PastPaperHero | The nature of judicial review

Learning Outcomes

This article explains the nature and limits of federal judicial review jurisdiction, including:

The constitutional source of federal judicial power and the case-or-controversy requirement
The difference between subject matter and personal jurisdiction in the federal courts
Congressional power to shape the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and lower federal courts
The Eleventh Amendment, state sovereign immunity, and the Ex parte Young workaround
Standing (including taxpayer, third-party, and organizational standing), ripeness, mootness, and advisory opinions
The political question doctrine and its application to separation-of-powers disputes
The relationship between state and federal courts, including the adequate and independent state ground doctrine
The Supreme Court’s original and appellate jurisdiction, the final judgment rule, and how federal questions reach the Court from state and federal systems
Limits on lower federal court review of state proceedings (Rooker–Feldman and the Anti‑Injunction Act)
Practical issue-spotting sequences for MBE questions involving justiciability, federal court power, and review of state court judgments

MBE Syllabus

For the MBE, you are required to understand the constitutional and statutory foundations of federal judicial review and jurisdiction, with a focus on the following syllabus points:

The organization and relationship of state and federal courts in the federal system
Congressional power to define and limit federal court jurisdiction (Article III, Exceptions Clause)
The Eleventh Amendment and state sovereign immunity
The "case or controversy" requirement: standing, ripeness, mootness, and prohibition on advisory opinions
Special standing doctrines: taxpayer standing, third-party standing, and organizational standing
The political question doctrine and other justiciability limits
The Supreme Court’s original and appellate jurisdiction and the doctrine of adequate and independent state grounds
Limits on federal review of state court judgments and the final judgment requirement

Test Your Knowledge

Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, remember to look more closely at that area during your revision.

Which of the following is NOT a requirement for a federal court to hear a case?
1. Standing
2. Ripeness
3. The case presents a political question
4. Mootness
The Eleventh Amendment generally prohibits:
1. Federal courts from issuing advisory opinions
2. Federal courts from hearing suits against states by private individuals
3. Congress from limiting the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction
4. State courts from hearing federal questions
The Supreme Court may NOT review a state court judgment if:
1. The state court relied on an adequate and independent state ground
2. The case involves a federal constitutional issue
3. The state court cited both state and federal law
4. The case was decided by the highest court of the state
A private plaintiff sues a state highway department (an arm of the state) in federal court for past-due overtime wages under a federal commerce-clause statute that is silent about suits against states. The state has not consented to the suit. The biggest obstacle to federal jurisdiction is:
1. Lack of standing
2. The Eleventh Amendment
3. The political question doctrine
4. The final judgment rule
A federal taxpayer sues to challenge a federal statute granting tax credits to parents who send their children to religious schools, alleging a violation of the Establishment Clause. The suit is filed in federal district court. Which is the best analysis?
1. No standing, because there is never taxpayer standing in federal court
2. Standing, because the taxpayer challenges any government expenditure
3. No standing, because tax credits are not “taxing and spending” under the Flast exception
4. Standing, because any Establishment Clause claim is within the taxpayer standing exception

Introduction

Federal judicial review is the authority of federal courts to interpret the Constitution and invalidate government actions that conflict with it. This power sits at the core of constitutional law, but it is tightly constrained by Article III of the Constitution, federal statutes, and doctrines of justiciability.

Key Term: Judicial Review
The power of federal courts to interpret the Constitution and invalidate government acts that violate it.

Judicial review was famously recognized in Marbury v. Madison, but its modern limits are set primarily by:

Article III’s specification of the kinds of “cases” and “controversies” federal courts may hear
Structural principles of separation of powers and federalism
Statutory grants and limits contained in Title 28 of the United States Code
Judge-made doctrines of justiciability (standing, ripeness, mootness, political questions)
Sovereign immunity doctrines, especially the Eleventh Amendment and Ex parte Young

Key Term: Case or Controversy
The Article III limitation that federal courts may decide only actual, concrete disputes between adverse parties, not abstract or hypothetical questions.

Understanding the boundaries of federal jurisdiction—who can sue, when they can sue, which courts can hear which cases, and when the Supreme Court can review state court decisions—is essential for MBE success. Many exam traps turn on subtle distinctions within these jurisdictional rules.

Article III and the “Judicial Power”

Article III, § 1 vests the “judicial Power of the United States” in one Supreme Court and in any inferior courts Congress chooses to create. Section 2 then limits that power to a defined set of “cases” and “controversies,” including:

Cases arising under the Constitution, federal laws, and 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 (now limited by the Eleventh Amendment)
Controversies between citizens of different states (diversity)
Controversies involving foreign states or citizens

These categories are the outer constitutional limit: even if Congress wanted to, it could not authorize federal courts to decide matters beyond this list. Within that outer limit, Congress decides which cases the lower federal courts may hear and how much of the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction to make available.

On MBE-style questions, a recurring pattern is:

The Constitution permits the federal courts to hear the type of dispute (for example, a federal constitutional claim), but
Some separate limit (for example, the case is moot, or the Eleventh Amendment applies, or Congress has restricted jurisdiction) still prevents a federal court from acting.

