The nature of judicial review - Jurisdiction

Learning Outcomes

After reading this article, you will be able to identify the constitutional basis and limits of federal judicial review, distinguish between subject matter and personal jurisdiction, explain the requirements for standing, ripeness, mootness, and political questions, and apply these principles to MBE-style scenarios. You will also understand the relationship between state and federal courts, the Eleventh Amendment, and the doctrine of adequate and independent state grounds.

MBE Syllabus

For MBE, you are required to understand the constitutional and statutory foundations of federal judicial review, including the scope and limits of federal court jurisdiction. This article covers:

• The organization and relationship of state and federal courts in the federal system
• Congressional power to define and limit federal court jurisdiction
• The Eleventh Amendment and state sovereign immunity
• The "case or controversy" requirement: standing, ripeness, mootness, and prohibition on advisory opinions
• The doctrine of adequate and independent state grounds
• The political question doctrine and justiciability

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.

1. 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
2. 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
3. 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

Introduction

Federal judicial review is the authority of federal courts to interpret the Constitution and invalidate government actions that conflict with it. However, this power is subject to strict constitutional and statutory limits. Understanding the boundaries of federal jurisdiction—including justiciability doctrines, the Eleventh Amendment, and the relationship between state and federal courts—is essential for MBE success.

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

The Structure of Federal and State Courts

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Congress can create lower federal courts and define their jurisdiction, but cannot alter the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction. Most federal cases are heard under diversity or federal question jurisdiction.

Key Term: Subject Matter Jurisdiction The authority of a court to hear cases of a particular type, such as federal questions or diversity cases.

Congressional Power Over Jurisdiction

Congress may expand or restrict the appellate jurisdiction of federal courts, including the Supreme Court, but cannot change the Court’s original jurisdiction. Congress may also limit the jurisdiction of lower federal courts, provided it does not violate Article III or other constitutional provisions.

The Eleventh Amendment and State Sovereign Immunity

The Eleventh Amendment bars most suits in federal court by private individuals against states. Exceptions include suits by the federal government, suits against state officers for prospective relief, and cases where Congress validly abrogates immunity under the Fourteenth Amendment.

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

The "Case or Controversy" Requirement

Federal courts may only decide actual cases or controversies. This requirement is enforced through doctrines of standing, ripeness, mootness, and the prohibition on advisory opinions.

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

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

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.

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

Political Questions and Justiciability

Federal courts will not decide political questions—issues constitutionally committed to another branch or lacking judicially manageable standards. Common examples include challenges to impeachment procedures and partisan gerrymandering.

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

Adequate and Independent State Grounds

The Supreme Court cannot review a state court judgment if the decision rests on an adequate and independent state law ground, even if a federal issue is also present. The state ground must be sufficient to support the judgment regardless of the federal issue.

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.

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.

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. Does the taxpayer have standing?

Answer: No. Taxpayers generally lack standing to challenge government expenditures unless they can show a direct, personal injury or meet the narrow exception for Establishment Clause challenges to congressional spending.

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.

Revision Tip

Remember: Standing requires injury, causation, and redressability. If any element is missing, federal courts must dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

Key Point Checklist

This article has covered the following key knowledge points:

• Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction; Congress can define and limit their jurisdiction.
• The Eleventh Amendment generally bars suits against states by private individuals in federal court.
• Federal courts may only decide actual cases or controversies—standing, ripeness, mootness, and prohibition on advisory opinions are essential.
• Political questions are nonjusticiable; courts will not decide issues committed to other branches or lacking judicial standards.
• The Supreme Court cannot review state court judgments resting on adequate and independent state grounds.
• Standing requires a personal, concrete injury, causation, and redressability.

Key Terms and Concepts

• Judicial Review
• Subject Matter Jurisdiction
• Eleventh Amendment
• Standing
• Ripeness
• Mootness
• Advisory Opinion
• Political Question
• Adequate and Independent State Ground