Substantive Law Study Support

Questions for Review and Answers

1. Describe the types of cases within the subject matter jurisdiction of federal courts.
• cases arising under the Constitution (sometimes called federal questions)

• cases arising under federal laws (also called federal questions)

• cases arising under treaties

• cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls

• admiralty and maritime cases

• controversies to which the United States is a party
• controversies between two or more states

• controversies between a state and citizens of another state

• controversies between citizens of different states

• controversies between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states
• controversies between a state or citizens and foreign states, citizens, or subjects

2. Compare the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction with the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction.
The Constitution confers the Supreme Court with original jurisdiction in cases involving ambassadors, public ministers, and consuls, and cases in which a state is a party. In all other cases it has appellate jurisdiction, as long as there is some federal question.

3. Explain the difference between a direct appeal and a petition for writ of certiorari.
Appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is exercised in two ways: through a direct appeal and through a writ of certiorari. A direct appeal, sometimes called an appeal of right, requires the Supreme Court to review a matter. A writ of certiorari is a discretionary review. Whether a party can file a direct appeal or must file a petition for a writ of certiorari is a matter of statutory law.

4. What does justiciability mean?

The term justiciable is sometimes used to describe the concept that before a court will hear a case, it must present an actual controversy, which generally means that there must be some real harm immediately threatening the plaintiff. In addition, even though a real dispute may exist, a court will not hear a matter where the issue is a political question.

5. Compare and contrast the concepts of mootness and ripeness and explain their relevance to the constitutional requirement that the courts have jurisdiction only when there is a case or controversy.
Mootness refers to the concept that the harm that is the basis for the lawsuit no longer exists, whereas ripeness refers to the fact that no harm is yet fully threatened. In either case there is no case in controversy, and the court will not hear the case.

6. Describe two situations under which a plaintiff might have problems with standing to bring a lawsuit.
Taxpayers who bring lawsuits challenging a specific tax often have problems with standing as do organizations unless they can show that individual members of the group have suffered some damage or injury.

7. Explain the abstention doctrine.

In cases in which the issues involve matters that have traditionally been handled in state court (such as divorce cases) or in which the interpretation of a state law is in question, the federal courts abstain from hearing the case.
8
. What is the doctrine of judicial review?

This power gives the courts the right to interpret the Constitution and declare invalid any federal or state law or case decision that is contrary to the Constitution. This right was affirmed by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison.

9. Explain the concept of sovereign immunity. How does this relate to the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution?

The doctrine of sovereign immunity dates back to English common law, which provided that the king could not be sued. Today, that doctrine carries over and, to a limited extent, applies to federal and state governments. Lawsuits against federal and state governments are not allowed without the consent of the government.
The doctrine of sovereign immunity as applied to state governments was not always recognized under the Constitution. In 1793, in the case of Chisholm v.Georgia, 2 U.S. 419, the Supreme Court held that Article III allowed a state to be sued by a citizen of another state in federal court. States acted immediately to reaffirm their right of sovereign immunity. Because the Supreme Court held that the Constitution allowed suits against states, the only way it could be changed was through a constitutional amendment. The Eleventh Amendment resulted.

10. How does the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution affect the relationship between federal and state courts?
Under Article VI, Section 2, the Constitution is made the supreme law of the land. This section specifically applies to state courts. Because the Supreme Court has the right to interpret the Constitution, any cases involving constitutional interpretation are binding on the states.
Questions for Analysis and Responses

1. Review the case scenario in Living with the Constitution at the beginning of the chapter. Discuss problems that Wilson might face with standing and ripeness. Does the federal court have subject matter jurisdiction over this type of case?
In regard to standing, the law does not discriminate against women, and thus she is not expressly discriminated against in the law so it could be argued there is no

injury. However, because she owns a bar, her business is affected by the law. She probably has standing. If the Supreme Court determines that the legal issues are clear enough and well enough evolved and presented so that a clear decision may come out of the case, then they may select her case for its “ripeness.”
The federal court does appear to have subject matter jurisdiction as the law appears to violate the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause and other federal discrimination laws. The federal courts have jurisdiction because it is a federal question.

2. Why can courts not give advisory opinions?

There must be an actual controversy or dispute before a court can act. The court’s goal is to resolve a controversy, not simply provide an opinion.

3. Review the Court’s decision in Hertz v. Friend. Is the “nerve center” approach to determining diversity of citizenship really practical in today’s world of telecommuting and online conferences?
Responses to this question may vary, but students should be able to argue that it is practical because, for example, a “nerve center” test would still be able to determine when the high officials in a corporation tend to participate in decision making; students may also argue that it is impractical and the Court should consider an alternative test, such as the “place of operations” test to consider when considerable commerce activity is taking place.

4. Why do taxpayers generally lack standing to file court actions attacking the way that taxes are spent? Why did the Court allow such a lawsuit in Flast v. Cohen?

The Court is reluctant to find standing based solely on taxpayer standing because

it may allow standing to be broadly interpreted and could open the floodgates for

litigation; it is critical that taxpayers are able to show a direct injury from the

action and that the injury stems directly from their taxpayer dollars financing the

action they are challenging, and the funding of the action is unconstitutional.

The Court allowed the lawsuit in Flast v. Cohen because they were able to

show that the expense in question was funded by the taxing and spending power

of the government and that the spending program violated a specific provision of

the Constitution.