The Structure of Federal and State Courts

Article III establishes the federal judicial power and limits it to certain categories of “cases” and “controversies,” but most everyday litigation still takes place in state courts.

At a high level:

State courts are courts of general jurisdiction. They can hear nearly any type of claim—state or federal—unless a federal statute makes jurisdiction exclusive in federal court (such as patent or bankruptcy).
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They can hear only those cases that:
- Fall within an Article III category, and
- Are authorized by a federal jurisdictional statute (for example, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332).

Key Term: Subject Matter Jurisdiction
The authority of a court to hear a particular type of case (for example, federal questions, diversity cases, or specific statutory categories).

Key Term: Personal Jurisdiction
The authority of a court to exercise power over particular parties (or property) in a case, consistent with due process.

Key Term: Original Jurisdiction
The authority of a court to hear a case in the first instance.

Key Term: Appellate Jurisdiction
The authority of a court to review, and potentially revise, decisions of lower courts.

In the federal system:

The Supreme Court has limited original jurisdiction (mainly suits between states and some cases involving ambassadors) and broad, largely discretionary appellate jurisdiction over federal and certain state court decisions.
Lower federal courts (district courts and courts of appeals) have jurisdiction only where Congress has granted it by statute (for example, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 1367, 1254).
State courts, absent an exclusive federal jurisdiction statute, may hear federal as well as state law claims. State judges must apply the Supremacy Clause and follow controlling federal law when properly presented.

On the MBE, two distinctions recur and are easy to mix up:

Subject matter jurisdiction: Does this court system (federal vs. state) and this level of court have power over this kind of case?
Personal jurisdiction: Does this court have power over this defendant or property?

A court can have personal jurisdiction but lack subject matter jurisdiction (and vice versa). Lack of subject matter jurisdiction:

Cannot be waived
Can be raised at any time, including on appeal
Must be noticed and acted on by the court on its own initiative

Lack of personal jurisdiction:

Must be timely objected to in the defendant’s first Rule 12 response
Is waived if not timely raised

Understanding this distinction matters for judicial review because, for example, a federal court confronted with a state prisoner’s petition or a challenge to a state regulation must first confirm that it has subject matter jurisdiction before it can review the legality of the challenged state action.

Supreme Court Jurisdiction and Paths of Review

Article III and federal statutes define when and how cases can reach the Supreme Court.

Original Jurisdiction

Article III, § 2 gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over:

Cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls
Cases in which a state is a party

Congress has implemented and refined this in 28 U.S.C. § 1251:

Some of this original jurisdiction is exclusive (for example, controversies between two or more states).
The rest is concurrent with lower federal courts (for example, suits by the United States against a state, or suits involving ambassadors).

Congress may not expand or contract the constitutional grant of original jurisdiction. Statutes that purport to do so are invalid.

Appellate Jurisdiction

In all other cases within the federal judicial power, the Supreme Court acts as an appellate court. Its appellate jurisdiction is exercised primarily through:

Writs of certiorari from federal courts of appeals (28 U.S.C. § 1254)
Writs of certiorari from state courts of last resort that decided a federal question (28 U.S.C. § 1257)

Most modern Supreme Court cases arrive by certiorari. Four Justices must vote to grant cert.

Typical reasons the Court grants certiorari:

To resolve conflicts among lower courts on issues of federal law
To decide important, recurring federal questions
To correct serious departures from accepted federal law or from Supreme Court precedent

The Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction is subject to both constitutional and statutory limits:

Congress may regulate and make “exceptions” to the Court’s appellate jurisdiction (the Exceptions Clause).
The Court may review only questions of federal law; it does not sit to correct errors of state law.
The Court reviews only final judgments of state courts (the final judgment rule), and only where there is no adequate and independent state ground supporting the judgment.

Key Term: Exceptions Clause
The provision of Article III allowing Congress to make exceptions to and regulations of the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction.

Key Term: Final Judgment Rule
The principle that the Supreme Court may review only final judgments of state courts (or final federal appellate decisions), not interlocutory rulings, subject to narrow exceptions.

Two important practical consequences for MBE problems:

You must always ask whether there is a final decision from the highest state court available, and
You must always check whether the judgment rests on an adequate and independent state ground that insulates it from Supreme Court review.

Lower federal courts have no power to review final state court judgments as such. This is the Rooker–Feldman principle.

Key Term: Rooker–Feldman Doctrine
The rule that lower federal courts lack jurisdiction to review final state-court judgments; only the U.S. Supreme Court may do so.

If a losing state-court party tries to “appeal” the state judgment by filing a new federal district court action complaining of injuries caused by that judgment, the district court must dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Congressional Power Over Jurisdiction

Congress has significant control over the jurisdiction of the federal courts, but that control is not unlimited.

