecision to ceate a pivate ight of action is bette' to leave it to
le%islative. #+n the geat )a?oit" of cases%.
Common law is not de'ived an,mo'e but made: #+t changed since
1.39P now estain in ?udiciall" appl"ing intenationall" geneated laws%.
-o Con%'essional mandate to =nd new violations of the law of nations.
Judges ae not allowed to )a7e this law and intoduce it in &edeal
Co))on Law.
Loo7 fo le%islative %uidance befo'e execising innovative aut"o'it,.
'ince we )a" !e ceating a &'ivate 'i%"t of actionG again loo7 to the
legislatue fo collate'al conse?uences. 9igh !a to new pivate causes
fo action fo violating +ntKl law
2hee is concen as to foeign aFais.
-ote 'oute satis=es Alvae- to so)e extent in that the A2' is not shut down !ut
he doesnKt eall" answe the Buestion. ;hat does this )eanL MIRE L+2+<A2+I,SS
'calia dissent:
2hee is no geneal co))on law and 'outeKs appoach allows ?udges to
)a7e law. And 'oute does this afte announcing that the A2' is a
?uisdictional statute that does not ceate new causes of action.
2he new fedeal co))on law is not found !ut )adeP fedeal couts )ust
have fedeal co))on lawE)a7ing authoit" to )a7e the law
,o fedeal co))on lawE)a7ing authoit" in the A2'
Contasts ad)ialt"G whee Constitution allows this.
+n su): Alvae- losesP cetain clai)s can go fowad unde A2'P Lowe couts will
spend ti)e and eneg" =guing out what clai)s can go fowadP 'upe)e Cout
po!a!l" shut the doo to )an" clai)s !ut this is not cetain.
2he 4of. Haa)anian agues that this is eall" a naow view of casesP 4of
'teinhadt has a totall" diFeent opinionG that this was the pinciple vehicle
though which intenational law stat to access to 8' couts.
2otue is diFeent accoding to the Congess. 2he Congess is !eing ve"
pessued to shut it down Tno) of intenational chaacte and ecogni-edWT
'ee the othe li)its. 'calia is ang" !ecause he 7nows that thee ae all these
cases in the lowe couts still pending and he wished to shut all these
situations down.
/1
/.
Te''ito'ial Ju'isdiction
Conce&ts
LLL
Case law
!sa"i *etal (ndus Co v. Su&e'io' Cou't of Califo'nia
Facts
Califonia esident <a" Quc"e' was in?ued and his wife died in the )otoc"cle
accident in Califonia. ]uche !ought Clai) against )anufactue including inte
alia Cheng 'hin Ru!!e +ndustial Co. #a 2aiwanese )anufactue of tu!es% #C"en%
S"in%G which itself =led a coss co)plaint seeing inde)ni=cation fo) its
codefendants and fo) petitione Asahi Metal +ndust" Co #A Japanese )anufactue
of valves% #!sa"i%. 2he co)plaint with ]uche and othe codefendants was settled
leaving onl" Cheng 'hinKs co)plaint against Asahi.
"roce!ural History
2he (istict cout consideed the caseG denied AsahiKs co)plaint to ?uas"
summons and held fo Cheng 'hin. 2he Cout of Appeals evesed the distict
coutKs decisionG howeveG the 'upe)e Cout of Califonia didnKt agee with the
Cout of Appeals and suppoted the distict coutKs decision. 2he 'upe)e Cout
ganted cetioai.
+ssues
;hethe Califonia cout has pesonal ?uisdiction #a.7.a. 2eitoial ?uisdiction%
unde the due pocess clause ove Cheng 'hinKs co)plaintL
Hol!in,
Revesed. Califonia Cout does not "ave pesonal ?uisdiction ove the cla) due
to the a!sence of N)ini)u) contactsO and the fact that execise of ?uisdiction ove
the co)plaint would aFect N2aditional notions of fai pla" and su!stantial ?usticeO
Rationale
+n a!sence of <eneal Juisdiction #when defendant has undisputed ties with the
fou) state%G in ode fo Califonia cout to have pesonal ?uisdiction ove the case
it )ust esta!lish that Asahi had N)ini)u) contactsO with the fou) state
#Califonia% and execise of ?uisdiction does not aFect Nthe taditional notion of fai
pla" and su!stantial JusticeO.
2hee two t"pes of ?uisdictions: pesonal and teitoial.
/.
/3
Even if the peson is not pesentG it still can !e sued if it has )ini)u) contacts
unless this causes in?ustice.
*inimum Contacts
Asahi was sending tu!es to 2aiwan and 2aiwanese co)pan" was sending the
tu!es to CA.
Cou't si)pl" enfocea!ilit" is not a legal standad.
o +n ode to esta!lish )ini)u) contacts a peson )ust Npuposefull"
avail itself of the pivilege of conducting activities with the fou) stateG
thus invo7ing !ene=ts and potections of its lawsO. Accodingl"
)ini)u) contacts )ust !e !ased on an act of defendantG which is
puposefull" diected towad the fou) state. &o +nstanceG it must
desi%n t"e &'oduct fo' t"e ma'+et in t"e fo'um stateR it must
adve'tise o' ca'', out t"e ma'+etin% of t"e &'oduct in t"e
fo'um state etc. Mee place)ent of the poduct in the stea) of
co))ece with the foeseea!le possi!ilit" #howeveG thee should not
!e an expectation% that the poduct )a" end up in the fou) state
does not ?ustif" )ini)u) contacts.
'i)pl" putting the poduct in a stea) of co))ece is not enough.
2hee ae no )ini)u) contacts.
2aditional notions of fai' &la, and substantial )ustice
o ;hen anal"-ing the taditional notions of fai pla" and su!stantial
?ustice the cout )ust conside
the !uden on the defendantG
the inteests of the fou) stateG and
the plaintiFs inteest in o!taining elief.
2he second and the t"i'd can eli)inate the 4'st one.
2he inte'ests of &lainti3 and the fou) state could
?ustif" the heav" !uden of the defendant.
+ntestate #8.'. states% )udicial s,stems inteest in o!taining
the )ost eQcient esolution of contovesies.
shae inteest of seveal states in futheing funda)ental
su!stantive social &olicies #this one is pu!lic polic"%.
(id the" have expectation that thei poducts would end up in CAL
2he" did not.
Cien !i' !las+a v. B'andt
Facts
;ien Ai Alas7aG an Alas7an copoation !ased in 2exasG e)plo"ed sevices of
<e)an law"es B'andt. 6andt epesented ;ien Ai in seveal deals in <e)an"
and got involved into faudulent activities. Cien !i' b'ou%"t t"e case on f'aud.
#M>A of so)e ailines%. &ed up with 6and ;ien =les in 2exas.
/3
/9
"roce!ural History
2he distict cout found that thee was pesonal ?uisdiction against 6andt and the
case was appealed to the Cicuit Cout.
+ssues
;hethe 2exas cout has pesonal ?uisdiction #a.7.a. 2eitoial ?uisdiction% unde
the due pocess clause ove 6andt.
Hol!in,
Reve'sed. ,o )ini)u) contact.
2he =fth Cicuit held that 2exas cout had pesonal ?uisdiction ove the cla) due to
the existence of N)ini)u) contactsO and the fact that execise of ?uisdiction ove
the co)plaint would not aFect N2aditional notions of fai pla" and su!stantial
?usticeO.
2he" had so)e contacts. 2heefoeG 6andt can !e sued in 2exas.
2he" also had statute.
;hat a!out +ntenetL
Loo7 at the natue of we!sites.
2hat is Qi&&o Slide' Test. +f the" ae ?ust having we!Esite with
advetise)entG that is not a ph"sical pesence. +f the" ae selling so)ething
o )a7ing po=t !" )eans of inteaction with the uses.
2he po!le) wasG thee was anothe case which said lette and phones ae
pesence fo law"es. 2hat is how the" wo7.
Rationale
+n a!sence of <eneal Juisdiction #when defendant has undisputed ties with the
fou) state%G in ode fo 2exas cout to have pesonal ?uisdiction ove the case it
)ust esta!lish that 6andt had N)ini)u) contactsO with the fou) state #2exas%
and execise of ?uisdiction does not aFect Nthe taditional notion of fai pla" and
su!stantial JusticeO.
Mini)u) Contacts
o +n ode to esta!lish )ini)u) contacts a peson )ust Npuposefull"
avail itself of the pivilege of conducting activities with the fou) stateG
thus invo7ing !ene=ts and potections of its lawsO. Accodingl"
)ini)u) contacts )ust !e !ased on an act of defendantG which is
puposefull" diected towad the fou) state and had "oreseeable
e+ect o" a tort claim. 2he Cout found suQcient to esta!lish )ini)u)
contacts on the !asis of the fact that 6andt had co))unications #e.g.
eE)ailsG lettesG and faxes% with the co)pan" opeating in 2exas.
AlthoughG he had )eetings as wellG the cout esta!lished that ph"sical
/9
$0
pesence is not cucial when esta!lishing the existence of )ini)u)
contacts.
2aditional notions of fai pla" and su!stantial ?ustice
o ;hen anal"-ing the taditional notions of fai pla" and su!stantial
?ustice the cout )ust conside
the !uden on the defendantG
the inteests of the fou) stateG and
the plaintiFs inteest in o!taining elief.
intestate ?udicial s"ste)s inteest in o!taining the )ost
eQcient esolution of contovesies
shae inteest of seveal states in futheing funda)ental
su!stantive social policies.
^2he inteests of plaintiF and the fou) state could ?ustif" the heav" !uden of the
defendant.
Fede'al Civil 2'ocedu'e T"e Ju',
Statuto', Basis
2he ight to a ?u" is gounded in 8.'. Constitution. ULegV U.S. Const. amend. >((
gants this ight to paties in ce'tain civil casesG while ULegV U.S. Const. amend.
>( gants this ight to paties in an, ci)inal case.
U.S. Const. amend. >(( in 'uits at U/V common lawG whee the U2V value in
cont'ove's, shall exceed twent, dolla'sG the 'i%"t of t'ial b, )u', s"all be
&'ese'vedG and no fact tied !" a ?u"G shall !e othewise eEexa)ined in an" Cout
of the 8nited 'tatesG than accoding to the 'ules of t"e common law.
&o)all"G thee ae TCO eBuie)ents in ULegV amend. >((G while actuall" thee is
O-# #co))on law%.
+t is diScult to ima%ine so)eone =ling lawsuit fo less t"an L20S
Conce&ts
2he basic distinction to !e dawn fo the puposes of dete)ining whethe the
defendant is entitled to a ?u" is the natu'e of 'emed,. +f the e)ed" is Nle%alO C
thee can !e ?u" is the eBuest fo it is ti)el" =ledG if the e)ed" is Ne?uitableO C
thee will !e no ?u"G unless thee is a speci=c indication fo ?u" in the legislation.
Le%al 'emedies
All t"pes of dama%es #co)pensato"G punitiveG incidentalG liBuidatedG
no)inal%.
#?uitable 'emedies
+n?unctionP
'peci=c pefo)anceP
$0
$1
Account of po=tsP
RescissionP
(eclaato" eliefP
Recti=cationP
EstoppelP
Cetain popieta" e)ediesG such as constuctive tusts o tacingP
'u!ogationP
EBuita!le lien.
&o explanations on each t"pe of eBuita!le e)ed":
http:@@en.wi7ipedia.og@wi7i@EBuita!le_e)edies.
Basic de4nitions
A head ?uo is called the fo'eman o &'esidin% )u'o'.
2he &etit )u', #o t'ial )u',% heas the evidence in a tial. A %'and )u',G a
t"pe of ?u" now con=ned al)ost exclusivel" to so)e ?uisdictions in the
8nited 'tatesG dete)ines whethe thee is enough evidence fo a ci)inal
tial to go fowad.
Ju', nulli4cation )eans )a7ing a law void !" ?u" decisionG in othe wods
it is Nthe pocess whee!" a ?u" in a ci)inal case eFectivel" nulli=es a law
!" acBuitting a defendant egadless of the weight of evidence against hi) o
heO.
2he ole of the ?u" is often desci!ed as a 4nde' of factG while the ?udge is
seen as having the sole esponsi!ilit" of intepeting the appopiate law and
instucting the ?u" accodingl".
62;G the o'i%ins of t"e )u', ae in +sla) and the +sland of 'icil". 'ee
http:@@en.wi7ipedia.og@wi7i@Ju"`4ossi!le_+sla)ic_oots
Case Law
C"au3eu's; Teamste's T =el&e's v. Te'',
Su&'eme Cou't aS'med lowe cout decision stating that wo7es "ad 'i%"t to
)u', t'ial as to thei claim of fai' 'e&'esentation against the Union.
Facts
*cLean 2uc7ing Co)pan" is !ad gu"s. Te'', and fiends ae good gu"s and the
tuc7 dives.
McLean shut so)e facilities and elocated 2e" and fiends )a7ing !ig po)ises
a!out Ns&ecial senio'it, 'i%"tsO a!out the !ette life in geneal. As it usuall"
happens C none of these !eco)e tue. 2e" and fiends wee pat of collectiveG
ba'%ainin% a%'eementG a legal tool used !" la!o unions to =ght !ull" e)plo"es.
2e" =led T=R## %'ievances with thei Union #i.e. NChauFeusG etc.O%. 2he =st
one wo7ed wellG second led to nothingG thid one was ignoed !" the 8nion.
Te'', =led a lawsuit in fede'al dist'ict cou't alleging that #/% *cLean had
b'eac"ed the collective !againing a%'eement and #2% the Union violated its
$1
$*
dut, of fai' 'e&'esentation. 2he dives sought in)unctive 'elief as well as
com&ensato', dama%es.
2he in)unctive 'elief sought !" Te'', was a &e'manent in)unction eBuiing the
defendants to cease thei illegal acts and to einstate the) to thei &'o&e'
senio'it, status #less wo7 fo )oe )one"%.
2he com&ensato', dama%es wee fo lost wa%es and "ealt" bene4ts.
McLean 4led fo' ban+'u&tc,. 8pon the !an7uptc" =lingG all clai)s against
McLean !eca)e su!?ect to an Nautomatic sta,.O +n shotG all clai)s ae halted and
the" ae then folded into the !an7uptc" poceeding.
2hat is wh" *cLean is not a &a't, to this case. 2he action against it was
volunta'il, dismissedG alon% wit" all claims fo' in)unctive 'elief.
Te'', eBuested a ?u" tial in thei pleadings. 2he Union moved to st'i+e t"e
)u', demand on the gound that no ight to a ?u" tial exists in a dut" of fai
epesentation suit. 6oth lowe couts held that espondents wee entitled to a ?u".
2he 'upe)e Cout aQ)ed.
Lessons of the Case
N2he 'i%"t to a )u', t'ial includes mo'e t"an the co))onElaw fo)s of
action 'eco%ni<ed in /56/.O
;ellG so whatL
N2he ight Uto a ?u"V e$tends to UnewV causes of action ceated
!" Congess.O
'ee ull v. -nite! States.
+n dete)ining whethe the action involves legal ightsG loo7 at #/% natu'e of
issues and #2% 'emed, sou%"t.
;hile loo7ing at the natue of issues and e)ed" #a% com&a'e statuto',
action to 13th centu" action peE)ege of law and eBuit"P and #b%
e$amine t"e 'emed, to dete)ine whethe it is le%al o e?uitable in
natue.
;hat if the 13th centu" didnHt "ave a statuto', claimL
*a)o'it, Loo7 fo an analo%ous claim.
Justice B'ennan ;ongG donHt loo+ fo' an" Nanalo%ous
claimsO. Loo7 at the natu'e of 'emed, onl,.
;hat is Nanalo%ous claimOL
2usteeKs b'eac" of 4ducia', dut,G which had !een within exclusive eBuit"
?uisdiction.
Union acts in !est inteests of its )e)!e@the e)plo"eesP e)plo"ee
doesnKt contol the Union ?ust li7e a tust !ene=cia" doesnKt contol
the tustee. 2hat is wh" it is di3e'ent.
