Political Question Doctrine- basic idea ct won't decide political questions bc not

Powers & Limitations of the Judiciary Step 1: Can/will the Supreme Court Hear the Case?
proper brnach to pass judgment - Const interpretationhere should be left to
Art. III Sec. 1 determines minimum jx of fed courts but the Court has developed [consistent w/ its powers] politically accountable branches - prez & congress.
the ability to refuse cases it could hear.
Outgrowth from Marbury ministeral/political - Questions, in their nature political, can
Standing - rooted in Art. III's demand for cases & controversies in the federal courts.
never be sent to the court - lack of judicially discoverable & manageable standards.
P must have standing at ALL stages of litigation.
Don't want SC deciding purely policy qs.
-But - judiciary role to enforce Const?
FIRST - Constitutional Standing Limitations
1) Injury-in-Fact: plaintiff must have an injury that is actual or imminent, concrete and particularized, and not 2) Causation plaintiff's injury must be -Baker v Carr factors - to be non-justiciable PQ must meet 1 of 6 - argue case
conjectural [speculative ] or hypothetical. "fairly traceable" to the defendant's similar to one of these
-Concrete AND particularized - concrete is different from particularization - 2 distinct elements must be independently conduct. -Textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate
met by separate analyses. Total speculation, no idea if they'll be political department
-Concrete - injury must actually exist - not be abstract, but can be intangible [trademark law, reputation] surveilled. Even if proved surveillance · Lack of judicially discoverable & manageable standards for resolving the case
- Particularized - must be personally suffered, affects P in personalized & individual way specific to P affecting him imminent, can't show the specific [prob most important, primary standard Court has found PQ]
differently from other citizens. statute was used, even if could prove · Impossibility of deciding without initial policy determination unsuitable for political
- Actual [already happened] or imminent - cannot be conjectural [speculative] or hypothetical; allegations of possible statute targetted, can't show FISA ct discretion.
future injures insufficient. would authorize surveillance. Chain of · Impossibility of a ct?s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of
speculation makes alleged injury too respect due to coordinate branches of govt
Actual or imminent- attenuated to be connected to D. · Unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made
Lujan - loss of opportunity too speculative of a harm - "someday" intentions without concrete plans to returnare too [Clapper] · Potentiality for embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various depts
speculative. on 1 question
Clapper v. Amnesty - imminence - Injury must be certainly impending, cannot be speculative chain of possiblities.
-Theory of future injury relies on highly attenuated chain of possibilities. -Luther - PQ, republican form of govt clause, Congress must decide what govt state
3) Redressibility - plaintiff must has established before determining republican/not, lack of critera for deciding what
Concreteness - Direct harm to plaintiffs, nexus of econsystem insufficient. alleged that a favorable federal court constitutes rep form of govt
-Intangible - history & judgment of Congress. decision is likely [not speculative] to -Baker - malapportionment claims violating EP justiciable - 14th amendment
improve/remedy his injury. justiciable, guarantee clause not, standards under EP well-developed & familiar -
Particularization - Citizen must have personally suffered the injury Lujan - Agencies funding projects not -Policy - political process unlikely to correct Const violation, judicial review provided
BUT - state sovereignty permits them to sue in fed cts on more abstract losses [Mass v. EPA] - maybe MA gets parties to case, only providing small democratic rule, judiciary shouldn't get involved but slegislture won't fix prob, maybe
standing & states with less coastal land don't. amount of funding, not clear requiring ct got involved to address racial inequality
agencies consult with EPA would
Procedural injuries - Congresss cannot write around fact that specific statutory harm suffered by the PLAINTIFF even change anything. -Powell - house refused to seat controversial politican, Ct ruled didnt have power to
if language is "any citizen may sue" [Lujan] exclude, can't deny official his seat as long as he met the 3 express constitutional
-Congress can define new statutory rights but P doesn't auto satisfy injury requirement just bc statute grants right + Mass v. EPA - even reduction in land requirements for representation
purports to authorize suit to vindicate it - no standing based on alleging a bare procedural violation, must examine injuryloss due to marginal decrease in -Vieth - ct dismissed challenge to partisan gerrymandering, inherently nonjusticiable
in fact analysis. [Spokeo] emissions is valid remedy. - PQs [but issue was if it violated EP?]
