Understanding Justiciability in Constitutional Law Practice
School
St. John's University**We aren't endorsed by this school
Course
CRJ 3122
Subject
Law
Date
Dec 12, 2024
Pages
6
Uploaded by AdmiralStingrayPerson1234
ST. JOHN'S UNIVERSITYSCHOOL OF LAWProfessor John Q. BarrettSpring 2024CONSTITUTIONAL LAWClosed Book Practice QuestionsPosted on Canvas 2/23/2024**PLEASE STOP,READ THIS NOTICE, AND THINK ABOUT ITBEFORE YOU READ BEYOND THIS PAGE.**The next page has three short questions. Don’t peak at them now.Between now and Sunday night, when you are “ready,” “take” them, closed book.Spend no more than 10 minutes on each question.Email your answers to me and to your TA.This exercise is for your practice. It is voluntary, not required.
Questions1.Assume that New York’s legislature approves next week the state bipartisan commission-proposed congressional district maps for the 2024 elections. One of the new maps will increase the number of Democratic Party-registered voters in a Syracuse-area district. If the incumbent Republican who represents that district immediately files a federal lawsuit claiming constitutional injuries, may a court decide the case?In considering if a court can decide a case, courts look at whether the case is justiciable for them to use their Article III judicial power of review reserved for “cases and controversies.” Justiciability concerns standing, mootness, ripeness, no advisory opinion, and nonpolitical questions.Standing, being one of the most important, requires there be (1) an actual injury that has alreadyoccurred or is imminently close to occurring that is non-speculative (2) that can be directly traced back to the defendant (3) and that if the court finds in favor of the claimant can properly redress the injury.Here, …… Non-Political Questionis considered to ensure the court is reviewing cases that deserve the court’s attention and resources and concern true cases or controversies. Emphasizing that political questions are better off left for the political process to situate and resolve and not the court. In considering if a case is a political process, the court uses the Bakker v. Carr factors that include (1) if there is a textual commitment to another branch (2) if there are already judicially manageable standards in place (3) if addressing this case would be giving the middle finger to the other branches. (4) whether the court already considered this case, making it redundant (5) whether the court already considered this political question (6) the issue of not being able to decide that case without making a non-judicial policy determination. If one of these factors is satisfied, then the presented claims become a non-justiciable political question.Here, ….Mootness and ripenessgo hand in hand and essentially respond to the same concerns of standing. Justiciability is better viewed as a goldilocks spectrum where premature claims, in which the injury is not actualized or has the potential of never occurring are not ripe enough and cannot be brought to court. Claims in which the injury is too far gone, will likely not occur or in which the parties no longer have reason to have stake in the game are considered too moot and therefore not justifiable. True justiciable cases have the correct timing to bring their case forth tothe court to redress. Here, A claim must also be a non-advisory opinion to be able to be considered justiciable. The claim cannot position the court to address a matter that is seen as the court making advisory opinions 2
…. Here, 3
May Congress require employers to give an electronic bike to every employee who resides within two miles of his, her, or their workplace?CALL OF ACTION this is a question of federal power on its ability to impose on individual rights, in this case employers to give electric bikesOff the bat I would say this is a Commerce Clause question, are they able to regulate the electronic bikes and impose that states use it too..? or is this just a 4
Does Congress have power to outlaw possession or consumption of menthol-flavored cigarettes within 1,000 feet of any public or private school?The issue presented is a two-fold question of whether Congress’s Article I, Sec 8 Commerce Clause power extends to (1) possession of a substance (2) consumption of a substance PossessionThe modern reading of Congress’s commerce clause power has limited the government’s ability to regulate therefore giving more power to the states. This still concerns Congress’s commerce clause power but under the possession aspect. Can congress regulate possession of a thing? Lopez being the most recent consideration of possession held that Congress may notregulate mere possession (in this case, gun possession near a schoolyard). Here, the possession of menthol-flavored cigarettes would be out of the purview of Congres’s exercise of their Commerce clause muscle considering it is not an activity in a commercial or economic nature to be considered intrastate activity that in the aggregate effects interstate commerce (under the 3rdprong of the CC power) Conclusively, this scenario concerning possession would most likely be an invalid use of Congress’s commerce power. ConsumptionUnder the New era test of Congress’s commerce power, it is recognized that Congress can regulate individual intrastate activity that in the aggregate would have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.Cigarette consumption: probably within Congressional powerActivity under NFIBEconomic or commercial in natureSmoking reduces one’s supply, and overall supply, of items that are in constant demand, due to their popularity, and especially because they are addictive—rational basis to think that there will always be addict demandThus, smoking creates new demand for replacement supplyMaybe this is demand for products that already are in channels of interstate commerce—e.g., cigarettes sold at highway rest stop stores, etc.Even if they are not, intrastate demand and purchases, in aggregate, will substantially affect interstate commerce…. Wickard; Raich.5
Conclusively, this scenario concerning consumption would most likely be a valid use of Congress’s commerce clause power. Appointment and Removal Q: Executive Privilege 10thamendment Due Process: EP:1.What is the classification (what is the distinction made between the people 2.What level of scrutiny should be used3.Does the governments action meet the level of scrutiny? 14thamendment only applies to state and local governments.EP to federal gov through DP clause of the 5thamendment Race/ discrimination is made visible either the on the face of the law. The law on its very explicit terms draws a distinction among people on the basis of race If facially race neutral it has to be both (1) discriminatory impact and (2) discriminatory intent (N&P, P&Is, 6