Justice Stevens: As + have suggested in the pastG + !elieve the
dut, of fai' 'e&'esentation action 'esembles a commonG
law action against an atto'ne, fo' mal&'actice mo'e
closel, than it does an" othe fo) of action.
&o this eason Stevens did not )oin the Ma?oit" opinion in
2a't (((G! #which discusses that collective !againing was
$*
$/
unlawful EnglandG loo7s fo analo%, and =nds it in !ene=cia"E
tustee elationship%.
@issente's #Henned". IRConnoG 'calia%: Nthe Sevent" !mendment
eBuies us to dete)ine whethe the dut" of fai epesentation action Nis
mo'e simila' to cases that wee tied in couts of law than to suits tied in
couts of eBuit".O
2his is eBuit" and the *a)o'it, is wong.
6ut @issente's ae loses.
Cald'o& v. Sout"e'n Co. Se'vices; (nc.
#levent" Ci'cuit 'eve'sed the distict coutRs ode which denied appellantRs clai)
fo wongful e)plo")ent dischage against appellee unde the Re"abilitation !ct.
2he cout 'emanded the case to the distict cout !ecause the bac+ &a, appellant
was see7ing was le%al; as o&&osed to e?uitable; in natu'e and t"e'efo'e
constitutionall, 'e?ui'ed a )u', tial ight.
Facts
6a!aa Cald'o& was =ed. Afte "ou ae =ed "ou get ang". 'oG Ms. Cald'o&
sued Sout"e'nG he fo)e e)plo"e alleging disci)ination in violation of the !%e
@isc'imination in #m&lo,ment !ct of /6O5 .!@#!1 and the Re"abilitation
!ct see7ing bac+G&a,; li?uidated dama%es; lost senio'it,; lost &ension and
f'in%e bene4t c'edits #wowG 'outhen should have done so)ething eall" nast"%.
Clai)s unde !@#! Dew pefectl" and wee decided !" the ?u"G as 26 U.S.C. 7
O2O.c1.21 s&eci4call, aut"o'i<es a ?u" decide A(EA clai)s. JetG clai)s unde
Re"abilitation !ct did not D" with the dist'ict )ud%e. 9e 'efused to allow t"e
)u', to "ea' the plaintiFKs clai) unde the Re"abilitation !ct !ased on plaintiFKs
state)ent of da)ages as set foth in the 2'et'ial O'de'. #levent" Ci'cuit
evesed and e)anded.
Lessons of the Case
N2he twoG&'on%ed standa'd fo' 'esolvin% t"e issue of availabilit, of a )u',
t'ial unde U.S. Const. amend. >(( Ui.e. NBuestion of lawO M [*0V w"en t"e
statute does not &'ovide t"e answe' Uco)pae to clai) unde !@#!V on its
face is to 4'st obse've the natue of t"e statuto', action as co)paed to 13thE
centu" actions !ought in the English couts &'io' to t"e me'%e' of the couts of
law and e?uit,. SecondG the 'emed, sought is e$amined to dete)ine
w"et"e' it is le%al o' e?uitable in natu'e. 2he second inBui" is the mo'e
im&o'tant of t"e twoO.
,ote the se?uence of events. 2he cout 4'st dete)ined whethe the
applica!le statute aut"o'i<ed a )u', t'ial. +f it did notG the cout t"en
a&&lied t"e Sevent" !mendment.
=oweve'G the cout also states:
N'uits unde 7F00 of the Re"abilitation !ct . . . . povide to plaintiFs
the full s&ect'um of 'emediesG such that in appopiate 7F00 casesG
U.S. Const. amend. >(( allows a ?u" tial. A ?u" tial is -OT
constitutionall, 'e?ui'ed in eve', 7F00 action. RatheG actions
see7ing onl, e?uitable 'elief ae unaFected !" the availa!ilit" of a
?u" tial fo plaintiFs who see7 da)age e)edies.O
$/
$$
2his put in hu)an language: no )u', tial fo eve', 7F00 action; onl,
no )u', t'ial fo 7F00 action see+in% e?uitable 'emed,. 6ecause
Ms. Cald'o& is not as7ing fo eBuita!le elief C she is safe.
Summa', Jud%ment
Conce&ts
2hee will !e no naow Buestion on this su!?ect.
*ovant C is sue that he is ight. 9e )oves fo su))a" ?udg)ent.
9e shows the ?udge his agu)entsP his vision of the case C and the ?udge
agees o efuses.
Bot" &a'ties can move.
M'J is )ade befo'e o afte' discove', but onl, befo'e t'ial.
Motion can !e patialG i.e. cove'in% onl, one issue.
2he su))a" ?udg)ent is govened !" Rule FO 78 FRC2.
@e4nition: A =nal decision !" a ?udge that esolves a lawsuit in favo of one of the
paties. ;henL A )otion fo su))a" ?udg)ent is )ade afte discove" is
co)pleted !ut !efoe the case goes to tial. 2he pat" )a7ing the )otion )ashals
all the evidence in its favoG co)paes it to the othe sideRs evidenceG and agues
that a easona!le ?u" loo7ing at the sa)e evidence could onl" decide the case one
wa"EEfo the )oving pat". +f the ?udge ageesG then a tial would !e unnecessa"
and the ?udge entes ?udg)ent fo the )oving pat".
Rule FO; Section >((; Fede'al Rules of Civil 2'ocedu'e .J FRC" K1: <oven the
ules fo the 'u))a" Judg)ent. &RC4 ules all civil actions !ought in &edeal
distict couts.
Case Law
Celote$ Co'&. v. Cat'ett
2his is !sbestos case.
CatettKs hus!and died ight afte he was exposed to as!estos.
(istict cout found lac+ of evidence. In appeals the distict cout 'eve'sed the
decision and 'emanded.
C"at ,ou need to +now: A 1931 case in which the 8nited 'tates 'upe)e Cout
held that a pat" )oving fo su))a" ?udg)ent need onl" show that the opposing
pat" lac7s evidence suQcient to suppot its case.
Facts: Catett #plaintiF% sued a nu)!e of as!estos )anufactuesG including
Celotex #defendant% in the (istict Cout fo (CG !ased on evidence alleging that he
$$
$0
hus!and died of health eFects of as!estos exposue. 2he distict cout found that
Catett lac7ed evidence to show that she could pevail at tial !ased on a
pepondeance of the evidence. 8nde Rule 01 of the &edeal Rules of Civil
4ocedueG su))a" ?udg)entG the case was dis)issed. In appealG the Cout of
Appeals fo (C evesed the distict coutRs decision. &inall"G the 'upe)e Cout
evesed the appeals coutRs decision and e)anded the case.
(ssue: ;hethe Celotex atte)pted showing that the plaintiF had put foth
inade?uate evidence showing that he "usband "ad been e$&osed to Celote$
asbestos was a suQcient !asis on which to gant su))a" ?udg)ent.
8suall" 2lainti3 needs to &'ove. 'oG (efendants moved fo' summa',
)ud%ment.
'oG @efendants need to &'esent evidence fo M'J.
2hee wee two M'J C initiall" and second C in a "eaG afte t"e
discove', was ove.
(efendants )oved again. 2he" did not have to pove lac7 of
necessa', evidence.
Rule of Celote$: )ovant needs to challenge the )ain agu)ents of the opposite
pat" of pove that the opposite pat" lac7s the %enuine issue fo tial.
So; fo' *SJ "ou need to &'ove
1. Agu)ents ae wongP
*. -o %enuine issue #that is an i)pove)ent !" Celote$%.
C", is im&o'tantL 2he case changed the !uden of poof fo su))a" ?udg)ent
fo) the )ovant to espondent. Accoding to the Celotex standadG thee ae two
wa"s fo a )ovant to pevail in su))a" ?udg)ent #supposing the espondent has
no counte agu)ent%. Ine wa" is to oFe evidence to negate one of the ele)ents
of the clai). 2he second is to show that plaintiF has no evidence to suppot at least
one of the essential ele)ents of the clai).
!dditional info: Respondent agued that CelotexRs )otion fo su))a" ?udg)ent
was insuQcientl" TsuppotedGT and that the )oving pat" )ust povide aQdavits.
In this !asisG the cout of appeals evesed the decision to gant su))a"
?udg)ent fo Celotex Cop.G !ut the 'upe)e Cout stated in its decision that
aQdavits wee not necessa"G as long as it de)onstated the lac7 of a genuine issue
fo tial.
Mut'om Co'& v. Cente' Line
Cente Line is the na)e of the cit". 4o!a!l"G a Re&ublican Cit,.
2he" intoduced special ules fo )assage.
Mut'om Co'&. uns a massa%e saloon.
4laintiF )oved fo 'J. 2he" thought the ule is a!sud C unconstitutional #A). 1$%.
2he cout decided C ,ou a'e w'on%.
$0
$1
Cit" showed Huto) Cop. opeated disguised !othels.
+f "ou want to challenge new law C b'in% evidence.
Lesson/ Jou C!--OT *SJ wit"out evidence.
Lesson2 ;heneve a cit" esta!lished cit, 'e%ulations C the" ae pesu)ed to
!e valid #com&ellin% inte'est%.
And "ou have to c"allen%e t"is &'esum&tion.
C"at ,ou need to +now: 2he 'ixth Cicuit concluded that the egulation of hous
is easona!le Nbecause ille%al se$ual conduct is most li+el, to ta+e &lace at
ni%"t; closin% massa%e establis"ments du'in% ni%"t time "ou's se'ves a
le%itimate inte'est in cu'tailin% ille%al se$ual conductO. &uthe)oeG the
egulation govening the clothing won !" the )assages has a ational !asis in that
Nt"e 'e%ulation of &'ovocative d'ess fu't"e's t"e le%itimate state inte'est
in assu'in% t"at massa%e &a'lo's a'e not me'e subte'fu%es fo'
&'ostitution.O
Facts: Iwne and opeato of a health clu! featuing )assage sevices aised a due
pocess challenge unde the &outeenth A)end)ent to a cit" odinance that
egulated the hous of opeation and appopiate attie fo such esta!lish)ents. ,o
)assages fo) 94M to 11AM. 2he odinance was adopted !" the cit" unde its
police powe Nto potect athe healthG safet"G welfaeG aesthetics and popet" values
of the citi-ens of the cit" of Cente Line.O 4laintiF clai)s that the new law lac7s
easona!ilit" and validit"G since it violates the &outeenth A)end)ent.
(ssue: ;hethe 'MJ was pecisel" ganted and that the (efendantKs new law is
valid.
C", is im&o'tantD 'hows how Celotex is applied !" lowe couts. +f "ou want to
challenge a new lawG please !ing evidences.
!dditional (nfo: Cicuit cout decided that the new ule was easona!le and
enteed an ode ganting the cit"Ks #now )ovant% )otion fo su))a" ?udg)ent
and dis)issing the action. Huto) appealed and lostG since it failed to de)onstate
the existence of a genuine issue with espect to the easona!leness of the new ule.
Fede'al Civil 2'ocedu'e 2'et'ial and T'ial
Aene'al
+n fedeal coutG thee is a estiction that onl" cetain cases can !e !ought.
6ut thee is a lot of ?uisdiction that is concuent with the state cout.
(ecisions whee the case will !e =ledG whethe in the state o fedeal cout is
a )atte of fou) shopping in cases of concuent ?uisdiction.
2hee can !e )ultiple #enues that a defendant can !e sued in and "ou can
decide whee "ou will !ing suit.
Each fedeal cout will have its own local ules. 2he attone" needs to !e
ad)itted to t" in the cout.
$1
$.
;hen =ling a co)plaintG so)eti)es "ou )a" want to be sca'ce in the
co)plaint.
(onKt tell too )uch.
2he answe is t"picall" due within *0 da"s of sevice
2he pocess seve can !e used to seve the co)plaintG !ut the defendant
needs to pa" fo that
'o)eti)es the defendant can waive sevice and the paties can aange fo
the answe to !e seved
2'et'ial
Rule /2.b1 motions .*otions to dismiss1
+n esponse to the co)plaint "ou should loo7 if thee ae easons to dis)iss the
case due to:
/. Lac+ of &e'sonal .te''ito'ial1 )u'isdiction
.sahi case. Aalves )ade outside 8.'. and Asahi was not awae of it.
2he" could not foesee.
+ sue *a'cus in !labama.
2. Lac+ of sub)ect matte' )u'isdiction
+ go to &edeal cout with a state clai).
;e c'as" ca's wit" !le$ and ( sue "im in @.C.
8. (m&'o&e' venue .s&eci4c cou't1 Add NAenueO to <lossa"
+ sue Alex in !an7uptc" cout instead of
;ong distict #'.(.,.J.G E.(.,.J.%
0. (nsuScienc, of &'ocess
Jou sue )eG !ut "ou did not send )e the 'i%"t &a&e'.
F. (nsuScienc, of se'vice of &'ocess
E.g. "ou seved the pocess on )anito'.
O. Failu'e to state a claim
+ sue "ou !ecause ( donHt li+e ,ou' %lasses.
5. Failu'e to )oin a &a't,
2hee shall !e )ultiple paties and "ou fail to !ing the thid pat".
2hat is li7e insu'ance and consume' law cases.
A lot of the ti)eG the defendant will =le 1*#!%#1% clai) to dis)iss the
case.
(efenses unde 1*#!% #*%G #/%G #$% and #0% ae waived if the" ae not
included in )otion o esponsive pleading
-otice &leadin%
it is a shot state)ent that "ou have a !asis fo pesonal ?uisdiction and
su!?ect )atte ?uisdictionP
!ut when "ou =le a co)plaint whee "ou allege faud "ou need to !e detailed
#it is !ecause "ou ae alleging that so)eone co))itted faud intentionall".
$.
$3
Obli%ations of t"e !tto'ne, .Rule //1
law"es )ust sign the pleading that to the !est of thei 7nowledge afte
co)pleting a easona!le inBui" the su!)ission is coectP
the law"e needs to attest that the" ae not haassing an"oneP
thee needs to !e a !asis in factsP
the ule 11 )otion fo sanctions can !e =led to put pessue on the opposing
pat" if the pat" !elieves that thee was a violation of epesentations to the
cout.
+f attone" 7nows that his client is l"ing and is acting in !ad faith C attone" is
liable fo' dama%es of the o&&osite &a't,.
@iscove', .Rule 2O1
Jou ae obli%ed to &'esent all documents that ae elated to the case.
+n 8.'. C "ou fail to poduce docu)ent and the othe pat" poduces it and
poves that "ou ae l"ing. 2hat is obst'uction of )ustice C that /FG/0
,ea's in )ail.
;hen "ou lie in the cout C that is &u'%e',. 2hat is Martha Ste/art Case.
Co)panies should have docu)ent etention polic". +f "ou desto" the
docu)ent ealie C "ou ae as7 Macos. 2hin7 of 0nron Case. Athu
Andeson shedded the epots.
2he )ost extensive pat of the petial pocess
Jou cannot ta7e discove" of eve"thing: *1#!%#*%#i%Ediscove" uneasona!l"
cu)ulative o duplicativeG #ii% the pat" had a)ple oppotunit" to o!tain
info)ation and #iii% the !uden of expense outweighs the !ene=t
R2O .b1 sco&e of discove', #Negading an" )atte not pivileged that is
elevant to the clai) o defenseG including the existenceG desciptionG natueG
custod"G condition and location of an" docu)ents o othe tangi!le things
and identit" and location of pesons who 7now of an" discovea!le )atteO%.
o C"at is sco&eD
4esons in custod"G thei identit"G conditionsG locations.
o 'o)ething that is not wit"in t"e sco&e of discove', the law"e
cannot as7 fo it.
4lane cashed. Jou ae attone" fo victi)s.
Jou want to see epots fo cashes of this t"pe of attone".
But + also as7 fo info)ation on supplies of the chassis.
+n this case ( "ave to e$&lain 'easons w",.
2he cout can ode discove".
2he elevant info)ation does not need to !e ad)issi!le in cout if it leads to
ad)issi!le evidence.
@ocument &'oduction is ta7en seiousl"G so "ou )ust poduce docu)ents
that ae petinent to the suit. 2he wost thing that could happen is that the
docu)ent is desto"ed.
