Judicial Review and Standing Quiz

Judicial Review and Advisory Opinions

• Marbury v. Madison established precedent for courts to review laws and, if needed, provide remedies for violations of legal rights
• Courts can address violations of legal rights by executive officials.
• Political questions, though, lie outside the purview of judicial review
• The judiciary decides cases and controversies, not advisory opinions.
• The judiciary's duty is to uphold the constitution, making it superior to laws passed by other branches.

Standing

• Standing is a component of a case or controversy.
• A plaintiff must have a personal stake in the outcome of the litigation.
• Three requirements for standing:
  • Injury in fact: The plaintiff must have suffered a concrete and particularized harm that is not simply abstract or generalized
  • Causation: The harm must be fairly traceable to the defendant's actions (or inaction)
  • Redressability: The court must be able to provide effective relief that addresses the harm (or likely impending harm)

Ripeness

• Ripeness is a component of standing
• A plaintiff can challenge a law before it's enforced in certain cases
• The key difference is whether there is factual basis for injury (e.g., whether there's a credible threat of enforcement) rather than relying on potential future events
• The plaintiff must have shown a substantial likelihood of harm in the future (a threat of actual controversy)

Political Question Doctrine

• The political question doctrine prevents the courts from deciding issues that are constitutionally committed to another branch of government or that lack clear, manageable standards.
• Cases regarding the proper exercise of political power are frequently political questions (i.e. apportionment issues)
• Cases like Baker vs. Carr demonstrated how the courts will not attempt to resolve issues where there is not a clear, reliable method for determining answers.

Necessary and Proper Clause

• The Necessary and Proper Clause gives Congress the power to enact laws that are "necessary and proper" for carrying out its expressed powers.
• This power allows Congress to enact laws to achieve its enumerated power
• The clause allows for implied powers, rather than expressly stated ones, which is sometimes debated for interpretation.
• Often debated in context of enumerated powers for example, "commerce clause."

Commerce Clause

• Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce is broad and extends to activities that affect interstate commerce, even if those activities occur entirely within a single state.
• The modern interpretation of the commerce clause goes considerably beyond its original understanding, and is viewed widely in contemporary cases.
• The Court's application to commerce clause cases became more narrow in some landmark cases, such as United States v. Lopez.
• Congress has considerable power but there are limits (e.g., the power doesn't extend to all forms of economic activity merely because it impacts commerce, United States v. Lopez and United States v. Morrison).

War Powers

• The president has limited powers to take action in military conflict without express or implied Congressional authorization.
• This is often subject to Congressional scrutiny and judicial review.

Executive Privilege & Presidential Immunity

• Executive privilege allows the President to withhold information from other branches of government.
• Courts have interpreted this privilege to be qualified, not absolute, weighing the need for secrecy against other needs for information.
• Limitations on presidential immunity exist when the President is acting in a way that is not related to his official duties.

Delegation Doctrine

• Congress cannot delegate its legislative powers to other branches of government.
• Courts have required Congress to provide the executive branch with a sufficiently clear articulation of policy goals, leaving standards as essential components of Congressional delegation.
• Congress can delegate power on subjects that are not within its expressed powers but must provide intelligible principles.

Appointments Clause

• The Appointments Clause of the Constitution defines how various federal officials should be chosen.
• The process is subject to Congressional authorization and often depends on whether it is an inferior or principal officer.
• This involves the interpretation of Congress's delegation of authority within the appointments process
• The Appointments Clause does not allow for delegation of power in a particular way, but allows for the delegation of powers with intelligible principles and guidelines.

Removal Power

• The constitution's language regarding removal power is imprecise, and as a result, varying interpretations have evolved through case law.
• The Supreme Court has carved out exceptions to this authority, notably when removal is connected to a principal versus inferior officer and/or when the constitution's text or intent is directly at odds with or subject to an implied Congressional restriction.

Test your knowledge on judicial review and the concept of standing in legal cases. This quiz covers key cases like Marbury v. Madison and the requirements for a plaintiff to establish standing. Understand the judiciary's role in upholding the Constitution and addressing legal rights.