Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Facts
On his last day in office, President John Adams named forty-two justices of the peace and sixteen new circuit court justices for the District of Columbia under the Organic Act. The Organic Act was an attempt by the Federalists to take control of the federal judiciary before Thomas Jefferson took office. The commissions were signed by President Adams and sealed by acting Secretary of State John Marshall (who later became Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and author of this opinion), but they were not delivered before the expiration of Adamss term as president. Thomas Jefferson refused to honor the commissions, claiming that they were invalid because they had not been delivered by the end of Adamss term. William Marbury (P) was an intended recipient of an appointment as justice of the peace. Marbury applied directly to the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of mandamus to com pel Jeffersons Secretary of State, James Madison (D), to deliver the commissions. The Judiciary Act of 1789 had granted the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under the auth ority of the United States.
Issues
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Does Marbury have a right to the commission? Does the law grant Marbury a remedy? Does the Supreme Court have the authority to review acts of Congress and determine whether they are unconstitutional and therefore void? Can Congress expand the scope of the Supreme Courts original jurisdiction beyond what is specified in Article III of the Constitution? Does the Supreme Court have original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus?
2.
3.
4.
any ordinary act of the legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply. No. Congress cannot expand the scope of the Supreme Courts original jurisdiction beyond what is specified in Article III of the Constitution. The Constitution states that the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party. In all other cases, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction. If it had been intended to leave it in the discretion of the Legislature to apportion the judicial power between the Supreme and inferior courts according to the will of that body, this section is mere surplusage and is entirely without meaning. If Congress remains at liberty to give this court appellate jurisdiction where the Constitution has declared their jurisdiction shall be original, and original jurisdiction where the Constitution has declared it shall be appellate, the distribution of jurisdiction made in the Constitution, is form without substance. No. The Supreme Court does not have original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus. To enable this court then to issue a mandamus, it must be shown to be an exercise of appellate jurisdiction, or to be necessary to enable them to exercise appellate jurisdiction. It is the essential criterion of appellate jurisdiction that it revises and corrects the proceedings in a cause already instituted, and does not create that case. Although, therefore, a mandamus may be directed to courts, yet to issue such a writ to an officer for the delivery of a paper is, in effect, the same as to sustain an original action for that paper, and is therefore a matter of original jurisdiction.
5.
Disposition
Application for writ of mandamus denied. Marbury doesnt get the commission. See Ex Parte McCardle for a constitutional law case brief holding that that the Constitution gives Congress the express power to make exceptions to the Supreme Courts appellate jurisdiction.
Poe v. Ullman
Share on facebookShare on emailShare on print|More Sharing ServicesMore
View this case and other resources at:
Citation. 367 U.S. 497, 81 S. Ct. 1752, 6 L. Ed. 2d 989, 1961 U.S. Brief Fact Summary. The Appellants, several couples and their physician (Appellants), brought suit, seeking the overturn of a Connecticut statute prohibiting the use of contraceptive devices and the giving of medical advice on the use of such devices. Synopsis of Rule of Law. A penal statute is not ripe for constitutional challenge unless it is enforced by the state enacting the statute. Facts. The Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors construed a state penal statute as prohibiting the use of contraceptive devices and the giving of medical advice on their use. Appellants included a couple who had several pregnancies result with severely abnormal progeny which died shortly after birth, a couple whose wife had experienced a severely traumatic pregnancy and their physician, who believes the safest course of treatment for the couples includes using contraceptive devices. Issue. Is the petitioners claim ripe for judicial review?
Held. No. Judgment affirmed. Connecticut has never attempted to fully prosecute any case under the statute. Because of this, not only have the Appellants not suffered injury in fact from the statute, but there is no evidence that they would be prosecuted for acting in violation of the statute. Dissent. Justice William Douglas (J. Douglas) argues that the mere threat of prosecution is injury in fact, that it is not the choice worthy of a civilized society to require individuals to risk penalty for their behavior to have their constitutional rights determined. Discussion. Although ripeness is the central issue in Poe, the Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court) does not articulate any clear guidelines to evaluate ripeness. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court seems to articulate that a penal statute that has not been enforced is not ripe for judicial review.
respondent had no standing. Respondent failed to show he suffered an injury different from that suffered by the public in general. CONCLUSION: The Court reversed the lower appellate court's judgment finding respondent had standing to challenge a federal agency's expenditure reporting methods because respondent failed to allege a direct, personal injury that was different from that suffered by the general public.