$3
$9
Settlement
2he ?udge wants to 7now what the settle)ent eFots weeP
'o)e cases ae now eBuied to go though )ediationP
'o)e cases now 'e?ui'e mediation.
2'et'ial O'de'
Jou t"picall" su!)it all of the ecods and evidence "ou ae going to use
Ju',
Citi-ens ae ando)l" selected to seve on cases
Jou can as7 fo an excuseG !ut the )ee fact "ou wo7 is not a eason to !e
excused
+t depends on the ?udge if a peson will !e excused
2he selected ?u" has to ta7e an oath that the" will not investigate the case
4eople who have pe?udice of the caseG such as 7nowledge of the caseG the"
will !e excused
2he law"es have a cetain nu)!e of sti7es when the" do not want a ?uo
to !e on the ?u"
Jou cannot sti7e !ased on ace
2hee ae also altenates that will !e in the coutoo)
8lti)atel"G the Buestion is will an"thing i)pede on the ?uos a!ilit" to hea
the facts fail"
Ju" nulli=cationE thee ae people who !elieve that ?u" can )a7e the law if
the" do not li7e the one in place
,ow the ?udges as7 Buestions to the ?u"G it was that the law"es could as7
the Buestions to the ?u"
O&enin% statement
+t is good to not )a7e too )an" po)ises in "ou opening state)ent
2he defendant does not need )a7e the opening state)ent
Citnesses
2he counsel cannot lead the witnesses.
Jou can pepae the witness and thin7 a!out the wa" the" will !est answe
the Buestions "ou ae going to pose
@u'in% t'ial
Ob)ections9
Afte close of the evidenceG thee is a confeence with the ?udge to dete)ine in
what context the ?u" would exa)ine the factsG what standad the" should appl". +f
it is a tot caseG the ?u" will !e instucted to )a"!e use the negligence standad. A
law"e who does not want so)ething to !e instucted to the ?u" needs to o!?ect.
$9
00
2hee could !e a motion fo' )ud%ment notwit"standin% t"e ve'dict.
2ial pactice is eall" challenging. +f "ou do not o!?ect to evidence !eing
ad)ittedG "ou need to o!?ectG othewise "ou lost "ou chance.
Ob)ection in limine C when thee ae Buestions that ae pe?udicialG and
"ou do not want the) to !e as7edG then "ou can =le that t"pe of )otion. Jou
can also o!?ect to the evidence in a petial confeenceG if "ou 7now what the
evidence will !eG !ecause the su!)issions of the paties will !e availa!le.
2hee could !e evidence that the ?udge does not 7now whee it is goingG he
)a" hold on deciding on the o!?ection.
As fo the witnessesG "ou will !e o!?ecting to the evidence as it is !eing
pesented.
Counsel )a" =le a motion fo' a di'ected ve'dict i.e. a decision that is
)ade !" ?udge befo'e the )u', sta'ts to listen to t"e case #i.e. !efoe
the" co)e in% that awads ?udg)ent to the defendant in criminal cases and
fo eit"e' of t"e &a'ties in ci#il cases.
Add to <lossa" http:@@en.wi7ipedia.og@wi7i@(iected_vedict
Exa)ple fo) ou case 6a7e v. McCollan C the Jw'on% b'ot"e'K case.
@omestic !3ai's
Case Law
:oun%stown Steel T Tube Co. v. Saw,e' .Steel Sei<u'e Case1 /6F2
1utcome
'.C. said the 4esident has no powe of sei-ue. +t is up to legislatos to decide.
'ee Jac+son concuence. 2hee ae thee ele)ents:
Authoi-ed !" Congess C expess.
Authoi-ed !" Congess C i)plied #Congess was silent%.
Congess 4ohi!its.
4esident is violating the t"i'd one.
'.C. applied Jac+son easoning in @ames v. *oo'e.
2hee is also one thing.
;hen the Congess was eviewing the 'ei-ue ActG the" too7 it out.
2he '.C. pointed at this while deciding this.
&AC2':
Apil $G 190* the 8nionKs notice of nationwide sti7e. 2hee is Hoean ;a
happeningP
00
01
2. T'umanKs executive ode to Saw,e'G 'eceta" of Co))eceG to ta7e
possession of )ost of steel )ills in ode to 7eep the) unningP
4esident exhausted )ediation pocedues upon (E&E,'E 4RI(8C2+I, AC2P
2he" wee not successfulP
'aw"e executed pesidential odeP
Co)panies o!e"ed the odeP
4esident sent two )essages to Congess in ode to epot the actions ta7enP
Congess did not ta7e an" action.
4o!le): thee was no e)egenc" declaed !" the Congess.
S.C. a&&lied it a%ain in @ames and *oo'e.
4RICE(.9.:
Co)panies !ought clai) against 'aw"e in (istict Cout
(istict Cout issued peli)ina" in?unction to estain 'aw"e fo) i)ple)enting
the pesidential odes
Cout of Appeal sta"ed the in?unction
'upe)e Cout ganted cetioai
&RAME;IRH MAJIR+2J:
;A' 29E AC2+I, I& 4RE'+(E,2 A829IR+]E( L
,I
29ERE +' ,I '2A282E
29ERE +' ,I R8LE I& CI,'2+282+I, A829IR+]+,< 4RE'+(E,2 2I IR(ER A
'E+]8RE +, 29E'E C+RC8M'2A,CE'
C(T= R#A!R@S TO T=# ST!TUT#: thee ae / diFeent statutes that can appl" to
this case.
LMRA 19$. #2A&2 9AR2LEJ%
(E&E,'E 4RI(8C2+I, AC2 1900
'ELEC2+AE 'ERA+CE AC2 19$3
2hese statutes atti!ute the ulti)ate coecive powe #to deal with the theat of a
seious wo7 stoppage% to Congess.
+n paticula the 2aft 9atle" 19$. eveals that the Congess had e?ected the
possi!ilit" of a goven)ental authoi-ation fo sei-ue #indeed the poposed
01
0*
a)end)ent had !een e?ected% and this is )ateial in the test delineated J. Jac7son
which has !een applied in seveal following cases !" 'upe)e Cout:
Jou should !alance the &ublic inte'est and t"e &'ivate &'o&e't,.
'ee Jac7son concuence.
,ot onl" thee was no statute.
Congess e?ected this a)end)ent.
Accoding to Jac7son #concuing opinion% the Executive Acts can !e a% authoi-ed
!" CongessP !% not authoi-ed !" CongessP c% a!solutel" inco)pati!le with an"
expess o i)plied will of Congess.
6ecause of the 2aft 9atle"G the ode of 4esident 2u)an in the instant case is to
collocate in the thid catego".
Against the agu)ent of 4esident that thee was a pu!lic inteest to potect:
Cout said that afte the Congess has enacted special ules thee is no space
an")oe fo a new !alance involving pu!lic inteest. 2he Cout can onl" intepet
the cited Acts
C(T= R#A!R@S TO T=# CO-ST(TUT(O-
.'eadin% t"e anal,sis of t"e Constitution +ee& in mind t"at fo' t"e ma)o'it,
t"e Sei<u'e O'de' "as le%islative natu'e1
At ++ : 4esident as Co))ande of the A)ed &oces : the sei-ue is not execise of
)ilita" powe. 'ince it involves pivate popet"G a sei-ue odeG also duing wa
ti)eG is a ?o! fo law )a7es not fo the Co))ande.
,o )onopol" of wa powes can !e atti!uted to the 4esident and athe the
Congess declaes the wa and povides fo suppl"ing a)ed foces
Also si)ila decisions involve necessail" expenses which ae authoi-ed !"
Congess
2he executive powe ganted to the 4esident . +t is ganted not fo )a7e laws !ut to
ta7e cae that the laws ae faithfull" executed
2he powes of the 4esident not enu)eated. 9oweve the pinciple of the
sepaation of the powes povides 'upe)e Cout with clea diections.
Against so)e agu)ents of 4esident:
2he <oven)ent cannot ague thatG fo the e)egenc" caused !" the sti7eG the
4esidential ode was ?usti=ed: an e)egenc" cannot ceate a powe that does not
exist. And athe the Congess has the powes to deal with e)egenc" included the
adoption of special pu!lic policies.
0*
0/
also it cannot !e agued that the 4esidential action is pefea!le !ecause )oe
eFective and expedite : #A<A+,% the atti!ution of the powes depends 'ILELJ on
what the Constitution sa"s. Ithe consideations ae i))ateial.
it cannot !e accept the theo" of the A829IR+]+,< 4A'2 4RAC2+CE
'ee =amdi case #usuall" the authoi-ing pactice is elevant if the Congess ati=es
that pactice !" )eans of statutes that expessl" ecogni-e these powes.
also it is e?ected the theo" of the inheent powes which is NvagueO see p.*00E*00
+n the dissenting opinion of Ainson R. Minton:
2he ole of 8nited 'tates in i)ple)enting teaties # no legislative natue !ut sei-ue
to enfoce congessional ules%
,o one of the cited Acts is inconsistent with a powe of 4esident to ode the
sei-ue
Also see)s that the 4esident co)plied with pocedue of the (efense 4od. Act and
then fo the e)egenc" has to act%
Steel Sei2ure Case in Dames an! Moore v. Re,an
29E 4RE'+(E,2+AL IR(ER' #which i)ple)ent the agee)ent 8sE +an in 1931%
aFect the ?udg)ent of the 8s Cout in favo of (a)es and Mooe against +an
the pesident has this powe !ecause +EE4A povides the 4esident with the powe
of declaing national e)egenc"
also the +C'AE&'+A Acts
also cases law
)oe geneall" the 'upe)e Cout found a longstanding pactice ati=ed !"
Congess
so if it cannot !e held that Congess expessl" authoi-ed this poweG howeve
#following Jac7son fa)ewo7% the Congess has not expessl" o i)plicitl" excluded
this powe. 'o ++ catego" in Jac7son test.
-ewman v. United States
Outcome case not ?udicia!le !ecause of political Buestion.
2he othe ci)inal wanted the sa)e deal as his !udd". 9e wanted out of the ?ail.
Cout said: it is up to Attone" <eneal to do what he wants.
.(ssue political Buestion doctine and powe of the 4esident
upon at ++ to ta7e cae of faithful execution of laws%
1. A22IR,EJ <E,ERAL A,( LA;JER ;IRH+,< 8,(ER 9+M ARE C9AR<E( ;+29
29E M+''+I, 8,(ER AR2 ++ CI,'2.2I 2AHE CARE 29A2 LA;' ARE &A+29&8LLJ
E\EC82E(
0/
0$
T"ese a'e cases of mal&'actice a%ainst !tto'ne, Aene'al.
4laintiF said 8.'. Attone" <eneal violated EBual 4otection doctine.
'ee Ba+e' v. Ca'' fo political Buestion.
Attone" <eneal is independent !ut she is also epots to the 4esident.
*. 29E '84REME CI8R2 CA, 8,(ER2AHE L+M+2E( REA+E; +, REA+E;+,< 29E
AC2+I,' I& 8' A22IR,EJ:
Couts have egulal" ecogni-ed discetion of the Executive in deciding the
following issues:
when and whethe institute ci)inal poceedings
what chages shall !e )ade
whethe to dis)iss a poceeding
so the sa)e esult follows when dealing with: to initiate poceeding and to
voluntail" te)inate.
2he 8s attone" has discetion in enfoce)ent and ,ew)an cannot clai) a
violation of Constitution #\+A a)end. EBual potection clause% !ecause he was
efused the sa)e plea ganted to codefendant
+f thee is so)ething gave C the 'upe)e Cout )a" &'oceed. 6ut that is not the
case.
'ELEC2+A+2J +, E,&IRCEME,2 +' ,I2 A+ILA2+I, I& CI,'2+282+I,:
Ithewise it would !e negate the discetion that the 8s attone" is expected to
execise
AL'I 29E 8' A22IR,EJ +' A E\EC82+AE I&&+C+AL I& 29E <IAER,ME,2
4esident has enough disciplina" powes to deal with possi!le )isconduct #it is not
?o! fo ?udicia" to eview the 8s attone" actions%
9I;EAER MERELJ M+'CI,(8C2' ARE 2I 6E (+'2+,<8+'9E( &RIM (EC+'+I,
+RRA2+I,AL IR 8,CI,'2+282+I,AL. +, 29+' CA'E 29E CI8R2' CA, 'AJ ;9A2 +'
,I2 CI,'+'2E,2 ;+29 CI,'2+282+I,.
Fede'al #$ecutive 2owe' 2'ivile%es and (mmunit,
Conce&ts
A!solute and 5uali=ed +))unit"
0$
00
o A!solute i))unit" is eBuied fo &ublic &olic,
o IQcials ae i))uni-ed onl" fo thei actions in the oScial dut,
Malicious +ntention
Add Lessons.
Case Law
U.S. v. -i$on 2F8
Facts $ "osture
,ixon )oves to ?uas" t"e sub&oenaP
Moves to e$&un%e t"e %'and )u',.
(istict cout denies ,ixonKs )otion and odes hi) to poduce docu)ents.
,ixon evo7es pivilege.
Cou't sa,s: this pivilege is not to !e used to !e a!used.
/. 'pecial 4osecuto secued indict)ent against . ,ixon aides and in the
ci)inal case sought docu)entsG including tapesG fo) ,ixon unde 'u!poena
(uces 2ecu).
2. ,ixon esisted and his counsel =led special appeaance and )oved to Buash
the su!poena !ased on a clai) of executive pivilege.
8. At a heaing on the )otionG ,ixon also =led )otion to expunge gand ?u"
action na)ing 4esident as unEindicted coEconspiato and fo potective
ode as to the eBuested info)ation
0. (istict cout denies ,ixonKs )otion and odes hi) to poduce the
docu)ents !" a cetain date
F. ,ixon had pesu)ptive pivilege !ut oveco)e !" 'pecial 4osecutoKs
demonst'ation of com&ellin% need.
Ide sta"ed pending appeal.
Case gets !efoe 8' 'upe)e Cout #in less than a )onth%
2he posecuto co)pelled #povide geat evidence% the cout to ignoe the pivilege.
2he legiti)ate need of ?udicial pocess outweighs the pivilege.
Justice #na)e% in ,ixon #"ea%
'upe)e Cout heldG aQ)ing the denial of the )otion to BuashG that:E 2he
pesidentKs geneal pivilege of con=dentialit" did not extend to an a!solute
pivilege of i))unit" fo) all ?udicial pocess. 6ecause the special posecuto had
00
01
de)onstated a speci=c need fo the evidence sought !" wa" of su!poena and had
co)plied with the eBuie)ents of ule 1.#c%G it was pope to co)pel poduction
and to exa)ine the )ateial in ca)ea. 2he legiti)ate needs of the ?udicial pocess
outweighed executive pivilege.
,ixonKs =st agu)entE45(
;hen Executive see7s docu)ents fo) the Executive isnKt it a political Buestion
!ecause the dispute is su!?ect to the Constitutional co))it)ent unde Aticle ++L
,o.
&istG )ee assetion of the 45( clai) without )oe is not enough. +t does not
defeat fedeal ?uisdiction
'econdG 8nde aticle ++ : *Congess has given the Attone" <eneal the authoit" to
conduct ci)inal investigationsP conducting ci)inal )attes is in the A<Ks no)al
couse
2hidG Attone" <eneal can delegate to 'pecial 4osecuto and this was done unde
a speci=c egulation
&outhG Attone" <eneal is out of the pictue. 'pecial posecuto now has explicit
powe to contest the invocation of executive pivilege dee)ed elevant to his
delegated duties.
U&J+G unde the egulation 3 )e)!es of Congess would need to appove e)oval
of the 'pecial 4osecutoV
&ifthG issue aises in egula couse of ci)inal case unde &edeal Law and Aticle +++
couts have authoit" to esolve such )attes
'econd point: pivilege
4esident sa"s no o!ligation to poduce docu)ents in esponse to the su!poena
!ecause the" ae con=dential and would !e inconsistent with pu!lic inteest to
poduce the)
;hat is standad fo eviewing distict coutKs decision of pivilegeL
,o)al case: sound discetion of the tial cout
2his case: eview should !e Npaticulal" )eticulousO. Cout ecogni-es the
i)potance of cicu)stances.
