CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Fall 2006, W.B. Fisch
Assignment #3

    Ch. 3.  THE JURISDICTION OF FEDERAL COURTS IN CONSTITUTIONAL CASES

3. Cases and Controversies and Justiciability

A. In General

  • Art. III §2 para. 1: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases ..., -- to all Cases ...; -- to all Cases ...; -- to Controversies ...; -- to Controversies ..."
  • "cases of a judiciary nature" (Madison's notes from the Convention, not published until 1840!): what are they?
    • no advisory opinions (Opinion of the Justices, 1793, pp. 59-60) – why not?
    • no decision on "political questions"
    • no decision without parties having "standing" to assert their claims
    • no decisions on issues which are "moot" or are not yet "ripe for decision"
  • Flast v. Cohen (1968), description of "justiciability" by Chief Justice Warren, p. 60
    • uncertainty both of origin and of definition
    • "traditionally thought to be capable of resolution through the judicial process"
    • includes both constitutionally required and "prudential" elements

B. Standing

·        WARTH V. SELDIN, p. 62 (1975): restrictive zoning, racially discriminatory, injunction

    • sketch of core standing doctrines
      • constitutional requirements
        • actual injury ("injury in fact")
        • causal relationship between injury and act complained of -- [later also a "remediability" requirement (Simon, 1976, p. 73)]
      • "prudential" requirements
        • injury alleged must be individual, not a "generalized grievance"
        • rights asserted must be those of the claimant and not of third parties
      • procedural rules
        • not on merits, only allegations, construed in favor of pleader
        • if further evidence is allowed, plaintiff has burden of proof!
    • analysis of standing of plaintiff groups under above criteria: why does each fail?
      • low-to-moderate income citizens of Rochester
      • taxpayers of Rochester
      • associations whose members allege injury
      • citizens of the zoned community
      • builders and developers of low-to-moderate-income housing
  • Village of Arlington Heights, p. 70 (1977): what is plaintiff's injury? Is an economic injury required? Should it be?
  • Other "injury-in-fact" cases, pp. 71-74: is there result-orientation at work here?
    • Duke Power (1978): connection between alleged injury (environmental harm from normal operation of plant) and wrong (limiting liability for accident)?
    • Sierra Club (1972) vs. SCRAP (1973): why is it so important that an association be able to show that a few of its members have suffered individual injury?
    • Allen v. Wright (1984): do tax exemptions foster discrimination, and would denial eliminate the discrimination? but-for causation/remediability