Congress may:

Create or abolish lower federal courts and define their subject matter jurisdiction (for example, by setting the contours of diversity, federal question, and supplemental jurisdiction).
Expand or restrict the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction (the Exceptions Clause), as long as it does not destroy the essential role of the Supreme Court in maintaining a uniform body of federal law.
Allocate cases between state and federal courts and make some federal jurisdiction exclusive (for example, patent, bankruptcy, and certain federal criminal prosecutions).

Congress may not:

Change the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction, which is fixed by the Constitution.
Direct the outcome of specific cases or reopen final judgments in a way that usurps the judicial function and violates separation of powers (for example, by enacting a law stating that “in all pending cases X, the courts must rule for plaintiff”).
Eliminate all avenues for constitutional review of federal action. While Congress can channel certain claims into specific tribunals and can limit some forms of review (including habeas corpus in limited ways), there must remain some avenue in the judiciary for adjudicating federal constitutional challenges.

On the exam, be ready to distinguish:

Valid limits on appellate jurisdiction (for example, “no appeals to the Supreme Court from lower federal courts in category X”), which usually are allowed, from
Unconstitutional attempts to expand original jurisdiction or to dictate how courts must decide cases, which are not allowed.

Also note: Congress’s power to limit lower federal court jurisdiction does not itself eliminate state court jurisdiction over federal questions, unless Congress also makes that federal jurisdiction exclusive. If Congress cuts back federal-question jurisdiction in federal district courts but does not make the federal cause of action exclusively federal, state courts remain open to hear the federal claim.

The Eleventh Amendment and State Sovereign Immunity

The Eleventh Amendment limits the ability of private parties to sue states in federal court and is closely tied to a broader doctrine of sovereign immunity.

Key Term: Eleventh Amendment
The constitutional provision that generally prohibits federal courts from hearing suits against states by private individuals.

Key Term: State Sovereign Immunity
The principle that states cannot be sued for money damages or retroactive relief without their consent, grounded in the Eleventh Amendment and in the structure of the Constitution.

The text of the Eleventh Amendment is narrow—it mentions suits “against one of the United States by Citizens of another State.” But the Supreme Court has interpreted it, alongside structural federalism principles, to block a broader range of suits.

General rule:

A private citizen may not sue a state for money damages in federal court without the state’s consent. This is true whether the plaintiff is:
- A citizen of another state
- A citizen of the same state
- A foreign citizen

The immunity generally covers:

Suits against the state itself
Suits against state agencies that are treated as “arms of the state”
Suits against state officials in their official capacities when the state treasury would pay the judgment

But sovereign immunity does not protect:

Cities, counties, and other local governments (they may be sued in federal court for damages under § 1983 and other statutes)
State officers sued in their individual capacities for damages out of their own assets
State officers sued for prospective relief to halt ongoing violations of federal law (the Ex parte Young doctrine)

Whether a state can be sued in its own courts is governed by a mix of state law and federal constitutional constraints. The Eleventh Amendment itself is about suits in federal court.

Key exam-tested exceptions:

State consent: A state may waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity and consent to be sued in federal court, but waiver is not lightly inferred. Courts require a clear, unequivocal statement or action by the state. Simply participating in federal programs is not normally treated as consent.
United States as plaintiff: The federal government may sue a state in federal court.
Other states as plaintiffs: One state may sue another state in the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction.
Congressional abrogation: Congress may authorize private suits for damages against states when:
- It acts pursuant to § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, and
- It makes its intent to abrogate immunity unmistakably clear in the statute’s text.
By contrast, statutes passed under Article I (for example, the Commerce Clause) generally cannot abrogate state sovereign immunity.

Classic examples:

Congress can validly subject states to suits under federal civil-rights statutes enforcing equal protection (for example, certain applications of Title VII).
Congress cannot use the Commerce Clause to authorize private suits for damages against non-consenting states (for example, certain damages claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act or the Fair Labor Standards Act are barred as to state employers).

Key Term: Ex parte Young Doctrine
The rule allowing private parties to sue state officers in federal court for prospective relief to stop ongoing violations of federal law, notwithstanding the Eleventh Amendment.

Under Ex parte Young, a plaintiff may sue a state officer in federal court for:

Prospective injunctive relief to halt an ongoing violation of federal law
Prospective declaratory relief stating that the officer’s current or threatened conduct violates federal law
Sometimes damages from the officer’s personal assets for constitutional torts (subject to qualified immunity and other defenses)

But Ex parte Young does not permit:

Retroactive monetary relief that would be effectively paid out of the state treasury (for example, back pay, past unpaid benefits)
Suits in federal court asking a federal court to order state officials to comply with state law; that would interfere excessively with state sovereignty over interpretation of its own law

When analyzing any suit involving a state, ask:

Who is the defendant—state, state agency, state officer, or local government?
What type of relief is sought—retrospective damages, or prospective injunctive/declaratory relief?
What is the statutory or constitutional basis of the suit—and did Congress clearly abrogate immunity under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment?

If:

The defendant is a state or arm of the state, and
The plaintiff seeks money damages or retroactive relief payable from the state treasury,

the default answer is that the Eleventh Amendment bars the action unless a clear exception applies.

If:

The defendant is a local government, or
A state officer is sued in an individual capacity for damages, or
A state officer is sued under Ex parte Young for prospective relief from an ongoing violation of federal law,

the Eleventh Amendment is usually no bar (though there may be other jurisdictional or merits problems).

The "Case or Controversy" Requirement and Justiciability

Federal courts may only decide actual cases or controversies under Article III. This requirement generates several justiciability doctrines: prohibition on advisory opinions, standing, ripeness, mootness, and the political question doctrine.

Key Term: Advisory Opinion
A prohibited judicial statement on the validity of a law or action where no actual dispute exists between adverse parties and no binding effect will follow.

Federal courts may not:

Issue advisory opinions on proposed legislation or hypothetical disputes
Decide “friendly” suits engineered by parties who are not genuinely adverse
Rule where their decision would have no real-world effect on the parties (no redressable injury)

By contrast, federal courts may issue declaratory judgments when:

There is an actual dispute between adverse parties, and
The judgment will have a concrete effect on the parties’ rights.

To ensure there is a genuine case or controversy, courts apply the doctrines of standing, ripeness, and mootness, and they refuse to hear certain political questions.

Standing

Key Term: Standing
The requirement that a plaintiff have a concrete, personal stake in the outcome of a case.

Constitutional standing has three core elements:

Injury in fact:
- Concrete and particularized (not abstract or generalized)
- Actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical
- Can be economic (lost money), physical, or non-economic (loss of constitutional rights, aesthetic harms, informational injuries created by statute)
Causation (traceability):
- The injury must be fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, not the result of independent actions of third parties not before the court.
Redressability:
- It must be likely (not merely speculative) that a favorable court decision will remedy the injury—by damages, injunction, or declaratory relief likely to influence future conduct.

In addition, courts sometimes apply prudential standing limits (judge-made, more flexible):

No standing to assert generalized grievances shared in equal measure by all citizens (for example, a taxpayer challenging the general legality of government spending).
Plaintiffs must ordinarily assert their own rights, not the rights of third parties.
Plaintiffs must usually be within the “zone of interests” protected by the statute or constitutional provision they invoke.

Congress may soften some prudential limits by creating statutory rights and causes of action, but it cannot eliminate the constitutional requirements of injury, causation, and redressability.

Standing is determined at the time the lawsuit is filed and cannot be waived; courts must raise standing problems on their own if necessary, including on appeal.

Key Term: Prudential Standing
Judge-made limits on who may sue (for example, bar on generalized grievances, third-party claims, or claims outside a statute’s “zone of interests”), beyond the irreducible constitutional minimum of injury, causation, and redressability.

Special Standing Doctrines

Three special standing doctrines are frequently tested:

Key Term: Taxpayer Standing
A very narrow form of standing that allows a federal taxpayer to challenge a specific congressional taxing-and-spending measure alleged to violate the Establishment Clause.

Key Term: Third-Party Standing
The ability of a litigant to assert the rights of someone else, allowed only when the litigant has a close relationship with the right-holder and there is some obstacle to the right-holder suing.

Key Term: Organizational Standing
The ability of an association to sue on behalf of its members when the members would have standing, the interests are germane to the organization’s purpose, and neither the claim nor the relief sought requires individual members to participate.

Taxpayer standing

General rule:

Federal taxpayers do not have standing to challenge how the government spends tax revenues based only on their status as taxpayers.

Narrow exception (from Flast v. Cohen):

A federal taxpayer may challenge:
- A specific congressional exercise of the taxing-and-spending power,
- Alleged to violate the Establishment Clause (for example, a statute appropriating money to support religious schools).

Limits to keep straight on the MBE:

The challenged program must be funded through Congress’s taxing and spending power, not through other powers such as the Property Clause or regulatory schemes.
The exception does not extend to:
- Challenges to tax credits rather than direct appropriations
- Challenges to purely executive spending not tied to a particular taxing-and-spending statute
- Claims under constitutional provisions other than the Establishment Clause

States may allow broader taxpayer standing in their own courts, but those state rules do not override Article III in federal court.

Third-party standing

Ordinarily, a party may not litigate someone else’s rights. Third-party standing is allowed when:

The litigant has a close relationship with the third party (for example, doctor–patient, vendor–customer, parent–child), and
There is some hindrance to the third party’s ability to protect their own interests (for example, privacy concerns, practical obstacles, fear of retaliation).

Common examples:

A doctor challenging abortion regulations on behalf of patients (patients’ privacy and the time-sensitive nature of pregnancy make it difficult for them to sue individually).
A vendor challenging licensing restrictions on behalf of customers who would otherwise have to forgo the product or service.
A criminal defendant asserting the rights of jurors excluded by race from the venire.

Even when third-party standing is allowed, the litigant must still meet the usual requirements of injury, causation, and redressability.

Organizational standing

An organization may sue on behalf of its members (associational standing) when:

The members would have standing in their own right.
The interests the organization seeks to protect are germane to its purpose.
Neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires participation of individual members (for example, purely injunctive or declaratory relief).

The organization may also sometimes have standing in its own right if it suffers a direct injury (for example, diversion of organizational resources to respond to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct).

Ripeness

Key Term: Ripeness
The requirement that a dispute must be sufficiently developed and immediate to warrant judicial review.

Ripeness addresses whether a case is brought too early. Federal courts avoid deciding issues that depend on uncertain future events.

Key considerations:

Fitness of the issues for judicial decision:
- Are the facts sufficiently developed?
- Is further administrative or factual development needed?
- Are the issues primarily legal (favoring early review) or heavily factual (favoring delay)?
Hardship to the parties of withholding review:
- Does the plaintiff face a substantial hardship—such as significant penalties, compliance costs, or loss of important rights—if pre-enforcement review is denied?

Typical MBE pattern: A party seeks pre-enforcement review of a regulation. If:

The regulation is final,
The legal issues are largely legal rather than factual, and
The plaintiff faces a credible threat of enforcement and substantial compliance costs,

the case is likely ripe. By contrast, if the law might never be enforced against the plaintiff, or key facts are still speculative, the case is likely unripe.

Mootness

Key Term: Mootness
The requirement that a live controversy must exist at all stages of litigation; if the issue is resolved or becomes academic, the case is moot.

Even if a case was once ripe, it may become nonjusticiable if events eliminate the plaintiff’s personal stake. Typical examples:

The challenged law is repealed or substantially amended.
The plaintiff receives the requested relief, leaving no ongoing injury.
The plaintiff’s factual situation changes so that the challenged action no longer affects them.

When a case becomes moot, the federal court must dismiss, unless a recognized exception applies.

Important exceptions:

Capable of repetition, yet evading review:
- The challenged action is too short in duration to be fully litigated before it ends (for example, pregnancy, many election disputes), and
- The same party is reasonably likely to be subjected to it again.
Voluntary cessation:
- A defendant’s voluntary stopping of challenged conduct does not moot a case if the defendant is free to resume the conduct at any time. The burden is on the defendant to show it is absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior cannot reasonably be expected to recur.
Class actions:
- If the named plaintiff’s claim becomes moot after class certification, the case may continue on behalf of the class. The controversy remains live as to unnamed class members.

In prisoner cases and student discipline cases, be alert to mootness issues if the prisoner is released or the student graduates; the outcome depends on whether collateral consequences or repeat exposure keep the controversy alive.

Political Questions and Justiciability

Key Term: Political Question
An issue that federal courts will not decide because it is constitutionally committed to another branch or lacks judicially manageable standards.

The political question doctrine is a separate limit on justiciability. Even when there is a case or controversy and standing, federal courts will decline to decide certain issues that are better left to the political branches.

Classic indicators (from Baker v. Carr) include:

A “textually demonstrable” constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department (Congress or the President).
A lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving the issue.
The impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination not suitable for judicial discretion.
The impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches.
An unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made.
The potential for embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by different branches.

Common political question examples on the MBE:

Challenges to the impeachment process (for example, whether the Senate followed its own impeachment procedures).
Claims under the Guarantee Clause (“republican form of government”), typically relating to state government structure.
Certain foreign policy decisions, especially recognition of foreign governments and conduct of diplomacy.
Partisan gerrymandering claims under the federal Constitution: after recent Supreme Court decisions, these are treated as nonjusticiable political questions in federal court.

By contrast, not every separation-of-powers dispute is a political question. For example:

Many election-related disputes involving equal protection (“one person, one vote”) are justiciable.
Statutory or constitutional limits on executive power (for example, whether a statute validly restricts removal of an executive officer) are often justiciable.
Challenges to war powers or military actions may be justiciable when framed as specific statutory or constitutional violations, though some are dismissed as political questions.

On the MBE, if a question describes a challenge to impeachment procedures or to the Guarantee Clause, “political question” is usually the tested doctrine.

Adequate and Independent State Grounds

Key Term: Adequate and Independent State Ground
A state law basis for a judgment that is sufficient by itself to support the result, preventing Supreme Court review of the federal issue.

The Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction over state court decisions is limited:

The Court may review final judgments of the highest state court that decide federal questions.
But it may not review a state court judgment that rests on an adequate and independent state law ground, even if the state court also addressed federal law.

Components:

Adequate: The state law ground is sufficient by itself to support the judgment, regardless of how the federal issue is resolved. If the party asserting a federal right would lose under state law anyway, the state ground is adequate.
Independent: The state law ground does not depend on an interpretation of federal law. If the state court explicitly says its decision would be the same under state law even if federal law were different, the state ground is independent.

If a state court judgment clearly rests on such a state ground, there is nothing for the Supreme Court to decide; any ruling on the federal issue would be advisory and therefore impermissible.

When the basis of a state court’s decision is ambiguous—unclear whether it rests on federal or state law—the Supreme Court may assume it has jurisdiction and decide the federal question, unless the state court clearly indicates reliance on independent state law. Some state courts use a “plain statement” that their decision rests on state constitutional grounds to insulate it from federal review.

Also remember: state constitutions can provide more protection for individual rights than the federal Constitution, but never less. When a state court:

Interprets the state constitution to give broader rights than the federal baseline, and
Clearly bases its decision on state law,

federal review is unavailable.

Relationship Between State and Federal Courts

Beyond Supreme Court review of state judgments and the Eleventh Amendment, several other doctrines structure how federal courts interact with state proceedings.

Key Term: Anti‑Injunction Act
A federal statute (28 U.S.C. § 2283) that generally forbids federal courts from enjoining pending state court proceedings, with narrow exceptions.

Key Term: Younger Abstention
A doctrine under which federal courts refrain from enjoining certain pending state criminal (and some civil) proceedings that implicate important state interests.

Key points:

Full Faith and Credit: Federal courts must give state court judgments the same preclusive effect they would receive in the courts of the rendering state.
Anti‑Injunction Act: Federal courts may not enjoin pending state proceedings except:
- As expressly authorized by Congress (for example, certain interpleader actions),
- Where necessary in aid of the federal court’s jurisdiction, or
- To protect or effectuate the federal court’s judgments (the “relitigation” exception). This statute is tested less frequently than justiciability but sometimes appears as a limit on federal relief.
Younger abstention (more common in Criminal Procedure than in Con Law MBE questions)
Federal courts generally will not enjoin ongoing state criminal prosecutions, and some civil enforcement actions, absent bad faith, harassment, or other extraordinary circumstances. A parallel federal damages action may go forward, but injunctive or declaratory relief interfering with the state case is usually off-limits.

For MBE purposes in Constitutional Law, the core takeaways are:

Only the U.S. Supreme Court may function as an appellate court over state judgments.
Lower federal courts cannot sit in review of state court judgments (Rooker–Feldman).
Federal courts are generally reluctant to halt ongoing state proceedings (Anti‑Injunction Act and Younger).

The Structure of Federal and State Courts (Expanded)

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. To hear a case, a federal court must have:

Subject matter jurisdiction (for example, federal question, diversity, or a specific statutory grant).
Personal jurisdiction over the parties (consistent with due process and any applicable long-arm statute).
Proper venue under the applicable statutes.
A justiciable case or controversy—satisfying standing, ripeness, and non-mootness, and not presenting a political question.

Most MBE questions dealing with “jurisdiction” in a constitutional law context are about:

Article III limitations (case or controversy, political questions).
Eleventh Amendment and sovereign immunity.
Supreme Court review of state court decisions and adequate and independent state grounds.

Civil procedure questions focus more on statutory subject matter jurisdiction (for example, §§ 1331, 1332, 1367), removal, and personal jurisdiction; be sure to identify which kind of jurisdiction the question is actually testing.

The Eleventh Amendment and State Sovereign Immunity (Revisited)

When analyzing any suit involving a state, a useful checklist is:

Is the defendant:
- The state itself?
- A state agency (arm of the state)?
- A state officer (in official or individual capacity)?
- A city, county, or other local government?
What relief is sought:
- Money damages or retroactive relief?
- Prospective injunction or declaratory judgment?

Combine that with three legal questions:

Has the state clearly consented to suit in federal court?
Has Congress clearly abrogated immunity under a valid § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment statute?
Can the claim be reframed as an Ex parte Young suit against a state officer for prospective relief from an ongoing violation of federal law?

If the answer to all is no, the suit is likely barred.

Worked Example 1.1

A state court strikes down a state statute on both state constitutional and federal constitutional grounds. The losing party seeks review in the U.S. Supreme Court. Can the Supreme Court hear the case?

Answer:
No, if the state court’s decision rests on an adequate and independent state ground, the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction, even if the state court also addressed a federal issue. Because the state constitutional ground is sufficient to support the judgment regardless of the federal ruling, there is no federal controversy for the Court to resolve. Unless the opinion is ambiguous and fails to make clear that state law independently supports the judgment, the Court must dismiss for want of jurisdiction.

Worked Example 1.2

A taxpayer sues in federal court to challenge a federal spending program, alleging it violates the Establishment Clause. The taxpayer claims only a general interest as a taxpayer and points to a specific appropriation of funds for grants to religious schools. Does the taxpayer have standing?

Answer:
Possibly. Federal taxpayers do not have standing based solely on their status as taxpayers. A narrow exception exists for challenges to specific congressional exercises of the taxing-and-spending power alleged to violate the Establishment Clause. Here, the taxpayer identifies a particular appropriation under Congress’s spending power that allegedly funds religious institutions. If the program truly involves taxing and spending (rather than, for example, a tax credit scheme) and the claim is limited to the Establishment Clause, the suit may fall within the narrow taxpayer standing exception.

Worked Example 1.3

A private citizen sues State X in federal court seeking $500,000 in damages for violating a federal environmental statute. The statute creates a private cause of action but is silent on suits against states. State X moves to dismiss based on the Eleventh Amendment. How should the court rule?

Answer:
The court should grant the motion. The Eleventh Amendment bars suits by private individuals against states for money damages in federal court unless the state consents or Congress clearly abrogates immunity pursuant to § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. A generic federal environmental statute, enacted under the Commerce Clause and without a clear statement authorizing suits against states, does not overcome state sovereign immunity. The plaintiff might seek prospective relief against a responsible state officer under Ex parte Young, but the damages claim against the state itself must be dismissed.

Worked Example 1.4

A member of Congress sues in federal court, claiming that the Senate’s procedures for conducting impeachment trials are unconstitutional because the Senate uses a committee to take evidence. Is the claim justiciable?

Answer:
No. Challenges to the Senate’s conduct of impeachment trials present nonjusticiable political questions. The Constitution commits the “sole Power to try all Impeachments” to the Senate, and there are no judicially manageable standards for reviewing its internal procedures. Federal courts will dismiss such suits as political questions, even if the plaintiff alleges a concrete institutional injury.

Worked Example 1.5

A federal agency issues a final regulation requiring all businesses in a certain industry to install expensive equipment within six months. A trade association sues immediately for a declaratory judgment that the regulation is unconstitutional and seeks an injunction. The government argues the case is unripe because no enforcement action has yet been taken. How should the court analyze ripeness?

Answer:
The court should consider the fitness of the issues for judicial decision and the hardship of withholding review. The regulation is final, and the challenge turns primarily on legal questions (for example, whether the agency exceeded its statutory authority), favoring ripeness. The businesses must either incur substantial compliance costs now or risk serious penalties later, creating significant hardship if review is withheld. Under these circumstances, a pre-enforcement challenge is likely ripe, and the court may proceed to the merits.

Worked Example 1.6

A pregnant prisoner challenges a prison policy that restricts access to certain medical procedures, seeking injunctive relief. By the time the case reaches the court of appeals, she has given birth and been released from prison. The state argues the case is moot. Is that correct?

Answer:
Not necessarily. The case presents a classic situation that may be “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” Pregnancy is too short in duration for full litigation before it ends, and other incarcerated pregnant women (and possibly the same plaintiff, if re-incarcerated) are reasonably likely to face the same policy. If the case was properly certified as a class action, the claims of the class remain live even if the named plaintiff’s personal situation has changed. Even without a certified class, the court may find the exception satisfied and hold that the action is not moot.

Worked Example 1.7

A criminal defendant loses in the highest court of State A, which rejects his federal Fourth Amendment claim and alternatively holds that the search violated State A’s constitution and suppresses the evidence. The state does not appeal further. The defendant petitions the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the Fourth Amendment requires suppression. Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction?

Answer:
No. The defendant has prevailed in state court; the evidence was suppressed, and his conviction was reversed. Even if the U.S. Supreme Court were to disagree with the state court’s interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, the state constitutional ruling is an adequate and independent state ground supporting the judgment in the defendant’s favor. There is no adverse federal judgment for the Court to review, and any opinion would be advisory.

Worked Example 1.8

A state prisoner files a § 1983 suit in federal district court alleging that his conviction violated the federal Constitution and asking the court to declare the state supreme court judgment invalid and order his release. The state moves to dismiss, arguing that the federal district court lacks jurisdiction to review the state judgment. How should the court rule?

Answer:
The court should dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker–Feldman doctrine. With rare exceptions (such as habeas corpus under a specific statute), lower federal courts may not review final state-court judgments. Only the U.S. Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over such judgments. Because the prisoner’s alleged injury stems from the state court judgment itself, the federal district court cannot function as a de facto appellate court.

Worked Example 1.9

Congress enacts a statute providing that “no federal court shall have jurisdiction to hear any appeal from a federal court of appeals decision in cases challenging the constitutionality of federal firearms regulations.” A plaintiff whose Second Amendment challenge was rejected by a federal court of appeals petitions for certiorari, arguing that Congress cannot strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction in this way. Is the statute valid?

Answer:
In general, yes. Under the Exceptions Clause, Congress may make exceptions to and regulate the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction. A statute removing a category of appellate cases from the Court’s docket is usually valid, so long as Congress does not attempt to expand or alter the Court’s original jurisdiction or dictate case outcomes directly. Whether there is a deeper constitutional problem (for example, if all judicial review of a core constitutional claim were eliminated) is a harder question, but on typical MBE facts, a straightforward limitation on appellate review of a category of cases is treated as within Congress’s power.

Worked Example 1.10

A plaintiff sues a state health commissioner in federal court, alleging that a newly adopted state regulation governing eligibility for Medicaid benefits is preempted by federal law. The plaintiff seeks an injunction prohibiting enforcement of the regulation going forward and an order that the state pay all past-denied benefits. The state asserts Eleventh Amendment immunity. What relief, if any, is available?

Answer:
Under Ex parte Young, the plaintiff may seek prospective relief against the state officer to prevent ongoing violations of federal law—here, an injunction against future enforcement of the allegedly preempted regulation and a declaratory judgment. However, retroactive monetary relief payable from the state treasury, such as an order requiring payment of past-denied benefits, is barred by the Eleventh Amendment absent consent or valid congressional abrogation under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court may therefore grant prospective relief but must deny the request for back payments against the state.

Exam Strategy: Issue-Spotting Sequence

For any federal court question in Constitutional Law, a fast, reliable sequence is:

Step 1 – Identify the court.
Is it a federal district court, a federal court of appeals, the U.S. Supreme Court, or a state court?
Step 2 – Check subject matter jurisdiction.
Is there a federal question, diversity, or some specific statutory grant? Is the plaintiff trying to use a lower federal court to review a state judgment (implicating Rooker–Feldman)?
Step 3 – Analyze justiciability.
Standing, ripeness, mootness, and political question. If any of these fail, the federal court must dismiss without reaching the merits.
Step 4 – Consider sovereign immunity.
If a state or state agency is a defendant, test the Eleventh Amendment, congressional abrogation, consent, and Ex parte Young.
Step 5 – For Supreme Court cases from state courts, add AISG and final judgment.
Ask: Is there a final state judgment? Does the judgment rest on adequate and independent state grounds?

Following this sequence keeps you from jumping prematurely to substantive constitutional issues before checking whether the federal court can hear the case at all.

Exam Warning

The Supreme Court cannot review state court decisions if the judgment would be the same regardless of how the federal issue is decided. Always check for adequate and independent state grounds before assuming Supreme Court review is possible. Similarly, always test for standing, ripeness, mootness, and political question issues before reaching the merits of any constitutional claim. When a state is a defendant, test the Eleventh Amendment and Ex parte Young before assuming a federal damages action is available.

Revision Tip

Remember: Standing requires injury in fact, causation, and redressability. Taxpayer standing is almost always denied, with a very narrow Establishment Clause exception. Third-party and organizational standing are available only when specific additional requirements are met. If any element of standing is missing, federal courts must dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, even if the parties do not raise the issue.

Key Point Checklist

This article has covered the following key knowledge points:

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction; they need both subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction, plus a justiciable case or controversy.
Article III defines the outer limits of federal judicial power and requires a “case or controversy,” which is enforced through doctrines prohibiting advisory opinions, and through standing, ripeness, and mootness.
Congress may define and limit the jurisdiction of lower federal courts and the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction, but it cannot alter the Court’s original jurisdiction or direct the outcome of specific cases.
Congress’s Exceptions Clause power allows it to remove categories of cases from the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction, but not to destroy the Court’s essential role in ensuring uniform federal law.
The Eleventh Amendment and state sovereign immunity generally bar suits for money damages against states in federal court, subject to consent, valid congressional abrogation under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Ex parte Young doctrine for prospective relief against state officers.
Ex parte Young permits federal courts to enjoin state officials from ongoing violations of federal law but does not authorize retroactive damages from the state treasury or suits to enforce state law in federal court.
The Article III “case or controversy” requirement forbids advisory opinions and is enforced through standing, ripeness, mootness, and the political question doctrine.
Standing requires a personal, concrete injury, causation, and redressability; prudential limits generally bar generalized grievances and third-party claims unless narrow exceptions apply.
Taxpayer standing is almost never available, except for specific Establishment Clause challenges to congressional taxing-and-spending measures.
Third-party and organizational standing are permitted only when the plaintiff has a close relationship to those whose rights are asserted, there is some obstacle to suit by the right-holder, and other associational requirements are satisfied.
Ripeness bars claims brought too early; mootness bars claims that have lost their live controversy, subject to narrow exceptions (for example, capable of repetition yet evading review, voluntary cessation, and certain class actions).
Political questions are nonjusticiable when the Constitution commits an issue to another branch or when there are no judicially manageable standards; examples include impeachment procedures, many Guarantee Clause claims, and partisan gerrymandering claims under federal law.
The Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction is largely discretionary, exercised mainly by certiorari, and is subject to the final judgment rule and the Exceptions Clause.
The Supreme Court cannot review state court judgments that rest on adequate and independent state grounds, even if a federal issue is also discussed.
State constitutions may provide more protection than the federal Constitution; when a state court relies solely on state constitutional grounds that are more protective, federal review is unavailable.
Lower federal courts cannot sit as appellate courts over state judgments; only the Supreme Court may review final state decisions on federal issues (Rooker–Feldman).
The Anti‑Injunction Act and Younger abstention further limit federal interference with pending state proceedings.
In exam questions, you should always run through a jurisdictional checklist (subject matter, justiciability, sovereign immunity, and, for Supreme Court review, final judgment and adequate and independent state grounds) before analyzing substantive constitutional rights.

Key Terms and Concepts

Judicial Review
Case or Controversy
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Personal Jurisdiction
Original Jurisdiction
Appellate Jurisdiction
Exceptions Clause
Eleventh Amendment
State Sovereign Immunity
Ex parte Young Doctrine
Advisory Opinion
Standing
Prudential Standing
Taxpayer Standing
Third-Party Standing
Organizational Standing
Ripeness
Mootness
Political Question
Adequate and Independent State Ground
Final Judgment Rule
Rooker–Feldman Doctrine
Anti‑Injunction Act
Younger Abstention

The nature of judicial review - Jurisdiction