'u!Epoint 1: ?udicial eview #sepaation of powes% #pg*1/%
Cout geneall" defes to othe coEeBual !anches 682
8nde Ma!u"G this Cout dete)ines who has =nal sa" on whethe a pivilege
exists
8nde Ma!u"G this Cout need not el" on ExecutiveKs dete)ination of application
of the pivilege
Cout has peviousl" execised powe to dete)ine whethe a clai) with espect to
expess powe is authoi-edG so should !e a!le to do so as to i)plied powe of the
4esident
01
0.
'u!Epoint *: pivilege !ased on need fo con=dences
Enu)eated powes do give ise to cetain pivileges although not stated in the
Constitution
'u!Epoint /: pivilege !ased on 'epaation of 4owes
2he Executive is an independent !anch and to )aintain independence it should not
!e su!?ect to a su!poena issued !" the &edeal Cout
(oes 4esident have a!solute pivilegeL ,o. #pg*1$%
Mee clai) of pivilegeG without assetion of need to potect )ilita"G diplo)atic o
sensitive national secuit" secetsG is not enough to counte an" di)inishing of the
pivilege !" having 4esidential docu)ents poduced in ca)ea to the distict cout
,o a!solute pivilege #contKd% #pg*10%
+f thee wee an a!solute unBuali=ed pivilege it would cetainl" intefee with
Aticle +++ ci)inal tials #legiti)ate needs of the ?udicial pocess%
Advesa" s"ste) gives confontation ights to the accused
Advesa" s"ste) authoi-es due pocess of law
;eigh geneal pivilege of con=dentialit" vesus fai ad)inistation of ci)inal
?ustice
4ocedual safeguads
'u!poena issued
Assetion of pivilege #)ateial teated as pesu)ptivel" pivileged%
4osecuto then )a7es so)e showing to e!ut pesu)ption of pivilege
Ide in ca)ea inspection of the su!poenaed )ateial
Additional pocedual safeguad
+n ca)ea pocedue: no docu)ents evealed to an"one until (istict Cout has
)ade thoough eview
(istict Cout dut" to assue that ielevant@inad)issi!le info)ation is excised
Excised )ateial etuned to the 4esident in con=dence
Cout ac7nowledges thee is a pesu)ptive pivilege fo 4esidential co))unication
which allows fo opeation of <oven)ent and is ooted in sepaation of powes.
9oweveG it )ust !e consideed in light of the ule of law. Cout weighs the pivilege
against the aFect on the ad)inistation of ci)inal ?ustice. Cout !asicall" sa"s it
will not cause advise to te)pe thee e)a7s !ecause of the possi!ilit" of
convesation !eing called fo in posecution. 6utG it will geatl" aFect the ci)inal
tial and !asic function of the couts. #pp. *11E*1.%
<eneal inteest in con=dentialit" cannot pevail ove speci=c need fo evidence in a
ci)inal tial.
0.
03
Lessons of the Case
=a'low v. Fit<%e'ald 250
Judg)ent den"ing the i))unit" defense was vacated and 'emanded.
Facts
&it-gealdG fo)e goven)ent e)plo"eeG sued * ,ixon aides and ,ixon ove
wongful te)ination.
Aides and ,ixon =led M'J !ased on a!solute i))unit" !ased on. Motion denied as
to aides. +))ediate appeal ta7en.
Cout held that: the fact that aides wee entitled to ?uali4ed immunit, would !e
defeated O-L: if the" +new o 'easonabl, s"ould "ave +nown that the action
violated the plaintiFKs constitutional ights o if the action was ta7en with malicious
intention to cause a depivation of plaintiFKs constitutional ights.
<ovt. oQcials get so)e i))unit"
5uali=ed i))unit" is no) fo )ost executives. <ovenosG ca!inet )e)!esG etc.
A!solute i))unit" eBuies a showing that pu!lic polic" eBuies the exe)ption not
the )ee fact of the high station.
6uden of ?ustif"ing a!solute i))unit" est on oQcial asseting the clai)
Responsi!ilities of oQce e)!ace a function so sensitive to eBuie a total shield
Aide was dischaging the potected function when pefo)ing the act fo which
lia!ilit" is assets
+f aides wee deivativel" i))une then Ca!inet )e)!es would !e i))une
a!solutel"
2o get Buali=ed i))unit" what )ust !e shownL
AQ)ative defense which )ust !e pleaded
8suall": I!?ective ele)ent: what is the oQceKs positionP what was he doing
8suall": 'u!?ective ele)ent: oQces own state)ent as to what he 7new@his
intentions
<oven)ent oQcials pefo)ing discetiona" functions %ene'all, a'e s"ielded
f'om liabilit, insofa as conduct @O#S -OT violate cleal" esta!lished statuto"
o constitutional ights of which a easona!le peson would have 7nown
03
09
@issent Justice Bu'%e' cites Gravel which discussed i))unit" fo legislative
aides aising fo) a!solute i))unit" fo )e)!eKs. Justice 6uge !elieves that the
cout in Harlo/ unde'mines t"e functionin% of t"e OSce of 2'esident.
Lessons of the Case
Clinton v. Jones 256
Facts
2aula Jones !ought civil ights clai) against 2'esident Clinton and oSce'
Fe'%uson elating to acts that occued !efoe Clinton was 4esident. Jones clai)ed
&eguson aanged fo he to )et ClintonG who ten )ade i)pope advances at he
#w"ic" s"e 'e)ected% and afte the incident he supeios teated he !adl" and
&eguson defamed he !" calling he a lia.
'ought to suspend case !ased on i))unit" gounds #no discove"P no tial% until
afte his 4esidenc" is ove (istict cout denied )otion to dis)iss. 9eld: no tial
until afte 4esident is out of oQce !ut allowed discove".
6oth sides appeal. Eighth Cicuit allowed discove" and allowed tial.
Before Supreme Court
,o i))unit" fo acts that occued !efoe 4esident #unoQcial conduct% and can
stand tial even while as 4esident
+ssues
Rationale fo aFoding i))unit" to cetain pu!lic oQcials fo) suits fo )one"
da)ages aising out of oQcial acts does not appl" to unoQcial conduct
;hat a!out need to have 4esident who can ful=ll At. ++ duties and not have Cout
intefee with sepaation of powes
Cout has authoit" to dete)ine whethe acts ae constitutional and 4esident is
su!?ect to ?udicial pocess
Cout is )eel" pefo)ing its Aticle +++ duties
;onKt esult in a Dood of litigation
Lessons of the Case
09
10
Fede'al #$ecutive 2owe' Fo'ei%n !3ai's
Le%islation
At. ++G section 1: executive powe vested in the 4esident
At. ++G section *: Co))ande in Chief
At. ++G section *: powe to )a7e teaties su!?ect to 'enate consent
At. ++G section *: appoint a)!assadosG pu!lic )inistesG su!?ect to 'enate
consent
At. ++G section /: eceive a)!assados and othe pu!lic )inistes
At. ++G section /: shall ta7e cae that the laws ae faithfull" executed
Conce&ts
&o the 4esident to actG he should have powes eithe in At ++ o should have
authoi-ation !" an Act of Congess.
Couts usuall" defe to 4esident on &oeign AFais.
2he" execise li)ited ?udicial eview.
Case Law
@ames T *oo'e v. Re%an
4esidential ode validP (>M lostG had to go to 9ague to ecove.
,acts
,ational E)egenc" declaed. (>M sue the +anian govt. and !an7sP o!tain peE
?udg)ent odes. Executive odes passedE a% nullif"ing attach)ents and
tansfeing assets to &edeal 6an7 in ,J. !% suspending all clai)s and legal
poceedings against the +an goven)ent and tansfe these to ti!unal at 9agueE
this was pusuant to a settle)ent agee)ent 8'E+an. A&2ER thisG (>M o!tained
?udg)ent and attach)ent odes against <ovt. of +anG +anian 6an7s etc. Exec
Ides passed to i)ple)ent this agee)entE execution of (>M attach)ent odes
sta"ed.
-rocedural .istor)
(>M theefoe =led a suit fo declaato" and in?unctive elief against 8' and 'ec"
of 2easu" see7ing to pevent the enfoce)ent of the executive odes
i)ple)enting the agee)ent. (C denied the )otion. A)end)ents wee )ade to
the egulationsE 2easu" dept )andated the tansfe of !an7 assets and othe
=nancial assets of +an to &edeal 6an7 of ,J. (istict Ct this ti)eG enteed an
in?unction pohi!iting tansfe of an" asset su!?ect to wit of attach)entG
ganish)entG ?udg)ent.. etc. 4etitione then =led this wit in the 'CG which was
ganted.
1pinion
Rule:
1. 2he 4esidentKs powe .. to issue the ode )ust ste) eithe fo) an act of
the Congess o fo) the Constitution itself.#6lac7. J.%
10
11
*. +f thee is expess@i)plied authoi-ation fo) the CongessE then 4esident
execising own plus delegated powes fo) the CongessE 'tongest
pesu)ptions of validit". #Jac7sonG J.% UJoungstownV
2he 4esidential odesE a)ounts to two acts: need authoit" fo these:
a. ,ullif"ing attach)ents and odeing tansfes: <ovt elied upon :*0/ of
+EE4A: Cout ageed.
Also 4etitione poceeded A&2ER 2easu" had issued evoca!le licenses
authoi-ing such poceedings and attach)ents i.e afte the settle)ent was
eached and executive odes passedE too7 it with ,I2+CE of contingent
natue of its inteestE i.e suspension of clai)s. 2his wa"G since it is a
contingent inteestP ta7ings clause #no ta7ing of popet" w@out ?ust
co)pensation% also not invo7edE since no de=nite popet" inteests have
attached.
!. 'uspending the clai)s: ,o de=nite statute. Ct loo7ed at <eneal teno and
held that it suppots 4esidential action. Justi=ed sa"ing the Congess cannot
anticipate eve" action that needs to !e ta7en !" the 4esident. &ailue to
delegateG esp in aeas of foeign polic" does not i)pl" disappoval. Cout
then loo7s at the histo" E Jugoslavia 2i!unalsG ceation of +ntenational
Clai)s Co))issionG and also past agee)ents have !een enteed into !"
8'A. Re?ected agu)ent that At +++ couts wee divested of thei poweE said
onl" suspended the clai)sP not divestedE clai)s could !e evived if
Lessons of Dames $ Moore
Ma7e sue "ou have an authoi-ation #at least i)plied% to act with foeign
aFais. U,ote the cout said: &ailue to delegateG esp in aeas of foeign polic"
does not i)pl" disappoval.V
Joungstown b c (>M: +n JG Congess had expessed disappovalP elated to
do)estic aFais
Contingenc" C (a)es > Moe got the ?udg)ent afte the settle)ent.
+f "ou have the powe in the Constitution o in the Act of Congess C ,ou a'e
OM to %o.
4esident has no authoit" to divest At. / couts of thei ?uisdiction.
Cou't said no divest)ent of ?uisdiction. 9e onl" suspended the) !efoe
the ?udg)ent is endeed.
=amdi v. Rumsfeld
4etitione has due pocess ightsG got out of the pison in exchange fo his suende
of citi-enship.
,acts
9a)diE a 8' citi-enG was captued in Afghanistan in *001G allegedl" having lin7s to
the 2ali!anG detained in <uantana)o !a" and then shifted to a naval !ig in Aiginia.
<oven)ent contended that 9 is an aene)" co)!atantKE which ?usti=es holding hi)
inde=nitel" w@out fo)al chages o poceedings. 9Ks fathe =led a ha!eas copus
11
1*
petition in the easten distict of Aiginia. Inl" piece of evidence on !oad: Michael
Mo!!s declaation: opined a!out 9a)diKs involve)ent with a 2ali!an )ilita" unit
which had tained hi) to use a weapon.Uheasa"V
Ma#ority3 4. 15Connor
(oes the executive have authoit" to do thisE detain citi-ens who Bualif" as ECL
1. Authoi-ation fo 4esidential odes: Cout agees to congessional authoit"
!ac7ing pesidential ode in this caseG though the A8M& passed in *001 #Nuse
all necessa" and appopiate foce against those nationsG ogani-ations o
pesons he dete)ines plannedG authoi-edG co))ittedG o aided the teoist
attac7sW. N%. A8M& does not )ention aciti-ensKG !ut it applies to all individuals.
*. 13 8.'.C. :$001#a% is not the Congessional authoit" !ecause it applies to
civilian detentions and not )ilita" pisons li7e this one. ,ote: :$001#a%
pesci!ed cetain pocedues which govt did not followP would have held it to !e
due pocess violationP 9Ks detention would have !een illegal.
;hat pocess is due to a citi-en who disputes his ene)" co)!atant statusL
1. 9 agues )eaningful and ti)el" heaingE hee the entie detention was !ased on
Mo!!s (eclaationE an aQdavit !ased on thidEhand heasa". 9 agues 0
th
and
1$
th
a)end)ent ights violated. 9 contends that a due pocess heaing is
eBuied wheein he could challenge Mo!!s (ecl and e!ut it.
*. <ovt. agued that 9Ks sei-ue was in a co)!at -one and the dete)ination of his
status was )ade theeP the ha!eas dete)ination is onl" a Buestion of law. <ovt
futhe agued that this dete)ination was entitled to defeence fo) the couts
and theefoe thee can !e no futhe fact =ndingP onl" eview #on the sepaation
of powes doctine%.
/. 'C tied to !alance !oth of these legiti)ate concensE pivate inteest b c
!uden of a geate pocess and sti7es the constitutional !alanceE Ct held
pesu)ption in favou of govtKs evidence is fai as long e!utta!le. (efeence to
evidence to !e given onl" to that which co)es out of an advesaial factE=nding
poceedingE hee no pio poceedingE theefoe no defeence to !e given to
Mo!!s (ecln.
2he citi-en detainee gets these ights:
,otice of factual !asis fo classi=cation #necessa" fo audi altea)
pate)@ ight to !e head% #includes )eaningful ti)e and )eaningful
)anne%
&ai oppotunit" to e!ut <ovt.Ks factual assetions !efoe a neutal
decision )a7e.
/hat &as held in this case0
'ince 9 was a citi-enG due pocess ights appl" to hi)G even in a )ilita" ti!unalG at
a )ini)u) level li7e the ight to !e headG especiall" when the onl" evidence
1*
1/
availa!le is heasa"G which he has a ight to e!ut in the heaing. 2he est of it was
to see if thee was authoi-ation fo detentionG whethe due pocess was followedG
0
th
and 1$
th
A) ights applica!le to dispute his e@c status.
1. 2homas( 3issent
'ee the tone: 4esident has constitutional authoit" to potect national secuit".. and
!oad discetion. <oven)ent detention of 9 does not violate the constitutionP
eceived all pocess he was due unde the cicu)stances.
1. Souter and 4insburg( dissenting in part
Concued that 9 had due pocess ightsP !ut disageed that A8M& authoi-ed 9Ks
detention #assu)ing 9Ks designation as e@c was coect%. :$001#a% enacted in
anticipation of such ti)esE e)egencies etcE eBuied clea congessional authoit".
,o pocedual potectionE )ight leave citi-ens su!?ect to a!ita" action. A8M& did
not povide the eBuisite congessional !ac7ing fo 9Ks detention fo the puposes of
:$001. 5uali=es Jac7sonG J. in Joungstown: 4esidential auth is at its lowest e!!
when 4esident acts conta" to congessional willE except in genuine e)egenciesE
wheein the e)egenc" powes ae li)ited !" the e)egenc" and not polonged in
ti)e. 9eld 9a)diKs detention is fo!idden !" :$001#a% and unauthoi-ed !" A8M&E
would e)and. <ovt also clai)ed <eneva Convention applied to 2ali!an detaineesE
violatedE BuestionedL
Lessons of Ham!i
=amdi is a citi-en and he has due pocess ights.
9is detention is illegal.
2he 2owe' of e$ecutive cannot ove''ide the Constitution.
2hat is violation of !mendment > and !mendment U(>.
