Contents

INTRO: Chapter 1 Issues in Judicial Review ............................................................................. 3 Marbury v Madison .................................................................................................................... 4 UNIT I: LIMITS ON FEDERAL JUDICIAL POWER ............................................................... 4 I. a. b. c. Constitutional Limits on Federal Judicial Power .................................................................. 4 Standing (Constitutional Requirements) ........................................................................... 4 Statutory Standing v. Constitutional Standing...................................................................... 4 Standing (Constitutional and Prudential Requirements) .................................................... 5 Ripeness and Mootness .................................................................................................... 5 Mootness ............................................................................................................................. 5 Ripeness .............................................................................................................................. 6 d. II. a. b. The Political Question Doctrine ........................................................................................ 6 Congressional Limits on Federal Judicial Power.................................................................. 7 Jurisdiction of the District Courts ..................................................................................... 7 Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court..................................................................... 8 Marbury v. Madison.................................................................................................................... 7 Article 3 Section 1 ...................................................................................................................... 7

UNIT II: FEDERAL COURT RELIEF AGAINST FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS ............................................................. 8 I. Suing local governments and state and local officials: Statutory Cause of Action (Sec. 1983) 8 a. The Meaning of "Under Color of" Law ............................................................................ 9 The Prima Facie Case .......................................................................................................... 9 Fee Shifting ......................................................................................................................... 9 b. c. Municipal Liability........................................................................................................... 9 Webster v. City of Houston ............................................................................................... 10 Approach to Municipal Liability ....................................................................................... 10 Official Immunities ........................................................................................................ 10 Types of Immunity (civil, not criminal) ............................................................................. 10 II. a. b. III. Suing Federal Agents ........................................................................................................ 11 Suing Federal Agents Under the Constitution ................................................................. 11 Suits Under Federal Statutes ........................................................................................... 11 Suing State Governments: The Eleventh Amendment ..................................................... 12 Page 1 of 20 Section 1983 ............................................................................................................................. 10

) .................................................................................................................................................. 9

a.

Theoretical and Textual Foundations .............................................................................. 12 3 Theories on the 11th Amendment .................................................................................... 12

11th Amendment ....................................................................................................................... 12 b. c. The Doctrine of Ex Parte Young..................................................................................... 13 Abrogation by Congress ................................................................................................. 13 Abrogation and Section 1983 ............................................................................................ 13 4 Theories on Congress Abrogating a States Immunity .................................................... 13 UNIT III: FEDERAL COURT REVIEW OF STATE COURT JUDGMENTS ........................ 14 I. a. b. The Abstention Doctrines .................................................................................................. 15 Uncertain State Law (Pullman Abstention} .................................................................... 15 The Colorado River Abstention ......................................................................................... 15 The Doctrine of Younqer v. Harris ................................................................................. 16 The Anti Injunction Act .................................................................................................... 16 Exceptions to Younger Doctrine ........................................................................................ 16 Mitchum case compared with Younger case ...................................................................... 16 Judice and Trainor state welfare funds and state contempt process are part of state law. ... 16 c. II. a. The Doctrine of Younger v. Harris (II) ........................................................................... 16 Exhaustion Of Remedies ................................................................................................... 17 Supreme Court Review of the Decisions of the-Highest State Court .................................. 17 The Independent and Adequate State Ground Doctrine ................................................... 17 Independent....................................................................................................................... 17 Adequate ........................................................................................................................... 17 III. a. Federal Relitigation of State Court Decisions ................................................................. 17 Res Judicata in the Federal System ................................................................................. 17 Full Faith and Credit Clause (US Const. Article IV Sec. 1)................................................ 18 Full Faith and Credit Act (Congress extending the constitution clause).............................. 18 Full faith and credit to administrative agency decisions ..................................................... 18 Reasons for Preclusion ...................................................................................................... 18 IV. a. b. V. Federal Habeas Corpus ................................................................................................... 19 Procedural Matters ......................................................................................................... 19 Elements ........................................................................................................................... 19 Claims Cognizable ......................................................................................................... 19 Distinguishing Between Habeas Corpus and Section 1983 ................................................ 19 CLOSING THEME........................................................................................................... 19 Page 2 of 20