incremental steps still redress problem -Issue is not if activity by legislators unfairly favors one party & against constitution
Ps may not "create" traditional injury by incurring expenses. [Clapper - Ps allleged incurred costs, but can't manufacturelike global warming, regulation would ? but whether that determination & a remedy is to be done by the courts - said -
standing by inflicting harm on themsleves based on fears of hypothetical future harm not impending; Lujan plane tix reduce environmental damage to MA redistricting for partisan reasons did not provide judicially manageable standard for
would've shown geographical intent - wasn't about the money. [dissent says too speculative, every court to use.
NO generalized grievances - may not sue solely to enforce a procedural requirement without a concrete injury - little bit helps, so states can sue over -Dissents - affects democracy & how ppl vote so cts should get involved
Congress can't create a right of action without an injury, injury must exist before Congress gets involved - barred by Art. every little bit?]
III -Bush v Gore - ct held when results of presidential election are contested, EP
requires states conducting manual recounts to maintain uniform rules regarding the
SECOND - Prudential Standing Limitations - may be overriden by Ripeness - case must involve concrete disputes bt geniune adversaries; here facts not recount of votes to determine the intent of voters and give equal weight to each vote
statute developed enough [injury hasn't occurred], too speculative or remote to warrant judicial
Third-Party Standing - generally, plaintiff must assert his own legal intervention - two prong test where look to hardship to be suffered w/o preenforcement
rights. review & fitness of issues in the record before the ct. Doctrine of Avoidance - court won't anticipate const law questions unless
Mootness - if underlying controversy not real or resolved/dissolved prior to necessary, will answer questions as narrowly as possible
Newdow - P had no standing to sue - didn't have sufficient custody
adjudication, case is moot. Actual controversies must exist to prevent adversarial - If problem resolvable on non-constitutional grounds, court won't reach the issue.
over daughter who is source of any standing he would have, didn't
opinions. Exceptions for wrong capable of repetition yet evading review [i.e. abortion
live in school dist, never in classroom -
rights]; collateral consequences.
-But concurrence - daughter not source of Newdow's standing - their
relationship provides standing. Policy Concerns - argument justiciability doctrines promote SoP by limiting occassions Step 2: will the CT overrule a prior holding? Stare Decisis.
-Ct unwilling to get involved in domestic relations - illustrates that for judicial intervention into political process, serve judicial efficiency by preventing
even when Art III requirements met, SC may decline to hear case - flood of suits by those with only ideological stake in outcome, preserve ct's political -Old rule unworkable? [Garcia overtturning National League]
despite D causing redressable injury, ct decline to allow that P to captial, fairness ensuring people raise only own rights/concerns
bring that claim. - Ensures people can only sue if law gives them a COA not because dissatisfied or
outraged
-BUT difficult to fit decision w precedent, P had standing based on - YET standing is indeterminate, diff cts applying same facts will produce diff outcomes
interests as parent in religious upbringing & education of his kid, but - Newdow - ex of court using standing to avoid deciding an unnecessary Constitutional
ruling in his favor would be a political disaster for the court. issue & using standing doctrine to avoid it; didn't want to make Constitutional ruling
Generalized Grievances- generally, plaintiff must assert his own dividing nation - but is this an appropriate use of the justiciability doctrines?
legal rights. [Clapper maybe opposite - ct suggests national security made them stricter on
-Question of whether this is a prudential doctrine or actually part of standing, Richards thinks decision was wrong - shouldn't require at motion to dismiss
the concrete & particularized issue of injury - Lujan suggested it was stage all elements of standing shown]
a constitutional limitation imposed by Art. III that can't be overridden -Promotes democratic self-governance by ensuring measure of judicial restraint
by Congress. -Restricting availabiity of judicial review - proper role of courts in democratic society -
unelected judges making policy decisions?