*obbs decla'ation was the onl" piece of evidence availa!le fo classif"ing
hi) as the ene)" co)!atant. Cout sa"s: we will not defe' to t"e
evidence with egads to which the defendant was given no c"ance to
'ebut.
Con%'essional !ut"o'it,
Conce&ts
<eneal the)e: Law )a7ing authoit" of Congess v. 'tate legislatueG exa)ine
Aticle +G 'ection 3: Co))ece ClauseG necessa" and pope clause: +ntepetation
i)potantP depends on the ideolog" of the ?udges. 4o!le)s: dawing the lines.
ConstitutionEd su!)itted to people of 8' !" a Convention of delegates fo) 'tatesG
'tate legislatues and the CongessEd appoved !" peopleEd ati=ed and adopted
the ConstitutionEd <ovt of 8' and laws unde the ConstitutionEd '84REME.
2heefoeG Constitution deives authoit" fo) the people and not states. #McCulloch
v. M(%
1/
1$
Constitution deives its powe fo) the peopleG not fo) the states.
Case law
*cCulloc" v. *a',land
6an7 of 8' opened !anch in 6alti)oeG M(. 'tate of M( levied tax on all !an7s
opeating in M( that ae not incopoated unde M( law. ,onEco)pliance with the
tax entailed lia!ilit" fo !an7Ks pesidentG cashiesG and oQces. 6an7 of 8' did not
pa" the tax. McCulloch #a !anch )anage% was =ned !" the Count" Cout and this
was con=)ed !" the Appeals Cout in M(.
+f the fedeal !an7s ae taxed !" the statesG Congess executes its powes
eQcientl".
Ceation of the !an7 is the powe of ceation.
2axation is the powe of dest'uction.
Ma"land cannot 2ax 8.'.
Ma"land is paticulaG 8.'. is geneal.
4aticula cannot tax geneal.
Congess has a choice of )eans to execute its powes.
+ssues
Congessional Authoit" to incopoate a !an7P 'tate of M(Ks powe to tax this
!anch.
4owe to incopoate a !an7 not within the enu)eated powes in At +. Cout =nds
it in at +G sec 3E ,ecessa" and pope clause. An" )eans can !e e)plo"edG
anecessa"K does not con=ne the CongessK choice of execution to a single )eansP it
is not a!solute necessit"G )oe on the lines of co))on sense and needfulE sec 3 is
an additional poweG not a estiction upon those alead" ganted.
2he powe to aise evenue d a powe to conve" )one" fo) place to placeEEd
powe to incopoate a !an7 as a necessa" and pope )eans of execution
4owe of taxation !elongs to the 'tatesG not a!idged !" the gant of a si)ila
powe to the 8nionEconcuentl" execised. 9oweveG the paa)ount chaacte of
the constitution ad)its to itselfG the powe to withdaw an" su!?ect fo) the action
of this powe. e.g.: expots and i)pot duties. 6" analog"G an execise of this poweG
epugnant to the constitutional laws of the 8nionG )a" !e estained. 2hee
coollaies: a. powe to ceate d powe to peseveG !. powe to desto" wielded !" a
diFeent hand is hostile to these powes. c. authoit" that is supe)e contols.
2axation of the )eans of the 8nion !" M( in eFect i)pais execution of union lawsE
i.e. a stateKs powe to tax contols and desto"s the 8nionKs powe to ceateE a
epugnanc". 2heefoeG which is supe)e and contollingL
1$
10
Authoit" of state to tax d people of the stateG wheeasG Means e)plo"ed !" the
8nion govt d people of all the states fo the !ene=t of all. M( cannot execise
soveeignt" and contol ove so)ething that it does not have authoit". 2heefoe
the )eans of 8nion <ovt should !e su!?ect onl" to the govt that !elongs to allE the
8nion and not to one that onl" !elongs to people of one stateE M(. Also the )eans
e)plo"ed ae )ade unde the constitution which is supe)e.
<eneal powe to taxE can tax paticula stateP 4aticula powe to taxE cannot tax
geneal. 8nion goven)ent can tax state institutions and constituents. 'tates
cannot tax 8nion institutions and constituents.
Aibbons v. O%den
2hee wee two licenses. 'tate one and fedeal one and the fedeal won.
Ipeation of stea)!oats !etween ,J and ,J: <i!!ons opeated unde license fo)
a Congess law wheeas Igden had a license fo) the 'tate of ,J giving hi)
exclusive authoit" within ,J. I sued < in ,J cout clai)ing <Ks opeation of !oat
violated IKs exclusive license. ,J uled fo I and < appealed to 8' 'C and won.
Co))ece Clause: at +G sec 3G cl /E apowe to egulate co))ece with foeign
nations and a)ong seveal statesWK. 2he intepetations of Nco))eceO and
Nco))ece a)ong seveal statesO ae at issue. AlsoG the state law b c fedeal law
conDict and which one pevails.
If couse ,J disli7ed <i!!ons fo) ,J.
<i!!ons appealed.
'.C. said: navigation !etween states is comme'ce clause.
CongessG not ,J has to issue licenses.
Co))ece is not esticted to state !oundaies onl".
+s anavigationK within co))ece powe of CongessL +f noG 8nion has no diect powe
ove that su!?ect and cannot )a7e laws egading this.
A s"ste) to egulate co))ece !etween nations !" its natueG cannot !e silent on
laws concening navigation.
4owe egulating a)ecian vessels has !een execised fo) the co))ence)ent of
the govt. with the consent of all and accepted as a co))ecial egulation.
4owe of 8nion govt to i)pose e)!agoes also indicates undestanding of the te)
Nco))eceO as including navigation
2heefoeG navigation has alwa"s !een conte)plated to !e within the )eaning of
the te) Nco))eceO.
2his co))ece powe extends to co))ece with foeign nationsG a)ong seveal
states and with +ndian ti!es. +t conte)plates eve" species of intecouse !etween
foeign nations and it caies the sa)e )eaning thoughout the sentence unless an
intelligi!le cause altes it.
Co))ece aa)ongK states: li)ited to co))ece concening one state o )oeG not
applica!le to exclusivel" intenal co))eceG and not necessail" li)ited at the
extenal !oundaies of each state i.e. extenal concens of the nationsG intenal
10
11
concens that aFect states geneall" and not those which ae co)pletel" within a
paticula state.
Extent: Co))ece of 8' with foeign nations is that of the entie count"P aFects
eve" state and distict. CongessK powe to egulate )ust !e execised wheeve
the su!?ect exists. 'i)ilal"E co))ece a)ong statesE can !e conducted !etween
states e)ote o close to each otheG theefoe is aco))ece with statesK. Congess
can egulate navigation elating to co))ece with foeign nations and a)ong the
states o +ndian ti!es and )a" pass the ?uisdictional lines of the states.
Can state law egulate co))ece with foeign nations and a)ong the states while
congess is egulating itL Congess has li)ited powes extending ove the entie
count" and the state has esidual powes ove onl" the state. Adoption of state
laws !" the congess does not )ean congess laws ae contolled !" the state.
;hethe the collision exists !ecause of concuenc" of powes o powes to egulate
do)estic aFaisG the law of ,J should "ield to the law of congess.
Conflict 0etween laws of state) passed in e1ercise of their sovereignty and laws of Union) passed 0y the
congress pursuant to the Constitution) 23 435 affect the su06ect matter li7e equal opposing powers. 5his
applies to even those state laws that do not transcend the powers 0ut interfere with/conflict/contrary to the
laws of congress made in pursuance of the constitution or treaty. 5he framers of the constitution declared
the constitution and the laws enacted under it supreme) state laws yield to them.
+ssues
;hee do "ou daw the lineL Al)ost eve" tade activit" in a state aFects intestate
co))ece. ,o tul" local poduct. Law developed afte <i!!ons stengthening
fedeal govt.Ks powe except ove activities li7e )anufactuingG poduction and
)ining which wee within state govt.Ks powes.
2ests ove the ages:
&edeal egulation of intestate co))ece which eBuied incidental egulation of
intastate co))ece wee upheld.
(iectEindiect eFects of intastate co))ece upon intestate co))ece dete)ine
if the egulation was within the congessK powes. (iect eFectsE "esP indiect
eFectsE no. Uwages > wo7ing hous Y indiectV
Close and su!stantial elation: depated fo) the diectEindiect test. Matte of
degeeP if esta!lish close and su!stantial elation to intestate co))ece that thei
contol is essential o appopiate to potect fo) !udens o o!stuctionsG then
egulation !" congess is valid.
;ic7ad test: activit" whethe local o not in the natue of co))ece )a" !e
egulated if it exets su!stantial econo)ic eFect on intestate co))eceP
iespective of whethe diectEindiectG even tivial.
Iute li)its: scope )ust !e consideed in light of dual s"ste) of goven)entP not
extended to e)ote and indiect eFects on intestate co))ece which o!liteate
the distinction !etween nationalElocal and centali-e the goven)ent.
;ic7ad intepeted in ;it- as sa"ing de )ini)us chaacte of individual instances
!eas no eFect on the validit" of the geneal egulato" sche)e.
2heefoeG thee categoies of egulation:
8se of channels of intestate co))ece
potect instu)entalities of intestate co))ece o pesons o things in intestate
co))ece though the theat is fo) intastate activities
11
1.
activities that have a su!stantial elation to intestate co))ece U8,CLEAR CA'E
LA;V
&inal conclusion in the addendu): test is to see whethe the egulated activit"
asu!stantiall" aFectsK intestate co))ece.
E ;hat is su!stantialL (ecide on a case !" case !asis.
#?ual 2'otection Race T #ducation
Conce&ts
2he 8.'. Couts appl" the strict scrutiny test as a standad of eview in
ace issues. As wellG the couts eview 'emedial &olicies o aS'mative
action to edess negative eFects of past unfainess.
=isto'ical issues Afte the Civil ;aG slave" was a!olishedG and as a
conseBuence the 8.' Constitution was a)ended to assue eBual potection to
all the pesons #1/thG 1$th and 10th A)end)ents%. 9oweveG a s"ste) of
acial disci)ination e)ained thoughout so)e states.
Jim C'ow laws wee state and local laws in the 8nited 'tates enacted
!etween 13.1 and 1910. 2hese laws pe)itted acial segegation in all pu!lic
facilitiesG with a Tsepaate !ut eBualT status. 2his pactice was 7nown as de
%ure segegation.
+n -less) v. ,ergusonG the 8.'. 'upe)e Cout upheld the constitutionalit" of
de ?ue segegation !" upholding the constitutionalit" of a Louisiana law that
eBuied ailwa" caiages to have Jse&a'ate but e?ualK facilities fo whites
and coloed people.
Le%islation
1$
th
A)end)ent
Case Law
B'own v. Boa'd of #ducation
;ith 6ownG the 'upe)e Cout ovetuned the holding of -less) !" allowing
integation in pu!lic schools.
Facts an! Decision
!f'ican !me'ican c"ild'en fo) HansasG 'outh CaolinaG AiginiaG and (elawae
!ought a class action against Boa'ds of #ducation and ot"e' institutions to
o!tain ad)ission to the pu!lic schools of thei co))unit" on a non segegated
!asis. 2he alleged that the sepaate facilities violated the eBual potection of the
laws unde the eBual potection clause of the 1$th A)end)ent .
1.
13
6ecause of the i)potance of the issue the 8.'. 'upe)e Cout gouped the cases
and eview if Nsepaate !ut eBual facilitiesO in schools violates the eBual potection
clause. 2he Cout found that indeed the N'epaate !ut eBualO ule is inheentl"
uneBual. AlsoG the Cout upheld that education is special and is the )ost i)potant
function of state and local goven)ents. 2heefoeG the Cout concluded that
education is theO ve" foundation of good citi-enshipO and oppotunit" of an
education is a Night which )ust !e )ade availa!le to all on eBual te)sO. 2he Cout
decided that the plaintiFs wee depived of the eBual potection of the laws.
,onethelessG the Cout did not consideate the extent of the appopiate elief in
these t"pe of cases.
1ther 6ey issues
E Re)ed": what does it )ean to have eBual potectionP aQ)ative
actionL Racial integationL
E 191$ Civil Rights Act: withhold funds to states that continue acial
disci)ination
E De #ure v. !e facto segegation still exists afte 5ro&nG !ecause
!ette schools wee situated in nonE)inoit" neigh!ohoodsG fa awa"
fo) the AficanEA)eican neigh!ohoods
E Hoe)atsu case: con=ne)ent of Japanese citi-ens > JapaneseE
A)eicans !ased on Ntheatened dangeO doctine.
Lessons of the Case
A)end)ent 1$ did not wo7. Couts held that sepaate facilities did not
violate the Constitution. "lessy was decided afte the A)end)ent 1$ and it
said that segegation was eBual. '.C. oveuled it.
(onKt )ix it with the pio decision of 1900G S/eatt v. "ainther. +n that
case the 'upe)e Cout held that the EBual 4otection Clause eBuied that
the petitioneG who had !een denied ad)ission to the 8nivesit" of 2exas Law
'chool solel" !ecause of his aceG !e ad)itted. 9oweveG the decision did not
expessl" oveule the doctine of Nsepaate !ut eBualO.
Cou't "eld: segegation was in"e'entl, une?ual.
A'utte' v. Bollin%e'
Facts an! Decision
2he 8niv. of Michigan Law 'chool #Bollin%e' was the pesident of the 8nivesit"%
adopted an ad)issions polic"G which was intended to achieve divesit" a)ong the
student !od". 2he polic" ai)ed the enolling of a TRcitical )assR of )inoit"
studentsP !utG it did not de=ne divesit" onl" in acial te)s. 2he polic" wanted to
achieve a Dexi!le assess)ent of individual talentsG expeiencesG and potential to
conti!ute to leaning. 2heefoeG each candidate loo7ed at independentl". Ba'ba'a
A'utte'G a white applicantG with a /.3 <4A and 111 L'A2G was not ad)itted to the
'chool. 'he sued Law 'chool oQcials and othes clai)ing disci)inationG the eBual
potection clause of the 1$
th
A)end)ent and 2itle A+ of the Civil Rights Act of 191$G
13
19
!ecause ace is the pedo)inant facto fo the ad)issions and the 8niv. had no
co)pelling inteest to ?ustif" thei use of ace in the ad)issions. 'he eBuested
co)pensato" and punitive da)agesG an ode eBuiing the 8niv. to oFe he and
ad)ission and an in?unction pohi!iting the Law 'chool fo) continuing to
disci)inate on the !asis of ace.
+n this case the 'upe)e Cout found that the 8nivesit"Ks polic" did not violated
the 1$
th
A)end)ent of the Constitution !" the use of ace in the ad)issions
pocess. 2he Cout clai=ed that e)ed"ing past disci)ination is not the onl"
goven)ental use of ace that can suvive stict scutin". 2he Cout upheld that the
Law 'chool has a co)pelling inteest in attaining a divese student !od".
Additionall"G the Cout upheld that the Law 'choolKs ad)issions plan uses naowl"
tailoed )eans to achieve thei goals.
Dissenters
Re"n?uist: nu)!es of applied@ad)itted wee consistent with the nu)!es of
)inoit" goups.
2his is not a Dexi!le polic"G that is a Buota.
Scalia: )eans of achieving divesit" ae diFeent. 2he )eans that the 8nivesit"
uses ae !ad and not the onl" availa!le.
Lessons of the Case
4efeences to the acial !ac7gound violate A)end)ent 1$.
St'ict sc'utin,: )eans e)plo"ed should !e naowl" tailoed to achieve
com&ellin% %ove'nmental inte'est.
2hee is co)pelling goven)ental inteest in ensuing divesit" in schools.
#?ual 2'otection Comme'cial and Aende'
Statutes
EBual 4otection Clause in the 1$th A)end)ent. 2his clause doesnKt state that a
diFeent standad of eview applies !ased on the conduct at issueP nevethelessG
the 'up. Cout has developed diFeent standads of eviewG depending on the
conduct !eing egulated. A elativel" lax standad is applied to goven)ent
egulations that disci)inate !ased on co))ecial activit" that is unelated to aceG
ageG gendeG etc.