- See more at: http://www.lawschoolcasebriefs.net/2013/01/united-states-v-richardson-case-brief.html#sthash.LIQzd4kx.dpuf
DeFunis v. Odegaard Case Brief Supreme Court of the United States 416 U.S. 312 (1974) ISSUE: Does a law students status of being in his last term of law school render his suit challenging the constitutionality of the law schools admission process under the EPC moot if the law school has promised not to challenge the students ability to complete his law school studies? HOLDING: Yes. FACTS:
P applied to U. of Washington Law School and was denied admission P brought suit seeking a mandatory injunction commanding the state-run law school to admit him as a member of the first-year class, on the ground that the law schools admissions policy had resulted in the unconstitutional denial of his application for admission
PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
Trial Ct. granted the relief Wash. Sup. Ct. reversed, holding that the admissions policy did not violate the Constitution At time of consideration in SCOTUS, P was in his last term of law school, and the law school made it clear that it will not seek to abrogate Ps registration
RULES:
Mootness: As a derivative of the Art. III case or controversy requirement, the federal judiciary cannot review moot cases Voluntary cessation: Voluntary cessation of allegedly illegal conduct does not deprive a court of power to hear and determine the case, i.e., does not make the case moot
Voluntary cessation will render a case moot only if there is no reasonable expectation that the wrong will be repeated
REASONING:
Issue is moot: Because P will complete his law school studies at the end of the term for which he has now registered regardless of any decision the Court might reach on the merits of the case, the Court cannot, consistently with the limitations of Art. III, consider the substantive constitutional issues tendered by the parties
Controversy between the parties has ceased to be definite and concrete and no longer touches the legal relations of the parties having adverse legal interests Not about voluntary cessation, just about the fact that P will never have to face the allegedly unlawful admissions policies again Not a case presenting conduct capable of repetition yet evading review because anyone else allegedly discriminated against can bring suit in the future
P is not done with law school yet, so there is a possibility that the law school could retreat on its assurances that it would let P continue in his studies Mere voluntary cessation of unlawful conduct does not moot a case No want of adversary contest in this case, as there is a fully developed factual record that came about while P was not assured a spot in law school Avoiding repetitious litigation serves the public interest, so the inevitability of having another case on the same issue counsels against a mootness determination
Facts
Congress passed an act that conferred original jurisdiction the Court of Claims and appellate jurisdiction on the Supreme Court to determine the validity of certain acts of Congress (i.e. to issue advisory opinions). The Congressional acts related to the distribution and allotment of lands and funds to members of the Cherokee Indian tribe. Muskrat and the other plaintiffs in this case brought suit in the Court of Claims seeking a declaration that Congressional acts of 1904 and 1906 were unconstitutional, and that an earlier (and more favorable) act of July 1902 was controlling. The Court of Claims sustained the validity of the acts of 1904 and 1906 and dismissed the petitions and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Issues
1. 2. What is the scope of the judicial power conferred b y the Constitution upon the Supreme Court? May Congress expand the jurisdiction of the federal courts by empowering them to issue advisory opinions?
As per Marbury v. Madison, neither the legislative nor the executive branch can assign to the judicial branch any duties other than those that are properly judicial and to be performed in a judicial manner. Under the Constitution, judicial power is limited to cases and controversies. A case or controversy implies the existence of present or possible adverse parties whose contentions are submitted to the court for adjudication. Congress does not have the power to provide for a suit of this nature to be brought in federal court to test the constitutionality of prior acts of Congress because such a suit is not a case or controversy. This court has no veto power over legislation enacted by Congress, and its right to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional can only be exercised when a proper case between opposing parties is submitted for determination.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded with orders to dismiss to lack of jurisdiction. Notes: Nothing in the United States Constitution prohibits state courts from issuing advisory opinions and some states engage in the practice. A fair amount of Supreme Court jurisprudence has arguably been unkind to the indigenous peoples within United States territory.