INTRO: Chapter 1 Issues in Judicial Review

a. The Institution of Judicial Review Class notes - Division of federal/state power Federal Executive Judicial Legislative -

State Executive Judicial Legislative

What is the power of the Federal Judiciary over the states? o Civil War amendments: 13th, 14th, 15th o States werent abiding by the Federal constitution Outline of the course o 1983 Civil Rights Act o 11th Amendment State Soverignty o Allocation of power/Abstention doctrine o Habeas Corpus  Rule against Advisory Opinions o Blurs line between legislative and judicial  But Bandes blurred that line, as well, asking what is the actual difference between an advisory opinion and a facial, pre-enforcement challenge?  No clear answer to this question, just know that when courts say something is legislative, they usually dont explain why.

Article III of the Constitution y Section I o Federal Judges are not elected y Section II o Clause 1  Heads of jurisdiction (Federal Courts are courts of limited jurisdiction) y Cases arising under o the Constitution, and o Federal laws o Diversity Jurisdiction o Treaties o And ambassadors, ministers, admiratly and maritime. o Clause 2 (Original and Appellate Jurisdiction)  Supreme Court y Original Jurisdiction (Trial/Fact-Finder) y Appellate Jurisdiction o Lower Federal Courts Page 3 of 20

 District courts, and District Courts of Appeals o State Courts

Marbury v Madison - Sets up judicial review

UNIT I: LIMITS ON FEDERAL JUDICIAL POWER I. Constitutional Limits on Federal Judicial Power
a. Standing (Constitutional Requirements) The court has the job of making sure the cases brought before it are decided, but also must act as a check against the other branches. These two roles are sometimes in tension, as they are here. When does this come to play? - This comes up on a MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURSISDICTION. o Facts must be presumed most favorably for Plaintiff - Can be raised at any time, even by the court. - Cannot be waived. Test for Standing: (from Allen v. Wright) - Injury alleged must be, distinct and palpable and not abstract or conjectural or hypothetical. - Injury must be fairly traceable to the challenged action - Relief from the injury must be likely to follow from a favorable decision. Prudential Limitations (sometimes difficult to discern from Constitutional Limitations above) - Grievance must fall within statutes zone of interest - No generalized grievances o Happens often with public interest cases, like most Federal Question cases - No third party standing o However, abortion cases like Roe v. Wade was brought by a doctor for the patient and court says thats ok. Statutory Standing v. Constitutional Standing Federal regulations, like in Bennettbelow, are famous for being VERY broad to give anyone standing. There is friction between this sort of statutory standing language and the standing requirement under Article III of the constitution.

RULES Page 4 of 20

Whether a plaintiffs interest is arguably . . protected . . . by the statute within the meaning of the zone-of-interests test is to be determined not by reference to the overall purpose of the Act in question (here, species preservation), but by reference to the particular provision of law upon which the plaintiff relies. (Bennet v. Spear) Plaintiff must meet standing requirement for each form of relief sought. (City of LA v. Lyons)

So who can bring a case then? - Based on the courts ruling in Lyons, its very difficult to bring a constitutional challenge. - One possible way to make it easier is to certify a CLASS, then you have examples of many others whove dealt with the issue and therefore it would be likely others would deal with the issue in the future.

b. Standing (Constitutional and Prudential Requirements)

Rules - There must be a case: youve gotta be damaged (Warth v. Seldin) - BUT a Facial Challenge can be brought (no black people can buy homes in suburb) (Regents v. Bakke) - The trick is how you formulate the injury (bakke) - Congress may create a statutory right of entitlement the alleged deprivation of which can confer standing to sue even where the plaintiff would have suffered no judicially cognizable injury in the absence of a statute. (book) - The requirements for the test for standing are so high that theyre difficult to meet, and questionably so high as to be a decision on the merits, which pulls out the rug from underneath the Bob Jones decision (Allen v. Wright)

c. Ripeness and Mootness

Not necessarily a bright line between Standing, Mootness, and Ripeness. Mootness The Doctrine of Standing set in a particular timeframe Voluntary Cessation: Courts not very willing to drop a case simply because a defendant voluntarily stops doing the alleged wrongful act. This is because of judicial efficiency: Nothing stop D from doing it again and the court having to address the issue again. Rules: - Adversity is required (Defunis v. Odegaard)