Conce&ts
'tict 'cutin" test.
Less 'cutin" test.
19
.0
Case Law
Cilliamson v. Lee O&tical
Law in I7laho)a is constitutional.
(ispute: Ipticians in I7laho)a canKt =t lenses o eplace the) while
ophthal)ologists and opto)etists canP law doesnKt appl" to ead"EtoEwea glasses.
Challenged unde E4C. Cout defes to the I7laho)a lawP 'ational basis test is
t"e'e a le%itimate state inte'est and is t"e law 'ationall, 'elated to it.
Case that disci)inated against opticians in I7laho)aP sa"ing that the" canKt =t
cetain lensesWonl" sell eadE)ade @ ead"Eto Ywea glasses.
2his was onl" eseved fo the ophthal)ologists@ opt
2he level hee is )uch loweWno concens of co)pelling state inteests # such as
ace disci)ination%Wso the theshold is lowe cause we ae onl" dealing with a
co))ecial activit" and s7ills.
2he co)pelling inteest hee ae pedo)inantl" health Y !asedW.in co))ecial
issue ensuing that when the pple of I7laho)a get glassesG the" ae =t in a cetain
wa".
4o!le) heeWthe HEMats etc can still sell ead" to wea glassesWhow do "ou deal
with thatL
Cout will ,I2 )ico)anage legislation in co))ecial issues.
Co))ecial @ co)pelling inteestL
(ecision is shot !ecause the Cout did not have to do )uch anal"sis.
T"e'e a'e 8 t,&es of JO2TOK &eo&le
8nde the law the opticians wee not allowed to eplace the lenses.
Su&'eme Cou't of O+la"oma 2his is unconstitutional.
T"is is &u'el, comme'cial.
*ic"ael *. v. Su&e'io' Cou't of Sonoma Count, ./68/1
;e need to potect wo)en fo) the)selves.
2ea'nel
Law u&"eld as Constitutional.
6o"s unde age can !e ci)inall" chaged and even go to ?ailG !ut the paticipating
wo)en @ gils wonKt even !e chaged.
Califonia Law: IFense fo a )ino )ale to engage in sexual intecouse with undeE
age fe)alesW
.0
.1
Facts <il gets 4<G gu" goes to ?ail fo causing the pegnanc". Jou ae
disci)inating !ased on gende.
;hat should the 2E'2 !eL 'hould we appl" the st'ict sc'utin, standa'dL +s this
as !ad as ace disci)inationL
Test ./1 %ende' classi4cation must se've an important ,overnmental
ob#ectiveR and .21 !oes classi7cation bear a substantial relationship to the
ob#ective
As Applied
I!?ective: pevention of illegiti)ate teen pegnancies
Statute is suScientl, 'elated to t"e ob)ective
4o!le)s with the anal"sis:
9isto" of the Califonia law was !ased on assu)ption that "oung wo)en wee
incapa!le of consenting to an act of sexual intecouseP #gils would not do
the 7ind of acts that )en would% ;e ae not eBuiing gils to !e esponsi!leW
"et the acts eBuie two people.
Law was not shown to eFectivel" dete )ino fe)ales fo) having sexual
intecouseP
<ende neutal solution is possi!le and not shown to !e less eFective than the
Califonia law
,ote the polic" ationale: 2he eal pupose is to potect the chastit" of thei gils.
Justice RE,598+'2W the se$es we'e not simila'l, situated in elation to the
pupose of this ci)inal lawG which was deteence. Justice RehnBuist said that onl"
fe)ales can get pegnantG so onl" fe)ales have the natual deteent of fea of
pegnanc" to 7eep the) fo) engaging in undeage consensual sex. 'ince )ales do
not have this !iological deteentG the state )a" i)pose ci)inal penalties Nto
oughl" aeBuali-eK the deteents on the sexes.O #2he is7 of pegnanc" itself
constitutes a su!stantial deteence to "oung fe)ales. ,o si)ila natual sanctions
dete )ales. A ci)inal sanction i)posed solel" on )ales thus seves to oughl"
NeBuali-eO the deteents on the sexes.%
Justice RE,598+'2 sa"s: we CA,,I2 intude on ou pecedentWwe ae ,I2 going
to teat it the wa" we teat Race disci)ination.
*ississi&&i Unive'sit, fo' Comen
8nivesit" fo gils onl" is unconstitutional.
,@6 E(8CA2+I, +' (+&&ERE,2S Re)e)!e 6own v 6d of Education.
TwoG&a'ts test .Bo'en Test1
.1
.*
Legiti)ac" of I!?ective: Mississippi state: =x past in?ustices #IH%
(iect o su!stantial elationship !etween )eans.
2hee was no elationship !etween t"e &u'&ose and the )eans.
*ississi&&i failed this pat.
9aving disci)ination against )en is not a good solution.
2hee wee othe univesities.
C"at if t"e'e was no ot"e' unive'sit,D
2hat would !e OM.
Man canKt get into all fe)ale nusing school #M8;%. 9ogan wanted to go to the 8niv
fo ;o)en !ecause it was a few !loc7s fo) his digs. ,otion of what M+ is t"ing to
doWe)ed" past in?usticesWwo)en have !een disci)inated upon in the past in
cetain
Justice IKConno #fe)ale ?ustice%
'tate 8nivesit"Wthis was onl" to consist of ;o)enW.M+Ks agu)entG weKve !een
disci)inating against wo)en so now weKe t"ing to =x this. Also assu)ing that
onl" wo)en can !e nusesWS
(istict CoutP used the ational elationship to ?ustif" su))ail" dis)issing this
caseG sa"ing that 9ogan failed to tende a factual issue.
8sing the ;illia)son ve" low standadS
29+' +' ALL J8'2 A 68,C9 I& ,I,E'E,'ESS +t is the cout =tting the fact pattens of
all these cases within the 1$th A)end)entKs witing.
+ssue: (oes M8; violate E4C. Answe: Jes
;h"L
Miss. T)ust ca" the !uden of showing an aexceedingl" pesuasive ?usti=cationK fo
the classi=cation
Restates BOR#- T#ST .im&o'tant %ovtHl ob)ective and law is substantiall,
'elated to ac"ievement of t"e ob)ective1R need to appl" easoned
anal"sis@thow awa" gende assu)ptions.
I!?ective of aQ)ative action to e)ed" past disci)ination is not an i)potant
one in the context of Mississippi. 9eeG the univesit" failed to show wo)en lac7ed
oppotunities fo taining in nusing.
,ot convinced that the lawKs actual pupose is to e)ed" past disci)ination
&ails second pat as no showing )ade that the gendeE!ased classi=cation
su!stantiall" and diectl" elated to poposed co)pensato" o!?ective
Men ae allowed as auditosP 9aving )en in class doesnKt aFect teaching@)en donKt
do)inate
.*
./
4o!le)s: Inl" one )an is co)plaining M onl" ha) to hi) is he has to dive M
'ingle sex has !ene=ts M &ustates li!eating spiit of E4C M Can )eet 6oen test.
Ine of the po!le)s is the )eans though which it the polic" was pusued !ecause
)en could even assist to classes theeG the evidence doesnKt suppot this
steeot"pe that the school alleged. Jou want to encouage wo)en to pusue
nusing. 2he Constitution pohi!its disci)ination !ut fo) statesG so what a!out
pivate schoolsG the" can sa" the" donKt need the state )one" and do as the" want.
F'eedom of S&eec"
8nited 'tates Constitution: 1
st
A)end)ent clause that TCongess shall )a7e no law
a!idging the feedo) of speech.T clause applies to the laws of the 'tates though
its incopoation unde the 1$
th
A)end)ent.
-: times v. Sullivan ./6O01
2his is !mm. ( M !mm. U(>.
+n ode to suvive ,J2 used !m. U(>.
;h"L 2hee was no 'tatute.
'ettingG (uing the Civil ights )ove)ent in the 10s Matin Luthe Hing J.
Montgo)e"G Ala!a)a getting eve"one allied up on the issues. ,J2 uns an ad
doesnKt )ention 'ullivan diectl" and spea7s of acts that too7 place in Montgo)e".
(ispute aose and 'ullivanG the Montgo)e" police co))issioneG sued fo li!el in
Ala!a)a cout against individuals and ,J 2i)es aising fo) the ad.
+n Ala!a)a 'ullivan won !ecause of libel &e' se instuction.
Hnew it was falseP
;anted to in?ue.
2he onl" defense thee is t'ut".
'.C. aised the !a: "ou have to pove actual malice fo &ublic 4%u'es #note:
O-L: fo &ublic 4%u'es1.
+n ode to pove actual malice "ou have to go to pesonKs )ind.
2hat is al)ost i)possi!le.
6ut if "ou do thatG "ou get actual and punitive da)ages.
'.C. did not ?ust e)and the case. 2he" e)anded wit" 'ead, to use )u',
instuctions.
2hat is a N)ud%e c'aftin%O.
./
.$
,I2E
aJudge CaftingKWthis was necessa" in this caseG given the hostilit" that was
pesent in the 'tate of Ala!a)a. 4efect exa)ple of wh" 4. Co))issione =led suit
in the local Ala!a)a coutG 7nowing that it was fiendl" to hi)Wagainst the 6+< 6A(
,J papeS
,I2E
6ibel per seP +f "ou can pove so)eone sa"s so)ething that is consideed li!elous
pe se@li7el" to cause legal in?u"G then the falsit" and )alice ae pesu)ed and
hence <eneal da)ages ae pesu)ed to !e due.
7ctual malice needs to !e poven fo thee to !e an awad of 4unitive da)ages
2ial cout instucted ?u" to assu)e that ads wee Tli!elous pe seT and not
pivilegedG so petitiones lia!le if the ?u" found the" had pu!lished the ads and the
state)ents wee Tof and conceningT 'ullivan. Li!elous pe se i)plies thee will !e
legal in?u" as a esult of pu!lication. &alsit" and )alice pesu)edP theefoe
geneal da)ages ae pesu)edP i.e do not have to !e alleged@poven. 2he Cout
efused to chage ?u" it )ust !e convinced of )alice and that the" should
diFeentiate !etween actual )alice and li!el pe se.
5ues: ;h" is the lac7 of instuction on )alice i)potantL
E8nde Ala!a)a lawG canKt get punitive da)ages E soG donKt 7now if the da)ages
ae lin7ed to )alice. Result !elow: 'ullivan wins [000G000
,J 2i)es challenged awad on &ist A)end)ent and &outeenth A)end)ent
gounds. Revesed and endeed in ,J 2i)es favo
5ues: ;h"L
Ala!a)a Cout standad violated &ist A)end)ent
As to pu!lic oQcialsG )ust show actual )alice
Rule: a pu!lic oQcial is pohi!ited fo) ecoveing da)ages fo a defa)ato"
falsehood elating to his oQcial conduct unless poof state)ent )ade with actual
)alice Y with 7nowledge that it was false o with ec7less disegad of whethe it
was false o not
5ues: ;h" need fo actual )aliceL RationaleL
E4u!lic discussion is essential and onl" li)ited except in ae cicu)stancesG
paticulal" tue in citici-ing goven)entG
EA ule peventing citicis) would lead to selfEcensoshipP thatKs wh" we have fee
speech and fee asse)!l"
EIQcials put the)selves out thee #love to !e in the font line so the" have to get
the heat accodingl"%.
EIQcials can coect wong state)ents
=oldin%
Appeal decision evesed > endeed in ,J 2i)es favo. 'upe)e Cout loo7s at
ecod and =nds no actual )alice
5ues: ;h" did Cout do this and get so involved in the detailsL
.$
.0
8ote the 1
st
A)end)ent spea7s of 9Congress not ma$ing a la& that:.abridges the
"reedom o" speech;
+n this caseG thee is no law of Congess that has !een violated.
5ues: 9as thee !een a violation of 'tate lawL 2he li!el pe se ulesW6ecause it is
)oe of a state law violationG we tun to the 1$
th
A)end)ent.
E+n going into the details of the factual develop)ent and esta!lishing that thee was
an aeoK with the instuctions that the ?u" wee given and conseBuentl" an eo in
the =nding that thee was aactual )aliceK !" the 'upe)e Cout )eans that this
case is oveWit has !een e)anded !ac7 to the Ct of Ala!a)a who have no choice
682 to ente a ?udg)ent in favo of the ,.J. 2i)es.
5ues: ;h" is thee a ule to pove actual )alice fo pu!lic oQcialsL +t is a!out the
)a7et !ut also !ecause of the people feedo) on how do u want to expess
"ouself.
5ues: C"o is a &ublic oScialL +tKs had to )eet the actual )alice standad !ut it
can !e done. 4u!lic oQcials have the a!ilit" to coect an" state)ents the" feel ae
incoectG ha)fulG false etcWso !ecause the" have avenues fo coectionP can use
all the )edia instu)ents to coect itG the standad is highe.
(efa)ation can consist of eithe li!el o slande. Li!el involves a false witten o
pu!lished state)ent while slande is a false oal state)ent. (efa)ation is t"picall"
a cause of action that aises unde state law.
'ince 8e/ 9or: imes v. SullivanG the 8.'. 'upe)e Cout has shaped the
de=nition of a apu!lic =gueK !e"ond those who ae )eel" pu!lic oQcials. A peson
who achieves Tsuc" &e'vasive fame o' noto'iet,T is a pu!lic =gue fo all
puposes and in all contexts. Gert2 v. Robert ;elch, <nc.. A peson can achieve
notoiet" in li)ited instances and thus !eco)e a li)ited pu!lic peson. As Justice
RehnBuist wote in 2imes, <nc. #. ,irestoneG $*$ 8.'. $$3 #19.1%G public =gures
includes persons &ho >thrust themsel#es to the "ore"ront o" particular public
contro#ersies in order to in?uence the resolution o" the issues in#ol#ed.>
>i'%inia v. Blac+ .20081 .&8O81
>! statute invalidated. 6ut MMM cannot intimidate people. 2he ?u" instuction
that the coss !uning is illegal pe se was wong. 6ut if thee was actual )alice C
6lac7 would go to the ?ail. 2hat is what happened to t"e ot"e' %u,.
6lac7 did it on his popet" C that is his po!le).
2he othe gu" did it on his neigh!oKs popet" C that is a po!le).
2he goven)ent can loo7 at each case sepaatel".
Loo+ at slide V/F.
NBlac+O hee is HHH )e)!e.
.0
.1
Congess cannot )a7e an" law that a!idges feedo) of speech.
2his is staight !mm. (.
2hee was >! C'oss Bu'nin% Statute.
2hat is wh" no !mm. U(> is needed.
(ntent to intimidate.
2his is diFeent fo) the a!ove ,J 2i)es case !ecause it concens a state
egulating the aspeechK of the paties.
'etting: Coss !uning in the context of HHHWto inti)idateG incite feaW!ut also an
expession of solidait" !etween )e)!es of HHHWand in that egad "ou could not
infe intent to incite violence.
2he HHH do not alwa"s )eet and tal7 a!out violentG ci)inal acts etcWso)eti)es
the" watch the coss !un and sing A)a-ing <ace.
HHH had !een aFoded the ight to )ach in Jewish neigh!ohoodsWand the
count"@co))unit" had to invest in secuit" when these )aching.
(ispute: / ci)inal cases involving cossE!uning in violation of AA law that pohi!its
cossE!uning with intent to inti)idateP
Under the la&( an) burning o" a cross shall be prima "acie e#idence o" an intent to
intimidate a person or group o" persons.
Cases
6lac7Ks case: ?u" instucted that cossE!uning is suQcient evidence fo) which "ou
)a" infe the eBuied intent
IKMaaKs case: pled guilt" with ight eseved to challenge constitutionalit"
ElliottKs case: ?u" not instucted on intent
All found guilt"
EAppeal to AA 'upe)e Cout which stuc7 down the law as unconstitutional in
eliance on R.A.A v. 't. 4aulP 9EL( that it disci)inates !ased on content since it
selectivel" chooses onl" coss !uning !ecause of its distinctive )essage.
'ee 'L+(E 10 #13
th
Class% fo 9isto" on what happened !efoe 'upe)e Ct.
Me, 2oints
(istinction of R.A.A v. 't. 4aul #odinance !anned cossE!uning when done with
7nowledge that the conduct would Taouse angeG ala) o esent)ent in othes on
the !asis of aceG coloG ceedG eligion o gendeWK disci)inated !ased on content%
RAA ecogni-ed that cetain content disci)ination does ,I2 violate the 1
st

A)end)ent.
5ues: ;hat 7ind of content !ased disci)ination +' allowedL
'tates allowed to !an:E
&ighting wods
Advocating use of foce whee the advocac" is diected to inciting o poducing
i))inent lawless action and is li7el" to incite o poduce such actions.
.1
..
2ue 2heatsP state)ent whee spea7e )eans to co))unicate a seious expession
of an intent to co))it an act of unlawful violence to a paticula individual o goup
of individuals. e@A2hreats against the -resident : threats o" #iolence are outside o"
the ,irst 7mendment
I!scenit" that is patentl" oFensive in its puience
AA can !an coss !uning with an intent to inti)idate !ecause cossE!uning is a
paticulal" viulent fo) of inti)idation
6ut what AA CA,,I2 do is authoitativel" tell the ?u" that all cossE!uning is pi)a
facie evidence of an intent to inti)idateW.
;hile couts give considea!le defeence to feedo) of speech o expession the"
also ecogni-e that the <ovt can egulate speech o conduct !ased on ti)eG place o
)anne.
+n )an" instancesG the speech o conduct )a" ovelap with nonEpotected ele)ents
with the latte giving ise to the need fo goven)ent egulation. An exa)ple of the
egulation occued in Butrom Corp. #. Center 6ine. 8nde United States # C*5rienG
goven)ent egulation is pe)issi!le if it:
#a% is suQcientl" ?usti=ed within the goven)entKs constitutional poweP
#!% futhes an i)potant o su!stantial goven)ental inteestP
#c% is unelated to the suppession of fee expessionP and
#d% Tif the incidental estiction on alleged &ist A)end)ent feedo)s is no geate
than is essential to the futheance of the inteest.T
Ex of !uning the 8' DagG vs <aQtti on a pu!lic !uildingL...note that in the 8'G it is
lawful to !un DagS
2he appoach is that these actions ae )eel" aexpessionsK of oneKs !eliefs.
Justice IKConno does not have a po!le) with the statute egulating the act of
coss !uning when this is ai)ed at intending to incite fea and inti)idationWthee
was a cicula povision that stated that thee was a pesu)ption that the !uning of
the cosses is done with the intent to inti)idate.
&ea of i))ediate ha)P the cout will ta7e the step to !alance that ha) in favo of
afeedo) of speechK.
To'ts
Conce&ts
2ot law is the !od" of law that addessesG and povides e)edies foG civil
wongs not a'isin% out of cont'actual obli%ations.
o +t is a ceatue of State Law
o +t coves !oth accidents and intentional acts
2ot lia!ilit" aises out of:
o (ntentional acts and unintentional acts.
..
.3
o St'ict Liabilit, C "ou ae esponsi!le even if "ou donKt have an"
fault.
8suall" this is consume' law.
o -e%li%ence
,egligence is failu'e to act with the 'e?ui'ed standa'd of
ca'e.
@ut, of Ca'e C whethe the acto has the dut" to act with a
cetain standad of cae in elation to the victi).
&inall"G tot lia!ilit" 'e?ui'es occu''ence of an in)u', to a legall" potected
inteest
o Applies to pesonalG )ateial o e)otional da)ages
+n ode to have lia!ilit" "ou have to:
o Act with a violation of the dut, of ca'e.
o 6e negligentG do )alpactice #failue to act with a eBuied cae%.
o Case in)u', #)ateialG ph"sicalG e)otional%.
o Eve" state has its own limits .ca&s1 on da)ages.
@ama%es should )ean C + a) co)pensating "ou.
o ;ith &unitive dama%es C + a) punished fo doing so)ething + a)
not expected to do.
Judge wants to )a7e a point.
Case Law
Mission Petroleum Carriers) *nc. v. +olomon #$,
;as thee dut" of cae o notL
Facts
Mission =ed 'olo)on !ecause he failed d'u% test given unde (epat)ent of
2anspot #(I2% egulations. -ow "e canHt %et a new )ob; because t"e test
'esults in "is 'eco'ds. 'olo)on clai)s that Mission was negligent in not
execising easona!le cae in conducting his testing. 2he tial and appellate couts
ecogni-ed the violation of dut" of cae and convicted Mission.
,ot onl" 'olo)on lost a ?o! C "e canHt %et )ob an,w"e'e else.
Relevant "oints
'olo)on was an atEwill e)plo"ee #he could have !een =ed at an" )o)ent
without ?usti=cation%
2he test was conducted unde (I2 egulationsG which povided fo
pocedues fo 'olo)on to challenge the test esult
.3
.9
Decision by the e<as Supreme Court
Co)pan" "as no dut, of ca'e to the e)plo"ee.
!tGwill em&lo,ee an e)plo"ee not unde contact who can be
te'minated fo' an, nonGdisc'iminato', 'eason. 'o his te)ination !"
itself does not violate an" ights no gants a cause of action.
E)plo"e did not own a dut, to use easona!le cae when collecting uine
fo a dug test unde (I2 egulations.
o (I2 egulations povide administ'ative measu'es to c"allen%e
t"e test 'esults
'olo)on failed to 'eso't to such )easues.
o Congess =!S -OT AR!-T#@ a cause of action fo (I2 violations
Regulations povide fo =nes and penalties fo not following
poceduesG !ut does not give individuals a pivate cause of
action.
o 2he existence of the dut" is a Buestion of law: Ris7G foeseea!ilit"G
li7elihood of in?u" v. social utilit" of the actoKs conductG )agnitude of
!uden of guading against in?u" and conseBuences of placing !uden
on the defendant
2he 'upe)e Cout ecogni-es that false &ositive tests can
cause in)u',G BUT !elieves that the 'e%ulato', sc"eme in
place Nsti7eUsV an a&&'o&'iate balance !etween the need fo
eQcient dug testing and the eBuie)ent that each e)plo"ee
have the )eans to insist on t"e inte%'it, of the pocessO.
Class Comments
2he issue of the existence of a dut" of cae in this case should !e decided !"
the ?u". 2he lowe couts held thee was a dut" of cae !ecause 'olo)on
could not =nd an" ?o! !ecause of the esult of the dug test pefo)ed !" the
co)pan".
2he fact that Solomon was an atGwill em&lo,ee aFected the esult.
Lessons of the Case
+n cases whee statutes o egulations esta!lish speci=c o!ligations and
coesponding safeguads and e)edial )easuesG couts cannot ceate
additional o!ligations o Ndut" of caeO.
Crain v. Cleveland !odge #-.
+s the co))ecial esta!lish)ent esponsi!le fo so)ething that is happening on the
pa7ing lotL
.9
30
Facts
Cain !eaten up in the pa7ing lot of *oose Lod%e. 9e sues *oose Lod%e
clai)ing that did not use easona!le cae in secuing the pa7ing lot.
Decision by the Mississippi Supreme Court
4laintiF )ust show #a% the dut, owed hi) !" the Moose LodgeP #!% a b'eac"
of that dut"P #c% dama%esP and #d% a causal connection !etween the
!each and the da)agesG such that the !each is the poxi)ate cause of his
in?uies #!asic ele)ents of tot lia!ilit"%.
2hee was no legal dut" of cae !ecause the assault was not foeseea!le.
Meel" !ecause so)eone owns a !usiness and a guest co)es to the !usiness
doesnKt )ean the" insue all conduct outside of thei pe)ises.
&oeseea!ilit" should !e !ased on the pio incidents tests #whee !usiness
owne )ust conside whethe si)ila incidents occued in the past% and not
in the totalit" of cicu)stances tests #whee !usiness owne )ust conside
the possi!ilit" of incidentsG a test which ceates al)ost an stict lia!ilit"%.
9eeG Moose Lodge "ad onl, two 'e&o'ts of c'imes on t"e &'emisesP
evidence a!out the vicinit" didnKt esta!lish that attac7 was foeseea!le.
Mechants should not !e o!liged to engage in the functions of police foce.
@issentin% o&inion: &oeseea!ilit" is Buestion to !e decided !" the ?u".
Class Comments
(oes the goven)ent o the school have the dut" to )aintain secuit"L In
the pivate popet"G does the owne have the dut" to )aintain the secuit"
on the popet"L
9ow fa is the dut"L 2hee will !e a !alance. 2hat is wh" we have insuance.
'eving alcohol to dun7en people is )oal dut"G not legal dut"L 6a tendes
and ownes of !a have the legal dut".
Fo'eseeabilit,: is this decided !" the ?u" o the ?udgeL 2he ?u" will also
aise the dut" fo the goven)ent. 2he cout will !e )oe consevative and
)oe appopiate to decide the dut".
+f it is ove egulatedG the wold cannot function.
Lessons of the Case
2he point in elation to the dut" of cae is foeseea!ilit"G Ae "ou actions #o
o)issions% li7el" to cause a da)age to a thid pat"L
!i v. /ellow Ca0
2hee is a ca cash and !oth paties ae to !la)e.
30
31
Facts
Ca accident whee !oth paties at fault.
(ue to plaintiFKs negligenceG defendant won. +s 4laintiFKs own negligence a
co)plete !a to ecove"L
Decision by California Supreme Court
-O. 2he old ule of conti!uto" negligence is gone. ,ew ule: co)paative
negligence in a pue fo)G which appotions lia!ilit" in diect popotion to
fault.
Cont'ibuto', ne%li%ence was esta!lished !" Califonia legislatue following
the intepetation of the couts at the ti)e #co))on law%. 2he legislatue did
not intent to esta!lish a new standadG !ut athe to consolidate the standad
then applied !" the couts.
Contentious issues aising out of the application of the co)paative
negligence standad #such as the existence of )ultiple patiesP willful
)isconduct !" one@so)e of the patiesP the last clea chance and assu)ption
of is7 doctines% ae to !e esolved !" the ?uies !ased on the guidelines to
!e esta!lished !" the couts on a caseE!"Ecase !asis.
Lessons of the Case
2he couts have favoed negligence citeia that guaantee that negligent
paties will !e held lia!le fo the da)age the" cause to the extent of thei
fault.
Cout can so)eti)es change the law though a change of the intepetation
of the te)s of the law.
Jou have conti!uto" negligence and co)paative negligence.
Cont'ibuto', ne%li%ence: 90X to 10X. ,one gets the da)ages.
Com&a'ative ne%li%ence: 90X to 10X. 4evailing pat" gets 30X of
da)ages.
Most of the states use co)paative.
@issent 6ut how to decide the pecentageL
*a)o'it, the ?u" will decide that. 2he ?udge will instuct the ?u".
Tedla v. #llman
2hee is a li)it to how negligent the plaintiF has to !e in ode to ecove.
+f that is )oe than 00X C he is )oe esponsi!le. 'oG in this case C no da)ages.
9oweveG loo7 at the cont'ibuto', ne%li%ence ve" close.
Facts
4edestians wal7ing on the w'on% side of t"e 'oad a'e "it b, a ca'.
31
3*
N<eneal pinciple that o)ission !" a plaintiF of a safeguadG pesci!ed !"
statuteG against a ecogni-ed dange; constitutes ne%li%ence as )atte of
law which !as ecove" fo da)ages caused !" incidence of the dange fo
which the safeguad was pesci!edO. @'ive' claims that &edest'ians we'e
ne%li%ent.
Ithe side had ve" "eav, incomin% t'aSc. 2he cout found that
&edest'ians we'e not at faultG !ecause the" ignoed the ule !ecause of
the fact that com&l,in% wit" t"e 'ule would &ut t"em in %'eate' 'is+.
;hat the statute does povide is ules of the oad to !e o!seved !"
pedestians and !" vehicles. A geneal ule of conduct C andG speci=call"G a
ule of the oad C )a" acco)plish its intended pupose unde usual
conditionsG !utG when the unusual occusG stict o!sevance )a" defeat the
pupose of the ule and poduce catastophic esults. Aiolation of such statute
in unusual cicu)stances is not necessail" negligence.
Decision by ===
Lessons of the Case
,egligence is failue to execise the cae eBuied !" law. 2his does not
mean that %ene'al 'ule of conduct intended to pevent accidents must be
followed even unde conditions w"en obse'vance mi%"t cause
accidents.
Co'&o'ations
Basic conce&ts
@e'ivative action e a lawsuit !ought !" a copoation shaeholde against the
diectosG )anage)ent and@o othe shaeholdes of the copoationG fo a failue !"
)anage)ent.
Class action e a lawsuit !ought !" one o )oe plaintiFs on !ehalf of a lage
goup of othes who have a co))on inteest.
Fiducia', duties of t"e boa'd of di'ecto's .Bo@1
dut" of lo"alt": which povides that the diectos )ust act in %ood fait" and in
t"e best inte'est of t"e co'&o'ation and not engage in selfEdealing o usup
copoate oppotunitiesG and
dut" of cae: use of 'easonable cae in )a7ing copoate decisions and the dut" to
!e info)ed of all )ateial info)ation easona!le availa!le !efoe )a7ing a
decision.
6o( has to 'e&o't eac" and eve', decision the" )a7e in the co)pan" )inutes.
'haeholdes can alwa"s loo7 !ac7 at the decision and dete)ine.
3*
3/
Business )ud%ment 'ule
;hen evaluating the actions of the 6o(G couts have adopted a standad of ?udicial
eview 7nown as the Tbusiness )ud%ment 'ule.T 2his is done to avoid )anages
!eing afaid of decision ma+in%. 2hee is pesu)ption that "ou ae acting in the
good faith.
<eneall" statedG t"e 'ule &'esumes t"at t"e boa'd acted inde&endentl,;
wit" due ca'e; in %ood fait"; and in t"e "onest belief t"at its actions we'e
in t"e s"a'e"olde'sW best inte'ests.
2hee ae two aspects to the ule:
&istG couts will not su!stitute thei ?udg)ent fo the !oadRsG and
'econdG the !oadRs action will !e !ased on the info)ation that was availa!le at
the ti)e a decision was )ade.
2husG if the !oadRs action was not cleal" iesponsi!le at the ti)e it was )adeP the
!usiness ?udg)ent ule should !e a co)plete defense to an" clai) that the !oad
violated its =ducia" dut".
+n class action "ou see7 elief on "ou !ehalf and fo "ou poc7etG in deivative
action "ou sue on be"alf of t"e co'&o'ation and fo its poc7et.
(n Re Calt @isne, Co. Sec. Liti%.
+hareholders lost.
F!CTS
2he 6oad 7new ve" little. Class action as 6a7e v. Ca. Clai)ing faud unde
secuit" laws. causation of false state)ent. Reliance on )ateial fact Y alleged
wong info)ation. &aud on the )a7et theo": eliance not so )uch on )ateial
state)ent !ut on stoc7 )a7et as it eDects the state)ent. 9adl" possi!le to e!ut
the theo".
2isney +toc7holders "Plaintiffs% allege that the Walt Disney 0oard of directors "defendant%
oversight as to a fundamental corporate issue and 0reached their fiduciary duties) in the hiring of
a new president for the 8alt 2isney Company " a 2elaware company%. 2isneys CE3) Michael
Eisner) 0rought in his friend) Michael 3vit9) as president of 2isney) ":% without any review of the
employment contract 0y the Bo2 and Compensation Committee and ";% without holding
ade<uate record=minutes esta0lishing that ade<uate 6udgments was made 0y the Bo2 and
Compensation Committee.
After 0arely a year) 3vit9 failed as president and the Bo2 impliedly approved a non-fault
termination "and not for fault% of the contract that resulted in an award to 3vit9 of > :'.)...)....
2ROC#@UR!L =(STOR:
Plaintiffs see7 rescission and=or money damages from defendants and 3vit9) or compensation for
damages allegedly sustained 0y 2isney and disgorgement of 3vit9?s un6ust enrichment.
3/
3$
(SSU#
8hether the derivative claim should 0e e1cused 0ased upon futility.