Page 5 of 20

o This case muddles the water with the idea of voluntary cessation since the SC dropped the case when the school allowed kid to finish, even though all arguments were heard. The party asserting mootness bears the burden of demonstrating that it is absolutely clear that the behavior will not recur. Pg. 75, Note 3:

Ripeness The issue: Constitutional components: Prudential component: Is the issue justiciable at the time its raised? Adversity and likelihiood of some harm (nothing speculative) Concrete facts(type of harm) can be traded off against hardship of waiting.

y y

The ripeness doctrine implicates the desire for exhaustion of remedies before bringing an issue to the court. The ripeness doctrine also involves injunctions and declaratory relief.

Rules: - Without a cognizable injury, court wont take a case bc itd be an advisory opinion (United Public Workers of America v. Mitchell) - Declaratory Judgment Act o as a response to the Chilling effect of cases like Mitchell o Person should not have to eat the fungus before figuring out if its a harmless mushroom or a poisonous toadstool. - Claim not ripe even if its a state admin agency with looming injurious potential and not the state. (Pacific Gas)

d. The Political Question Doctrine

Not quite a 3 prong test, but more just three categories of the doctrine. 1 Textually demonstrable commitment to one of the political branches Judicially manageable standards for decision Excessive interference with the other brances/possibility of embarrassment abroad.

2 3

Page 6 of 20

The analysis of the doctrine y Lewis Henkin: Whenever the court passes the buck, it MUST explain why its doing so Classic example of the wiggle room the court needs to pass on controversial topics it doesnt want to decide Marbury v. Madison P.5: Where the executive possesses a constitutional or legal discretion these acts are only politically examinable. But where a specific duty is assigned by law and individual rights depend on the performance of that duty, the individual has a right to resort to the laws of his country for a remedy.

II.

Congressional Limits on Federal Judicial Power

Article 3 Section 1 (the ordain and establish clause) The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office. y y The prevailing view is that one cannot expand the scope of original jurisdiction (Marbury) However, congress does try to limit the scope of federal jurisdiction: Recent examples of court-stripping bills by congress o Federal Detainee bill  Restricted power of the courts to review Guantanamo cases o Prison Litigation Reform Act  Restricted power of the courts in prison litigation for unsafe 8th amendment violations o AntiTerrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act  Imposed restrictions on Habeas Corpus o Immigration bills  Restricting power of courts to review immigration decisions a. Jurisdiction of the District Courts CB pp. 106-130 Congress limiting judicial jurisdiction Rules

Page 7 of 20

Having a right to prescribe, congress may withhold from any court of its creation jurisdiction of any of the enumerated controversies. (greater includes lesser concept) )(Sheldon v. Sill, Lockerty v. Phillips) Availability of a forum to challenge constitutionality before violating an act means court has no jurisdiction to hear affirmative defense of unconstitutionality of the act after violation (Yakus v. US) o Dissent says this limits courts decision making prowess (I agree)

Other notes: y Pg. 117, Note 10. Yale Professor Amar says that according to Article 3, federal jurisdiction MUST extend to All cases in the first three of nine enumerated categories. y One other possible interpretation is that jurisdiction cant be limited in such a way as to violate another section of the constitution

b. Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court Rules - Congress can strip SC appellate jurisdiction if one can get to the Supreme Court by other means. Therefore court said Habeas was not stripped entirely in McCardle. - Congress has the plenary power to make exceptions to SC jurisdiction [if there is at least some SC jurisdiction [dicta]] - If there is no substitute, court will strike down the act. (Hamdan, Boumedine)

UNIT II: FEDERAL COURT RELIEF AGAINST FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS
This section of the courts deals with Federalism, especially the Civil War amendments. The Fourteenth Amendment gives congress the power to enact laws necessary to enforce the 14th Amendment. This speaks to the difficulty of the execution of civil rights. If the state courts are bound by Federal Law, why do we need Federal Courts

I.

Suing local governments and state and local officials: Statutory Cause of Action (Sec. 1983)
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any state or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of Page 8 of 20

the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in any action at law, suit in equity, or other proceeding for redress. This section gives you a cause of action and a claim for basically any remedy. Justifications and goals are compensations and deterrence.

(Sec. 1331) Gives you jurisdiction to get into Federal Court. a. The Meaning of "Under Color of" Law The Prima Facie Case y Person (Monroe, Monell) Cops (municipality if not damages?) y Under color of statute, custom, etc (under color law) y Subjects or causes to be subjected (Monell custom or policy) y Deprivation of rights (constitutional, statutory) 4th amendment y Shall be liable (remedies) Fee Shifting y This section has a Fee Shifting statute to encourage private parties to bring constitutional claims. D, if loses, pays Ps fees. Rules: - Monroe said a municipality isnt a person and can therefore not be sued. - Monroe said under color of law also includes abuse of power.

b. Municipal Liability

Rules: Monell overrules Monroe: Says Municipality CAN be sued under 1983 if the injury is due to a policy or custom (either by lawmakers or by those whose acts may be said to represent official policy) Pembaur said even a single occasion can mean a custom or policy in the following circumstances: o Municipalities may be held liable under 1983 only for acts for which it itself is actually responsible (which they have officially sanctioned or ordered); o Only those officials who have Final policymaking authority may by their actions subject the gov. to liability; Page 9 of 20

o Whether an official has such authority is a Q of state law; o The challenged action must have been taken pursuant to a policy adopted by the official(s) responsible under state law for making policy in that area of the citys business. Dissent in Praprotnik: What if the policy maker delegates all of his responsibility and his underlings go out and act unconstitutionally? Webster v. City of Houston: this was the case with the throwdown guns. Court said there can be a custom even w/out policy

Approach to Municipal Liability y Top Down: policy traced to official policymaker (Praprotnik, Pembaur) y Bottom up: Custom of low level officials of which policymaker should have known (Tuttle), also class example of Webster y Policy of failure to act: heightened proof requirements (Canton, Bryan County) o Courts nervous for holding a city liable for things that go wrong below, therefore courts set a Deliberate Indifference Standard o In Canton, the police were not being trained on when to use deadly force. Failure to train armed cops on use of deadly force was found to be a deliberate indifference.

c. Official Immunities Section 1983 places liability on every person yet the courts read into the statute immunities not written into the statute. Types of Immunity (civil, not criminal) y Absolute Immunity o Legislator is their legislative function o Judges in their judicial function o Executive officers engaged in adjudicative functions o The President y Qualified Immunity o Executive officials in general Rules: Qualified - Harlow said government officials performing discretionary functions, get qualified immunity from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. For qualified immunity, court used to do a subjective intent analysis, but because of cost, moves away from that and sticks to just the objective element above. Absolute

Page 10 of 20

Harlow said Federal officials who seek absolute exemption from personal liability for unconstitutional conduct must bear the burden of showing that public policy requires an exemption of that scope.

II.

Suing Federal Agents

a. Suing Federal Agents Under the Constitution

Issue in this section is whether Congress has acted or whether it hasnt acted in an area of constitutional silence. So whats left of Bivens? Not a lot. Rules: 1. Congress has not provided any affirmative direction in this area Bivens: private right of action exists 2. Congress has provided an alternative form of remedy Carlson: private right of action is defeated 3. Defendant demonstrates special factors counseling hesitation in the absence of affirmative congressional action Carlson: private right of action is defeated Bush v. Lucas: the very factor that congress occupies the field is a factor counseling hesitation, even if congress method isnt as effective

b. Suits Under Federal Statutes How does the federal court step in when there is statutory silence? Rule Ever since, and based on, Powells dissent in Cannon, court looks to legislative intent to infer a private right of action where a statute is silent on the matter. Evolution of the rule: - J.I. Case: Courts can infer a private right of action into a statute if the statute is silent and if the court believes such a remedy is necessary for the congressional purpose of the statute - Cort v. Ash: factors to consider in whether a private remedy is implicit where a statute is silent on the matter: 1. Is the plaintiff on of the class for whose especial benefit the statute was enacted? 2. Is there any indication of legislative intent, explicit or implicit, either to create such a remedy or to deny one? Page 11 of 20

3. Is it consistent with the underlying purposes of the legislative scheme to imply such a remedy for the plaintiff? 4. Is the cause of action one traditionally relegated to state law? In an area basically the concern of the States, so that it would be inappropriate to infer a cause of action based solely on federal law?

III. Suing State Governments: The Eleventh Amendment

a. Theoretical and Textual Foundations Article 3 created judicial power, Chisolm v Georgia allowed a citizen to sue a state, and the 11th amendment was passed in response to give a state immunity. But the wording of the amendment is suspect. 11th Amendment
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

Rules - Hans said that a citizen couldnt even sue his own state under the 11th Amendment o The amendment doesnt quite say that!

Diversity Theory (Fletcher, pg 360)

Editors Opinion (Redish, pg 362) Common Law Prohibiton

3 Theories on the 11th Amendment - This theory says that only Diversity Jurisdiction is taken away by 11th amendment. - Under this theory, if Bandes wanted to sue Indiana, could she do it? Yes, if under Federal Question jurisdiction, regardless whether it is her state or another state. - What the 11th amendment really means is that you cant get into Federal Court by suing another state. You can only sue your own state. - Though there is common law prohibition of suing states, generally, the courts AND congress may overrule common law prohibitions. So, under this theory, if you have a Federal Question, the courts have the power to allow a state to be sued.

If the 11th Amendment DOES bar suits against the state, is there any way around it? Otherwise it would be a major blow to Supremacy. Page 12 of 20

The Doctrine of Ex Parte Young creates a judicial remedy to override that bar in certain ways. Also, states waive many of their 11th amendment privileges. Such as if you slip and fall in the state capitol building, you can sue for damages if the state waives protection. b. The Doctrine of Ex Parte Young

Ex Parte Young theory permits injunction suits but bars damages suits against the states. The state is not the state when injunctive relief is at issue. Suits under 1983: o you can sue a gov. official bc he is acting under color of state law.but when suing a police officer, such as under Monroe v. Pape, you are getting the damages out of his own pocket o Suits against a gov. agent in his individual capacity are not barred (the money comes out of the officials pocket, not the states): Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police If you are suing the mayor, not in his individual capacity, but instead in his capacity as mayor, that is not a problem, b/c the City is not entitled to any kind of 11th A. immunity.

c. Abrogation by Congress CB. pp. 390-415 States can waive 11th amendment protection themselves, but what happens when congress tells them they waive their 11 amendment protection? Abrogation and Section 1983 Sec. 5 of the 14 A gives Congress the power to enforce the 14th A by appropriate legislation. However, cases have made Congresss ability to override state Immunity under the 14th amendment limited to only where Congress clearly states its intent to override state immunity with the federal statute. The supreme court has decided that even though 1983 was passed pursuant to Sec 5 of the 14th Amendment, it did not state its intent clearly enough to override state immunity under the 11th Amendment. This leaves you with the injunctive relief window that Ex parte young created.
th

4 Theories on Congress Abrogating a States Immunity Immunity or jurisdictional bar theory (Hans, Seminole Tribe) Its a constitutional bar that cannot ever be abrogated by congress The alternative explanation, seen in the dissents in Seminole, is that if you look back at Page 13 of 20

the history of the 11th A, and Iredells dissent in Chisholm, he said the 11th A can be overridden only if there is a statute. The only const. bar is against diversity suits. Federal Q suits are left open. So, Congress can pass a statute allowing a federal Q suit.

Diversity Theory (Fletcher)

Plain Language Theory

The wording of the 11th amendment states suits against a state by citizens of another state. Duh. Brennan had originally said, before the diversity theory scholars wrote their influential articles, that sovereign immunity was just a common law bar on suits. Difference b/w a common law bar and const. bar: A common law bar can be overridden by Congress.

Justice Brennans Theory

UNIT III: FEDERAL COURT REVIEW OF STATE COURT JUDGMENTS

Federalism: Why do have this shared, concurrent jurisdiction? Most cases in Fed Court can he heard in State Court, but not the other way around. Concurrent Jurisdiction spawns a lot of litigation

US Sup. Ct

St. Sup. Ct
discretionary

Dist. Ct of App

If state statute allows St Ct. of Appeals

required

Fed Dist. Courts St. Trial Court Page 14 of 20

I.

The Abstention Doctrines

a. Uncertain State Law (Pullman Abstention}

Pullman Abstention The last word on the meaning of state law belongs with the supreme court of that state A Pullman Abstention sends a person to a state trial court.
Frankfurt says the state defines what the statute MEANS, and since the state defined that the statute meant to cover discrimination, the federal court defers to the states application of the discrimination statute, in an effort to abstain from

No Pullman Abstention if: 1. Diversity Jurisdiction 2. 1983 Civil Rights claim 3. State Law is unsettled AND ambiguous (void for vagueness) Federal Question may be reserved, and this is merely a postponement, not a rejection Thibodaux Abstention Where there is an ambiguous state law, Federal Court will abstain because state is in better position to figure it out. This also is a postponement, and not a rejection. The federal question may be reserved, just as in Pullman. Mashuda, decided same day, added that the state law must be unclear and there must be a connection to state sovereign prerogative to justify abstention. Burford Abstention Federal court outright dismisses cases regarding complicated state administrative regulatory scheme. This is not a postponementoutright dismissal.

The Colorado River Abstention (Colorado river water conservation district v. US) No general bar to Fed court to hear a case just because a state court is hearing the same case. (it turns into a race for a decisiononce you have a decision, the other court is held to res judicata) The Fed ct should abstain because of the exceptional circumstances of all these people fighting over the waterwaysimilar to finite resources issue in the Burford case

Going to State Court but keeping Federal Claim Alive (England v. Louisiana St. Bd. of Med. Examiners) A litigant, in order to keep a return to district court available, must state on the record in state court, that he is exposing his deferral claims there only for the purpose of complying with Windsor, and that he intends, should the state courts hold against him on the question of state law, to return to the district Court for disposition of this federal contentions.

Page 15 of 20

b. The Doctrine of Younqer v. Harris Preliminary info to Younger Harris Doctrine is the Statutory Doctrine of the Anti Injunction Act: The Anti Injunction Act, 28 USC Sec. 2283 A court of the US may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in State Court Except: y as expressly authorized by Act of Congress (Mitchum v. Foster, not assigned and decided one year after Younger, says Section 1983 (civil rights claim) supercedes anti injunction) y where necessary in aid of the federal courts jurisdicition (also removal and in rem, but these two arent important for this class) y To protect or effectuate the federal courts judgment (the relitigation exception from Parsons Steel) Younger Abstention If there is a pending criminal prosecution, the Sup. Ct. prohibits both declaratory and injunctive relief. (Younger + Samuels (injunction same as declaratory)) Exceptions to Younger Doctrine - Bad faith o Not clear what the difference between bad faith and harassment is - Harassment - Patently unconstitutional (never actually occurred) Mitchum case compared with Younger case - Mitchum says Federal courts are necessary to protect fundamental rights - Younger case argues parity: state courts and federal courts are equally capable of protecting fundamental rights Judice and Trainor state welfare funds and state contempt process are part of state law.

c. The Doctrine of Younger v. Harris (II) Rules If there is no criminal case pending, Steffel says Federal cts are actually compelled to provide declaratory relief. Doran says a preliminary injunction may be available. Hicks v. Miranda throws a kink: Fed Ct. will have to abstain even if state court proceedings start AFTER fed ct. This basically instructs states to begin criminal proceedings whenever a fed claim is filed.

Page 16 of 20

Exhaustion Of Remedies o General rule in NON-civil rights cases:  If there are administrative remedies before coming to federal court, a plaintiff should exhaust all administrative remedies. o There is no exhaustion requirement in a civil rights case, generally.  1983s underpinning is that the Fed Ct. believes theyre the final guarantors of civil rights o In abstention, one finds friction with the idea of no requirement of exhaustion of remedies

II.

Supreme Court Review of the Decisions of the-Highest State Court

a. The Independent and Adequate State Ground Doctrine

State courts are the final arbiters of the meaning of their laws. So why would the Sup Ct have the power to review State court judgments on state laws? 1) States govern themselves, but Federal Courts are allowed to review state laws to make sure federal laws are correctly applied and to make sure constitutional protections arent violated. Independent o Is the state relying on the state law independently of the federal law? Adequate o Does the state judgment protect the persons constitutional rights as a minimum? Rules: - Lockstep Rule: Where state const mirrors fed const, State constitutional cases will be viewed in light of the Fed Constitution o Burden on State now harder to show reliance on state constitution - When the state court relies on Fed law, or their decision is interwoven with fed law, or doesnt precisely mention that it relies on state law, the supreme court can review for reliance on federal law (Michigan v. Long)

III. Federal Relitigation of State Court Decisions

a. Res Judicata in the Federal System Rules - Collateral estoppel does not apply where the party against whom an earlier court decision is asserted did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the claim or issue decided by the first court. (Allen v. McCurry) Page 17 of 20

This doesnt mean they did litigate the claim, just means they could have, even if they chose not to. (Migra) Only three circumstances where court infers that Congress intended a federal exception to preclusion (Allen v. McCurry) 1. Where state substantive law was facially unconstitutional 2. Where state procedural law was inadequate to allow full litigation of a constitutional claim 3. Where state procedural law, though adequate in theory, was inadequate in practice State administrative rulings also precluded from relitigation (Eliot)

Full Faith and Credit Clause (US Const. Article IV Sec. 1) - Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State . . . - State to State Full Faith and Credit Act (Congress extending the constitution clause) - The Acts of the legislature of any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States . . . shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States and its Territories and possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession from which they are taken. - Fed court to State Court Full faith and credit to administrative agency decisions - Common law question Reasons for Preclusion - Judicial efficiency o Fewer duplicative cases o Judicial resource conservation  Hard to view this abstractly: State resources? Federal resources? State Court? State Federal Court? - Consistency of judgment o Judicial reliance  Respect for state courts o Litigant/citizen reliance  Harassment  Expense  Chilling effect from litigating rights  Reliance on known law

Page 18 of 20

IV. Federal Habeas Corpus

a. Procedural Matters Elements - Custody + o Still in prison, parole counts too. Some cases have said someone out on bail is under custody - in violation of the Constitution or the laws . . . of the US - 1-yr Statute of Limitations o Starts from the time judgment becomes final through direct review

b. Claims Cognizable

Distinguishing Between Habeas Corpus and Section 1983 Habeas 1983 Exhaustion of remedies No exhaustion of remedies Damages and Injunctive relief available Inmates 1983 civil rights claim Collectively, Wilkinson, and the cases it relies on, indicate that a state prisoners 1983 action is barred (absent prior invalidation) no matter the relief sought, no matter the target of the prisoners suit, if success in that action would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration.

Inmates Habeas claim No 4 Amendment Argument. Inmates cant base their Habeas claim on a 4th amendment illegal search and seizure argument because the 4th amendment doesnt go to truth of innocence or guilt. (Stone)
th

5th Amendment Argument Available. Inmates can base their Habeas claim on 5th Amendment because the 5th amendment protects a person from giving false testimony due to fear and therefore does go to the truth of innocence or guilt. (Withrow)

V.

CLOSING THEME

Everything in this course is about Federalism and Separation of Powers. Analysis of issue on exam should BEGIN with these issues but never end with them. Bob Jones case: its not ok to give tax breaks to discriminatory schools, then the Allen case which gutted the jurisdiction to actually bring about another Bob Jones case Page 19 of 20

Page 20 of 20