++C rule that prohi0its fraud in the stoc7.
4ot only there was a negligence of the Bo1 0ut also they continuously and rec7lessly regarded
their responsi0ility. @ec7less has a higher standard than negligence.
Minutes were incomplete. 5hey did not e1plain the decisions.
=OL@(-A
Plaintiffs? new complaint sufficiently alleges a 0reach of the directors? o0ligation to act honestly
and in good faith in the corporation?s 0est interests for a Court to conclude) if the facts are true)
that the defendant directors? conduct fell outside the protection of the 0usiness 6udgment rule. 3f
course) the alleged facts need only give rise to a reason to dou0t 0usiness 6udgment protection)
not Aa 6udicial finding that the directors? actions are not protected 0y the 0usiness 6udgment rule.
Plaintiffs? allegations support claims that fall outside the lia0ility waiver provided under 2isney?s
certificate of incorporation.
5he practical effect of the ruling is that defendants must answer the new complaint and plaintiffs
may proceed to ta7e appropriate discovery.
R!T(O-!L#
5he facts) if true) do more than portray directors who) in a negligent or grossly negligent manner)
merely failed to inform themselves or to deli0erate ade<uately a0out an issue of material
importance to their corporation. *nstead) the facts alleged in the new complaint suggest that the
defendant directors consciously and intentionally disregarded their responsibilities) adopting a
Awe don?t care a0out the ris7sA attitude concerning a material corporate decision.
Also) as in most 6urisdictions) including 2elaware) minutes are considered to 0e prima facie
evidence of actions ta7en 0y the corporation) and in others) minutes are presumed to 0e credi0le.
Additional evidence will 0e permitted only when minutes are incomplete or am0iguous. 5he
court found that Aall that occurred during the meeting regarding 3vit9?s employment was Bone of
the mem0ersC reviewed the employment terms with the committee and answered a few
<uestions.A 4o draft of the employment agreement was given to the committee) and the only
information a0out the agreement recorded in the minutes was an incomplete summary. 5hus) the
minutes of the compensation committee were not sufficiently detailed to sustain the presumption
that the 0usiness 6udgment rule had 0een satisfied.
3$
30
A fair reading of the new complaint gives rise to a reason to dou0t whether the 0oard?s actions
were ta7en honestly and in good faith) as re<uired under the second prong of Aronson.
RUL#
1% ;hen the plaintiF alleges a deivative clai)G de)and )ust !e )ade on the !oad
o excused !ased upon futilit".
*% !'onson test 2o dete)ine whethe de)and would !e futileG the Cout )ust
dete)ine whethe the paticula factsG as allegedG ceate a eason to dou!t that:
T#1% the diectos ae disinteested and independentT o T#*% the challenged
tansaction was othewise the poduct of a valid execise of !usiness ?udg)ent.T
/% 2he N!usiness ?udg)ent uleO ceates a pesu)ption that the !oadRs decision is
entitled to defeence #eespect%.
$% 2his pesu)ption could !e e!utted !" aising paticulai-ed facts suQcient to
aise #1% a eason to dou!t that the action was ta7en honestl" and in good faith o
#*% a eason to dou!t that the !oad was adeBuatel" info)ed in )a7ing the
decision.
0% Acts o o)issions not undeta7en honestl" and in good faithG o which involve
intentional )isconductG do not fall within the potective a)!it of 1D2(b' (E'1.
1% Hnowing o deli!eate indiFeence !" a diecto to his o he dut" to act faithfull"
and with appopiate cae is conduct that )a" not have !een ta7en honestl" and in
good faith to advance the !est inteests of the co)pan".
.% ;hee a diecto consciousl" ignoes his o he duties to the copoationG thee!"
causing econo)ic in?u" to its stoc7holdesG the diectoRs actions ae eithe Tnot in
good faithT o Tinvolve intentional )isconduct.T
Basic; (nc. v. Levinson
S"a'e"olde's won.
;hethe an" )isleading state)ent !" the co)pan" can aFect the decision to !u"
shaesL
Jou donKt need to show sciente'S
*ate'ialit,. +n ode to show it "ou have to de)onstate Nsubstantial li+eli"oodO
that would !e ta7en into account !" the easona!le investo.
Causation. +n tots what "ou need to show: is the b'eac" of dut, and causation
#the lin7%.
F!CTS
Co)!ustion EngineeingG +nc.G epesentatives had )eetings and telephone
convesations with 6asic oQces and diectosG concening the possi!ilit" of a
)ege. (uing 19.. and 19.3G 6asic )ade thee pu!lic state)ents den"ing that it
was engaged in )ege negotiations. In (ece)!e 13G 19.3G 6asic as7ed the ,ew
Jo7 'toc7 Exchange to suspend tading in its shaes and issued a elease stating
that it had !een TappoachedT !" anothe co)pan" concening a )ege. In
(ece)!e *0G 6asic pu!licl" announced its appoval to the )ege.
30
31
Respondents ae fo)e 6asic shaeholdes who sold thei stoc7 afte 6asicRs =st
pu!lic state)ent of Icto!e *1G 19..G and !efoe the suspension of tading in
(ece)!e 19.3.
2ROC#@UR!L =(STOR:
Respondents !ought a class action against 6asic and its diectos alleging that
the" wee in?ued !" selling 6asic shaes at ati=ciall" depessed pices in a )a7et
aFected !" petitionesR )isleading state)ents and in eliance theeon. 4laintiFs
alleged that eBuiing poof of individuali-ed eliance fo) each )e)!e of the
poposed plaintiF class eFectivel" would have pevented espondents fo)
poceeding with a class action.
2he distict cout ganted su))a" ?udg)ent fo ( !ased upon a =nding that:
#1% the state)entsG as a )atte of lawG wee not )ateial and theefoe not false
and )isleading and thatG as a )atte of lawG the defendants did not act with
sciente #e=avin% a mental state wit" t"e intent to deceive; mani&ulate; o'
def'aud1.
#*% a pesu)ption of elianceG so that a class consisting of all paties who sold 6asic
stoc7 duing the )ege negotiations could !e ceti=ed as eBuied !".
2he Cout of Appeals vacated the su))a" ?udg)ent egading the )ateialit"
issue and aQ)ed the class ceti=cation.
(SSU#
;hethe a peson who taded a copoationRs shaes on a secuities exchange afte
the issuance of a mate'iall, misleadin% statement !" the copoation )a"
invo7e a e!utta!le pesu)ption thatG in tadingG he 'elied on the integit" of the
pice set !" the )a7et.
R!T(O-!L#
2he Secu'ities #$c"an%e !ct of /680 !ct was designed to potect investos
against )anipulation of stoc7 pices. 2hee cannot !e honest )a7ets without
honest pu!licit".
!. *ate'ialit,
2o pevent allegations of !ad info)ation fo) !eing used as a petext fo shifting
lossesG couts eBuie that the )isinfo)ation !e )ateial.
2o ful=ll the )ateialit" eBuie)entG thee )ust !e a su!stantial li7elihood that the
disclosue of the o)itted fact would have !een viewed !" the easona!le investo
as having signi=cantl" alteed the Rtotal )ixR of info)ation )ade availa!le.
+t is not enough that a state)ent is false o inco)pleteG if the )isepesented fact is
othewise insigni=cant. ;hethe )ege discussions in an" paticula case ae
)ateial theefoe depends on the facts. <eneall"G in ode to assess the po!a!ilit"
that the event will occuG a fact =nde will need to loo7 to indicia of inteest in the
tansaction at the highest copoate levelsG such as !oad esolutionsG instuctions
to invest)ent !an7esG and actual negotiations !etween pincipals o thei
inte)ediaies )a" seve as indicia of inteest.
2o assess the )agnitude of the tansaction to the issue of the secuities allegedl"
)anipulatedG a fact=nde will need to conside such facts as the si-e of the two
copoate entities and of the potential pe)iu)s ove )a7et value. ,o paticula
31
3.
event o facto shot of closing the tansaction need !e eithe necessa" o
suQcient !" itself to ende )ege discussions )ateial.
B. 2'esum&tion of 'eliance
2he faud on the )a7et theo" is !ased on the h"pothesis thatG in an open and
developed secuities )a7etG the pice of a co)pan"Rs stoc7 is dete)ined !" the
availa!le )ateial info)ation egading the co)pan" and its !usiness. . .
)isleading state)ents will theefoe defaud puchases of stoc7 even if the
puchases do not diectl" el" on the )isstate)ents. . . . 2he causal connection
!etween the defendantsR faud and the plaintiFsR puchase of stoc7 in such a case is
no less signi=cant than in a case of diect eliance on )isepesentations.T
+n faceEtoEface tansactionsG the inBui" into an investoRs eliance upon info)ation
is into the su!?ective picing of that info)ation !" that investo. ;ith the pesence
of a )a7etG the )a7et is inteposed !etween selle and !u"e andG ideall"G
tans)its info)ation to the investo in the pocessed fo) of a )a7et pice. 2hus
the )a7et is pefo)ing a su!stantial pat of the valuation pocess pefo)ed !"
the investo in a faceEtoEface tansaction. 2he )a7et is acting as the unpaid agent
of the investoG info)ing hi) that given all the info)ation availa!le to itG the value
of the stoc7 is woth the )a7et pice.
+n an open and developed )a7etG the disse)ination of )ateial )isepesentations
o withholding of )ateial info)ation t"picall" aFects the pice of the stoc7G and
puchases geneall" el" on the pice of the stoc7 as a eDection of its value.
RUL#
!. *ate'ialit,
#1% +n the context of Rule /0bGF2 of 'ECG an o)itted fact is )ateial if thee is a
su!stantial li7elihood that a easona!le shaeholde would conside it i)potantO.
#*% Mateialit" eBuied a case !" case eview of the facts
B. 2'esum&tion of 'eliance
#1% Reliance is an ele)ent of a Rule 10!E0 cause of action and povides the
eBuisite causal connection !etween a defendantRs )isepesentation and a
plaintiFRs in?u".
#*% 2hee is a e!utta!le pesu)ption that stoc7holdes 'elied on availa!le
info)ation when !u"ing o selling secuities.
#/% 4etitiones )a" e!ut poof of the ele)ents giving ise to the pesu)ptionG o
show that the )isepesentation in fact did not lead to a distotion of pice o that
an individual plaintiF taded o would have taded despite his 7nowing the
state)ent was false.
Un'easonable Sea'c"es T Sei<u'es
Statutes
A)end)ent $.
3.
33
Conce&ts
'each
'ei-ue
4o!a!le cause
;aant
<oven)ent needs:
;aant o 4o!a!le cause.
An" evidence in a ci)inal case poduced in the violation of this ule is t"'own out.
,o )atte:
9ow elevant
9ow !ad is what the accused did
2his aFects all the deivative evidence.
+f Macus seaches <ennadi"Ks house and =nds an Evidence of 6enn"Ks dug dealing
C no case against !oth.
2his is a f'uit of t"e &oisonous t'ee.
Case Law
Mat< v. United States ./6O51
Rule: $th A)end)ent 4otection against uneasona!le seaches and sei-ues.
2his case sets a 2E'2 to esta!lish when the <ovt has indeed engaged in a seach.
(e=nition of what constitutes an 8neasona!le seach > 'ei-ue.
Facts
H was convicted fo violating fedeal statute that pohi!its the tans)ission of
info)ation fo placing !ets ove the telephone.
HKs phone convesation in a pu!lic phone !ooth was taped@ecoded via a device
that was not +, the !ooth !ut outside of the !ooth.
+t is evident that the police tied to ta7e so)e )easues to ,I2 intude on HKs
pivac"...and onl" got pats of convesation that wee speci=c to thei case.
H was convicted !ased on ecodings of his end of the convesations. 9e challenged
his convictionG aguing that the ecodings could not !e used as evidence against
33
39
hi). 2he Cout of Appeals sided with the &6+ !ecause thee was not a ph"sical
intusion into the phone !ooth itself.
+ssue#s% !efoe the Cout:
(oes the &outh A)end)ent potect the pivate convesations of an individual
)ade in a telephone !oothL
+s a ph"sical intusion !" <ovt oQcials eBuied to violate a defendantRs &outh
A)end)ent ight against uneasona!le seach and sei-ueG o is a waantEless
electonic tap of the defendantRs phone call suQcient@enough of an act to violate
his@he ightsL
+s the <ovt eBuied to o!tain a seach waant !efoe executing a wietapG o is a
dete)ination !" the fedeal agents that po!a!le cause exists enoughL
&6+ said: that was a pu!lic placeS +t was not located insideG it was located in pu!lic.
+f "ou wal7 on a steet with a gun CO2 can sto& me and as+ fo the
authoi-ations.
Hol!in,
'o long as an individual can ?usti=a!l" expect that his convesation would e)ain
pivateG his@he convesation is potected fo) Tuneasona!le seach and sei-ueT
!" the &outh A)end)ent.
2he <oven)entRs activities in electonicall" listening to and ecoding the
petitioneRs wods violate the pivac" upon which he ?usti=a!l" elied while using the
telephone !ooth and thus constituted a Rseach and sei-ueR within the )eaning of
the &outh A)end)ent.T
2he &outh A)end)ent potects peopleG not places. 2heefoeG the ights of an
individual )a" not !e violatedG egadless of whethe o not thee is ph"sical
intusion into an" given aea.
,6: Cout has expanded its intepetation of this povision to cove not ?ust the
ph"sical pesonG !ut also the place.
A waant is eBuied !efoe the goven)ent can execute a wietapG and the G
waant )ust !e suQcientl" li)ited in scope and duation.
Lessons
A)). $ potects &eo&leG -OT &laces o' &a&e's.
+n whateve situation "ou have easona!le expectation of pivac" C "ou have
easona!le expectation of pivac" and ,ou a'e &'otected.
Su&'emes ageed: it was illegal.
39
90
(llinois v. Caballes .200F1
Ca!allesR &outh A)end)ent ights wee -OT violated.
'niFe dogs case. <u" stopped fo taQc law violation.
2hee was a dog. 9e sni3ed ma'i"uana.
Facts
C stopped at taQc light fo having co))itted an oFence and in the pocessW
anothe oQce shows up with a sniFe dog who then goes aca-"K indicating a
suspicion of conta!and pesent in the ca. 2he entie episode lasted no )oe than
10 )inutes.
+ssue: ;hat constitutes a easona!le@uneasona!le seachL Concededl"G C was
stopped fo taQc oFence of oveEspeedingWhoweveG the seach was conducted !"
anothe oQce. (oes the &outh A)end)entRs seach and sei-ue clause eBuie a
easona!le suspicion to conduct a canine sniF duing a outine taQc stopL
Cout has !eco)e Buite aggessive in upholding a lot of these t"pes of seachesW
expansion of this intepetation is not a good thing fo (efendants@people who ae
!eing seached@sei-ed.
Hol!in,
Ca!allesR &outh A)end)ent ights wee not violated. 2he Constitution did not
eBuie police to have easona!le suspicion to use a dugEdetection dog on a ca
duing a legal taQc stop. ,o legiti)ate pivac" was at is7G the Cout aguedG
!ecause the dog onl" aleted to an illegal dug.
@issent: (ogs ae not alwa"s ight. 2he" can si)pl" li7e the wa" "ou s)ell o !e
aleted !" the fe)ale dog in the ca.
Lessons
Rebuttable &'esum&tion: dog is alwa"s ight.
Loo7ing fo dugs is IH as soon as the pi)a" puposeG "ou wee not
inspected fo is not ta7ing longe than was necessa".
+n situation of easona!le suspicion #the gu" had veee" 6+< e"es% C police
can stat consideing the seconda', cause eBuall" with the pi)a" case. +n
this case police does not need ode.
,I2E:
2o open the )ind )ap which is in the othe =le "ou will need to download this
softwae fo) the we!.
(onRt have ;inRaL
&ee download http:@@www.ala!.co)@a@wa/30.exe
90
91
91

Fundamentals of U S Law Outline 2008

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Fundamentals of U S Law Outline 2008

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

1

Fundamentals of U.S. Law 2008 Outline

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi