Public Law and Judicial Process: Anglo-American Legal System
Public Law and Judicial Process: Anglo-American Legal System
Popular in Course
Popular in Political Science
This 53 page Reader was uploaded by Julia Consoli-Tiensvold on Tuesday April 1, 2014. The Reader belongs to a course at University of California - Los Angeles taught by a professor in Fall. Since its upload, it has received 263 views.
Reviews for Public Law and Judicial Process: Anglo-American Legal System
I was sick all last week and these notes were exactly what I needed to get caught up. Cheers!
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 04/01/14
Anglo American Legal System Introduction This course will cover the main components of the American legal system including The court system The commonlaw tradition and its influence Legal reasoning Theories of jurisprudence Lega procedure Equity precedent and stare decisis Idea of respecting prior decisions Course Outline What is law The commonlaw tradition Defining features Historical development Influence on US System Structure of US legal system Varieties of American LawCriminal civil administrative regulatory SourcesConstitution authoritative interpretation by judges for ex The court systemThe way it s structured Relationship between federal and state Interpreting law Principles methods challenges Conflicts between laws Lega procedure First Question What is law HLA Hart We are all able to think of examples of law what makes law law Definitions of law What legal officials do to solve disputes The way we predict what courts will do Positive ie manmade rules for enforcing morality Functions of Law ConflictresolutionResolving conflicts that is not just the arbitrary power of will of one individual over another Public standards To predict what authorities will do To predict individual rights Solution to social problems Guide to conduct Punishment Jus ce Features of Legal Systems Rues governing behavior Rules requiring people to compensate others for certain injuries Rules for making arrangements which confer rights and create obligations Courts to defineinterpret law and adjudicate disputes Legislatures to makeabolish rules HLA Hart To understand law consider 1 How does law differ from orders backed by threats Through the threat of force or punishment makes conduct obligatory What distinguishes law from a private order backed by force 2 How is law related to moralitylmplying moral sanctions Do we think law and morality is overlappingidentical If this is the case we wont actually know what makes law law 3 What is a rulePart of knowing what a rule is is the predictability of punishment For HartFiguring out these three questions is key Course Requirements 35 Midterm Thursday May 1st 45 Final Thursday June 5th 15 Quiz game 10 owith your group 5 olndividual questions submitted online by Friday May 30th at 5pm Each responsible of coming up with 3 questions and answers about anything we covered this entire quarter and post them on class website Two groups per day Submit groups questions with answer by email a minimum of 24 hours before scheduled to present Questions on the readings of that day and present it in the lecture 5 Online course evaluation Lecture 1 The Concept of Law 4O8 Law as Classification Sorting thingsphenomena into groups and casses Draw distinctions through categories Examples Citizenresident and immigrant LessorIessee Ownerrenter Speech protected and not Create new requirements that individuals owe to one another For example One area of law in contracts they make it possible for people to engage in contractual relationships that are POSSIBLE to be coercively enforced The renter and the landlord relationship could not exist without law One of the ways at looking at this problem of classification Is dividing up the actions that FEDERAL and STATE governments may take It ALSO classifies the proper scope of government What they are allowed to do Law defines thisSpecifically constitutional law Hart s Concept of Law For Hart part of task of defining law is distinguishing law from coercive threats What makes them different For Hart the main distinction is that unlike the gunmen who is trying to control your actions law is a form of social control that is back by two main things 1 Law is a general TYPE of conduct for anyone in those situations including the people who enforce it 2 Law is general in the people it applies to It doesn t single anyone out you cannot tell one person they are not allowed to do something lndicitive of Law When you re talking about law there will be a GENERAL habit of obeying the law most people will obey so if you could find some way to not hand over your wallet to gunman you ll do that Obedience is not the sum total of lawIt is important but it is not the WHOLE story Law constitutes new relationships allows you to take steps that you might not have taken in the absence of a law Power that humans have to create legal relations with each other marriage is a great contribution of law to social life This feature is obscured by representing law as a matter of ORDERS backed by threat The more important reason why it is not just obedience is that it s not ALL about rules Legal systems have a distinct set of rules that other systems don t have It is not just about whether people obey the law it is about the type of rules that a legal system has that distinguish it from another set of rules Rules are the building blocks of a legal system WHAT MAKES SOMETHING A RULE What does it mean that a rule exists Lots of different typesTricky to define Moral rules social rules THEN laws The KEY thing that distinguishes law is that legal systems have a unique type of rule is rules about MAKING rules For Hart the notion of law involves more than one FORM of relevant obedience HOW does he distinguish the different types of rules Hart addresses this issue with a famous distinction that he draws between PRIMARY and SECONDARY rules The obedience to the rules about make law is what makes law law In virtue of the means by which they were produced RATHER than the character moral or otherwise of the ends at which they are attained THIS is why Hart REJECTS that law is all about habitually obeying an absolute sovereign Legislative bodies only exist when they are created by law The jurisdiction and authority to make laws and try cases We take the idea that no one is above the law VERY seriously central feature of our popular imagination Secondary rules of recognition are rules used to determine whether a law is actually a part of a legal system The crucial feature of a rule of recognition in a legal system Secondary Rules Recognition Rules for the conclusive identification of primary rules Authoritative criteria for legal validity The ESSENCE of the idea of a legal system He says the reason that a rule of recognition tells us so much about what the legal system is is that when you have rules of recognition you no longer just have unconnected rules unify all the rules that identify a salient characteristic that make them law Giving them all a common thing Help us identify what legal validity is Change Rules for making new primary rules and getting rid of old ones Adjudication Empower individuals to decide when primary rules have been broken Define procedure for determining this Put people in positions to interpret and enforce law Will also be able to explain why legislation is law and not something else This is a crucial part of explaining how law works For Hart legislative enactment of laws or repeal of old laws is a law governed by secondary process of change not through orders backed by threat This is why secondary rules are essential to a legal system A gun man who holds you up does not have to adhere to recognition change or adjucation For Hart we can t explain what law is without noticing distinction of primary or secondary law and finding out how primary are related to secondary Foundations of a Legal System An ultimate rule of recognition which provides a system of rules with its criteria of validity NOT A habit of obedience to a legally unlimited sovereign Hart 115 MPORTANT BECAUSE tells nature of legal authority and WHAT law is To be law it cannot be unlimited Always established and governed by secondary rule Unless we recognize this we cannot recognize American legal system Relationship between private citizens and officials and the law In addition you have to explain how officials relate to the internal rules of the legal system We must examine how officials of the system relate to the secondary rules which concern them as officials Rules come in different forms in the legal system and the internal rules within your legal system is the crucial part about what makes it a legal system Hart says that there two kinds of basic conditions which are necessary and sufficient for a basic system 1 The primary rules that are valid must be generally obeyed otherwise no functioning legal system 2 Effectively accepted as common public standards of official behavior by its officials Private citizens only need to do the first thing Public officials apply to the second one Obedience to secondary rules of recognition change adjudication IN SUMMARY The distinction between a legal system and a nonlegal system of social control Power is exercised according to law and it is limited and governed by legal rules for exercising power We can minimize but we can never eliminate ambiguity as what the law means in specific cases The Primary Problem of Law Uncertainty and ambiguity Cassification which group does it go into Uncertainty because individual state agents and courts play a central role in defining legal requirements Law must be interpreted Problems in applying general rules to particular cases gt Open texture of law The constitution acts as a fundamental set of binding guidelines interpretation is something you cannot avoid Interpretation is ESSENTIAL to legal system because it is impossible to apply a law to ALL future circumstances This need for interpretation gives rise to uncertainty HOW do you know how to interpret laws how do you know that your interpretation is better than another You can come up with NORMS of interpretation Letting precedence stand minimalism that can diminish but never eliminate uncertainty Rues cannot authoritatively provide for their own interpretation General feature of being a human being This is because For Hart law involves classifying particulars into GENERAL categories Law classifies particular cases into general termsls it infraction of law or not Don t always know how to change rules according to circumstances Open texture Law always has to be capable to responding to and updating itself Needs to balance the need for public general rules with the need to leave open for later decision issues that can only be settled when they arise in a concrete case CONCLUSION Law is about drawing distinctions and defining relationship Hart seconaddar rules are a type of rule unique to legal systme To undersstand law we must exame the complex union of primary and secondary rules the role of officials and the inherent problemss of interpretation Sample Quiz Game 1 Why does law inherently require interpretation 2 What three defects does Hart identify in the simple structure of primary rules a Uncertainty static character and inefficiency 3 What are rules of recognition and why do they matter a Rules for the conclusive identification of primary rules they matter because they give salient characteristics to which rules are valid 4 Why does Hart reject the idea tha d If you don t have limits on the power exercised by the state in a lawful fashion then you don t have law you have something else The idea of exercising power in a rule bound fashion is what makes law law Without those limits there is no distinction between law and orders backed by threat 5 What does it mean to say that a primary purpose of law is classification Law divides the world up into groups and categories and establishes relationships between them That constitute new forms of relations Part of what law does is classify what you may and may not lawfully do in making laws Constitutes what is illegitimate Lecture 2 The Common Law System 410 Basic Classifications of Law International Countries have agreed to follow Established through treaties and laws developed my the United Nations MUNICIPAL law The law that regulates the internal affairs of a country Regulates relationships between the individuals and one another and individuals and their governmentState level local level federal level WITHIN MUNICIPAL LAW you have two main types Public Iaws Concerned with relations and interactions between people and government They govern HOW government acts Private LawsIndividual interactions the interactions between private citizens Further distinction between these two laws as well Substantive Individual behavior criminal amp civil amp regulatory these are the three different FAMILIES Civil and criminal PRIVATE govern behavior in day to day lifePRIVATE substantive law against tresspassing and theftpersonal injuries Homocide torts related to homicide types of murder RegulatoryAdministrative PUBLIC form Authorities of public officials how they should act both as public officials and as private Homicide Prosecutor initiates criminal proceedingsRules that tell them when they are able to adjective Plea bargain and such They have a discretionary power Nolle Prosequ Power not to prosecute Substantive due process Ex Property rights torts contract criminal offensees Things you are not allowed to do under defined criminal authority of states Also define the CIVIL duties of individuals with another Responsibilities AdjectiveProcedural Law How individuals exercise state powerpursue legal action Civil amp criminal amp administrative Civil procedurePRIVATE This is the area of legal process that allows individuals to bring their private disputes to the court for settlement Civil legal actions allow individuals to file suit in front of the courts to ask the courts to remedy some injury HomicideThe procedure for filing a suit for death Criminal procedurePUBLICInvolves criminal legal actions that can only be initiated by a prosecutor the prosecutor within jurisdiction of the area of that crime Only in the context of RULES OF RECOGNITION that tells us what makes a law a law ProceduraI law isn t something people always think about They are as if not more important particularly when we are talking about American legal system constitutional government Many of these legal procedural requirements are activated ONLY WHEN an individual breaks a law Cops have to follow public procedural laws in conducted searches and seizing evidence Warrants Anything you seize not under warrant can be thrown out Must also follow judicial ordersWarrants issued by a judge Jurisdictional rulesThe laws that say when state level have entities versus federal Administrative How NASA pursues legal actions involving its own workings How to take legal action to protect their rights rules to protect states power What procedure to prosecute someone for a crime This comes as private forms as wellHow as an individual you want to sue someone else for damages and how it will procede Ex Bill of rights criminal procedure Procedura laws are the rules to MAKING and ENFORCING substantive laws how to make new substantive laws Municipal legal systems can be CivilCode Law Case law everything is subordinate to statutory law Roman roots Primary source of law code Statutory law gt case law lnquisitorial model The judge is pretty active asking questions and helping to discover fact Advisory opinionYou might not want to make that law because it might not be constitutional Examples Continental Europe This in theory is a system of legality where laws are made only by the legislature The legal code is internally consistent and a comprehensive of totally to do with human actionThey are all consistent with one another Common Law Judgemade law Legal rules are established through judicial decisions Medieval England Precedentcases More authority to previous judicial decisions Adversarial modelJudge is a referee between counsel for two sides in a case Need to treat like things differently Case in a controversy Set on public standards that we can all understand If a case is decided we realize hey that is the rule Equity Not codified in legal system but deal with concerns of justice Examples England United States Common Law in Depth The idea of a common law system is an ideal type We do not have a common law system anywhere in the world Same with code system We have some parts of code law as well Constitution Judgemade law precedent lncremental RulesExtracted from cases defeasible case centric Process of sedimentation through successive decisions in particular cases Interpretation of what rules we need in particular cases Ex SlaveryWas just decided in the constitution Moment of dramatic rupture brought in by a change of the fundamental law of the land BUT the meaning of the 14th amendment took a very long time to coalesce Equ y A remedy seeking a specific performance order of the court such as an i njunction or a cease and desist order Doing the right thing making the correct decision Without reference to rules and perhaps even in avoidance of rules Common law Equity and Natural Law True law is right reason in agreement with nature Cicero Linked concepts Figuring what the true rules are out there independent of law Need for flexibility in common law system To insure your adherence of the rules does not come at the expense of a just outcome Roots of Common Law System Medieval England Law discovered not made The true principles are already out there in nature and they become applied A common law is case centric method to formulating law Most common law systems do still focus on cases however they also rely on an increasingly detailed set of statutes The pure common law system that you found in medieval england does not exist anymore Our understanding of common law principles such as equity because better defined over time Law developed in the crucible of experience Actual cases with actual people Still a primary mode of how some laws are made in US Law is developed quite often through particular disputes involving particular parties Marbury VS Madison The incoming secretary of state Madison did not deliver his commission Marbury wants him to deliver this Under the Judiciary Act of 1789 altered original jurisdiciton Marbury petitioned Court for writ of mandamus Court found Madison s actions illegal and remediable BUT refused to issue writ Instead declared 13 of Act unconstitutional The court doesn t compel Madison by a writ of Mandamus instead it says that the part of the judiciary act that gave the court the power to issue a writ of Mandamus is unconstitutional Judicial review In declaring section 13 of act unconstitutional and therefore void establishes the most important precedent of allJUDICIAL REVIEW He argues that it is implied in constitution When faced with a case the court looks at what it is actually empowered to do and recognizes that without this power of judicial review it will not be able to serve its func on In order for judicial branch to serve function it needs to claim power of judicial review This suggests that the big challenge in the common law system Big challenge Balancing predictability The Common Law Challenge How to balance flexibility and rigidity How different can things be to still be grouped together How to find that this case is the best example of another or future cases Answer is that we can revisit the cases How does common law change Modify rules as they are applied Changing circumstances New challenges Problem of retroactivity Changing the rules of the game as it happens is this a problem we want to solve forever No we will always need to balance flexibility and rigidity Yes there is a tension between the two between getting right answer and an answer Discusses how idea of equity has developed and changed over time Historical Roots of Common Law The Roots of the Common Law System Emerged in Medieval EnglandNo formal legislative institution Idea of law was that the law wasn t a wholly manmade manInstead it expresses the ideas of the community consensus ideas of what justice is Laws discovered not made 12cJudges appointed to ride circuit and do the King Henry s justice These judges are asked to make decisions based on general considerations of fairness and equity The idea of justice is that justice has to do with respect for prior decision Prior decisisPrecedence Stare DecisisCore of common law system Justice as predictability Let the prior decision stand System of reporting previous decisions was created so people could know what had been decided and what precedence they had to be aware of Principles of law began to arise from these decisions They led to development of principles out of these efforts to distill the decisions and come up and be aware of the relevant precedence This idea came from the struggle between the feudal lords and the King Thus came the Magna Carta Great achievement of the nobility of setting boundaries of what the king could and could not do The king must follow laws too Laws are what gave the king his power What you see in 12th and 13th century is a codification of the feudal rights against the king Tail end of 13th century is the rise of a legislative body parliament in its most elementary form Different Parts of English Common Law Judicial System Three different parts Common law Nominal distinctions in their jurisdiction Common Bench Controversies between subjects Exclusive jurisdiction over real actions Disputes over land Until real actions are abolished in 19th century King s Bench Criminal cases Civil actions involving breach of peace Actions brought against perosn in custody of King s marshal If you want something tried here instead of court of common pleas you bring them up on charges that will get them arrested by King s marshals Once they are in custody you can bring you accusation Why would you do thatIf you like your odds better with a jury trialIt was the most prevalent Easier to bring your case there if you had a legitimate case They would be more hospitable to your cause All of these courts want to expand their jurisdiction They want to expand their scope compared their other courts Exchequer Controversies affecting the King s property or revenue What happens over time of having these legal fictions to have your case brought up in something other than the crime end up having similar jurisdiction over disputes between subjects EXCEPT FOR real actions which remain in common bench Nothing requiring that you adhere to precedent in all cases The absence of legal abilities to deal with situations These issues are the part of problems that give rise to equity Modes of Trial How did courts originally establish the modes of your case Trial by ORDEALThey do something to you burn you and if in three days the wound hasn t festered then you are innocent Trial by BATTLE You have a champion and if the champion wins you are innocent and if they lose you are guilty Trial by JURY Eventually supplanted the other twoclearly Employed by royal courts increasingly as a means of establishing a foothold and crowding out other ways of trial Initial version was very different than what we have today The jurors were often witnessesGiving testimony about the facts of a case Used as a means of collecting info rather than a set of individuals and peers who sit in judgement of the merits being presented They did not decide on whether things were fa The crown used its discretionary power prerogative power do right within the law without lawsTo do right within the case How Royal Courts Worked Original writ from CrownWritten permission from king that gave permission to hold the trial in royal courts rather than local courts QUESTlON So are the King s bench and common bench and exchequer in king s coun Choose correct form of writ Procedure VERY important You MUST get the correct type of write for the type of action that you are bringing If no appropriate writ existed appeal to Chancellor for new one Crown versus lords This is how royal courts expanded their jurisdiction By creating new ways that people could litigate each other The nobility was not super excited about this Each type of writ embodies a particular form of action at common law The forms of action are simply just different procedures by which you can make a legal claim Different problem and different remedy Writs and Forms of Action Each writ had a related form of action Forms of actionThe different procedures by which a legal claim could be made Versus causes of action Legal right that was violated rather than the procedure you choose to right a specific wrong Must choose right form of action for any hope of getting belief At present we still make distinction between trespass and debt Different forms of action were the core of litigation in the common law system Their legacy continues to shape the common law in the present Forms of Action at Common Law Replevin Pursue a remedy to distress By distress is the practice by which a feudal lord was able to harm people to get what was owed to them HoweverWhen feudal lords wrongfully destrained their tenants their needed to be some sort of legal remedy Restored to people chattle or something else that had been unlawfully destrained by feudal lords DetinueOriginally for cases where you give someone something to hold onto while you finish a task and when you finish it they don t give it back After some time it became an alternative to ReplevinWhere people TOOK the chattle The defendant could choose if people got their specific chattle back or they got money in replevin they had to give chattle back the defendant did not have a choice QUESTION what is chattle DebtRecovering specific sum of money that someone owes CovenantRecover damages due to a breach of seal contract officially stamped with king s seal If someone broke such a contract To sue for what is owed as a result of breaching contract Trespass When the defendant invades another individuals rights with force and arms When you forcibly invade someone else s rights If you are pursuing an action of trespass there had to be a direct injury It had to hurt you directly and a direct consequence of their action Trespass is a tort Meaning the act of trespassAnd the types of issues for which trespass was the appropriate action Are actions that are made wrongful by law rather than by agreement Prohibited by law rather than something you agreed to do with someone Trespass action presented the option for trial by jury MUST BE DIRECT INJURY Leaves out whole host of other ways that people can cause injury indirectly Trespass on the case Is for INDIRECT injuriesInjuries that are indirect consequence of the defendant s actions This is torts where slander or libel come in fraud Also allows for trial by jury TroverThis was used when people unlawfully appropriated chattle that belonged to someone else If someone takes your cow and you want it back this is what you would bring Distinction from detinueThis allowed for TRIAL BY JURY which made it a popular alternative Special Assumpsit Particuar types of breach of promisesWhen someone undertakes to do something for the person bringing the actionBut had done it so badly that the person who brought the actions interest had been injured Action taken for a recovery of damages consequent to this loss Like trespass Specia assumpsit was a tort About harm that was done rather than breach of promise General AssumpsitImplied promises Action you took something you did or the law NOT expressed promises Something like payment of services implies the nature of services Fancy restaurant with no pricesGeneral IMPLICATION that you will pay Real Actions To get back land that belongs to you or that you have a claim on when you have an intruder recovery of land you possess Have to do with realtors and lease holders When talking about debt you are talking about specific monetary amount With detinue you have the option to get back monetary value Equ y Not the justice given to you by law rectification of what the law would do It is for when a law applied to a particular case would lead an unjust judgement From intent rather than words of the law When there is no remedy for your particular circumstances Allows that not every precedence works in every set of circumstances Law is written in general terms but applied to specific circumstances Not going to work with every set of circumstances The idea of equity takes account of the fact that sometimes the law as applied to a specific set of circumstances will not yield justice The idea is that sometimes the fact of the law stated in general terms sometimes this fact will lead to errors in particular cases The law is a system of general rules in order for them to mean anything they have to be stated in general rules They cannot always perfectly fit the circumstances that arise Equity is the way that you correct the error that results from a general rule that is applied to a specific circumstance Rectifying this error is just as important as following the rule itself The principles of equity are derived from intention of the law rather than rules itself WHY is that law in place in the first place What right is it protecting The ends of the law was created to attainEquity is a means of insuring that the law actually achieves its ends Even when the law will not yield an outcome that Equity emerges as a way of legal relief that seems due but that isn t available given the inflexibility given the system of actions Actions at law inflexible Highly technical Expensive To give relief needed that is denied by law Origins of Equity Petitions to crown for remedy denied by courts of law Chancery courtsExisted as a parallel or alternative to three types of courts of law that we saw earlier Venue for speaking in equitable remedy that the common law courts had refused to rectify Following thisMedieval england had a dual court system Courts of law and courts of equity The emergence of the equity courts reflects this recognition that sometimes you have to temper and attenuate the rigor of the law in order to attain justice Struggle between crown and nobility What did trover have more popularity than detinue Trover you could decide if you wanted monetary back or the actual proerty What is the difference between trespass and trespass by case tresspass direct action while trespass by case is indirect of negligence Trespass What damages had to be proven Why was Trial in trespass cases more common For trespass cases it was by jury 12 oath helpers that could claim the defendant was going to be innocent People did not like this because it was harder to win What was debt and the types Debts on record Debts on statute Debts on simple contract What role do superstitions have on growing popularity on royal courts Ordeal Burning hands and such Conclusion Common law system emerged in medieval England justice meant respect for prior decisions stare decisis Court systemsmodes of trial reflected struggle for power between Crown and local manorial courts Strong focus on procedure Limits of this led to development of equity The Common Law Tradition in the United States O417 Development of the US Common Law PreRevolution Prior to the Revolutionary War the adoption of common law and elements of the English legal system was kind of a scatter shot approach Different colonies selected different parts The law was not administered by a highly trained group of lawyers People were not professionals yet Even when they adopted the common law there was still more of a tendency for codification PostRevolution Following the Revolutionary War things were more uniform adopted principles and heavily modified specific rules Modified laws to suit the needs of the United States They followed how rules are made and procedures for following rules but changed certain rules When they did adopt specific precedence or principles from England they did this because the state adopted them not because it was power from England The process of creating a body of legal rules in US involved decisions by the law making powers in each state about whether some provision in the common law applied to their context and their state Led to divergence in rules that they adopted and why Unique challenges that differ from those in England At the time of the American founding the judicial branch was thought to be the least dangerous which seems odd given that we are talking about a common law system where there is judge made law and it is the essence Interesting ideaWhat did the founders think about the Common Law Why did they think this They did not think it was dangerous because law making is incremental The judges did not feel same pressure to make quick decisions Shift from Dual System Law amp Equity to Single System Initially dual system of law and equity courts Confusing and costly This dual system is really confusing to have two different sets of courts and laws and no real back and forth exchange between themNo transferring of cases If you think you have an action at law and you really have an action at equity you have to start over The case would be decided differently depending on where you brought it If you had a dual systemYou cannot mount an equity based defense in law courts If someone brings a charge against you in a legal court you cannot make a defense based on equity courts The other problem is that it is expensive to have two different sets of courts at every level Prior to the middle of the 18th century federal procedure was a giant mess The courts had to follow the procedure of the state that the court was physically located in also had to follow procedures that were in place when that state joined the union Not only would procedure differ in federal courts from state to state they would also differ in state courts both in action at law But federal EQUITY courts could make their own rulesThey would be different from each other as well Federal means federal and state courts Federal procedure LawWhatever state followed when they join the Union EquityWhatever the feds decided StateWhatever was decided when they joined the Union but this was able to changeFederal wasn t NYS Code of Civil Procedure 1848 Field Code Gave one single unified procedure for all possible remedies Got rid of the forms of action at common law Provides for uniform procedure in NY Adopted by a whole bunch of other states A movement from a purely common law approach to a modern system of rules The point while there is still a common law system the idea of a code to make sense of procedure is still very important Important step to getting to legal system that we have today How separate were Law and Equity Big difference between substantive rules of law and substantive rules of equity Procedurally merged However still kind of differed Form of relief Law money Equityinjunctionscourt orders only given when monetary repayment will not be an adequate remedy for the wrong When do you get trial by jury Procedurally more or less they are identical HOWEVER there is one major differenceTria by jury Trial judge not jury decides questions of fact in civil cases at equity Trial by jury is in law WHY Because the constitution Also because rules of equity are less clear than common rules BUT the real reason is because the bill of rights said so Sixth amendment Crimina case Seventh amendmentSame rights of trial by jury in suits at common law Jury trial by actions at law no jury trial for actions at equity Through legislation you create new remedies in civil lawOnce there is a new statutory remedy created the courts may be asked to decide whether or not the person claiming remedy is entitled to trial by jury CONFUSED The way to decide whether someone gets a jury trial or not you have to decide the nature of the remedy that has to be pursued s it legal or equitable ls it more legal with monetary damages or equity with court order EXAMPLE Rogers vs Loether US District Court Issue jury trial for discrimination in housing ANSWER NO Rule if the remedy lies in the court s equity powers then no and if its an action at common law then yes Not entitled to trial by jury because it is not something that can be paid back with money Above is what district court applies Then goes to APELLATE court what is this THEN he takes it to the supreme court They decide that YES upheld by court of appeals Rule Seventh Amendment entitles either part to demand a jury trial in a civil rights action Reasoning the damages action under the civil rights act was to enforce her legal rights it was an action under common law seeking a common law remedy more importantly the seven amendment is quite clear What you see here is also the importance of looking at the nature of the remedy that was sought to determine whether or not the defendant was entitled to a jury trial When they are seeking both You are entitled to a jury trial only on the monetary value We no longer have a dual system of courts but we do have a dual system of federal and state courts This is helpful to identifying the common law influences on the present day Federalism Two levels of lawmaking authority Federalism closely tied to idea of separation of powers Federalism involves VERTlCAL different levels of gov in same jurisdiction state federal HORlZONTALLY Separation of powers On same level between same levels of govt PLEASE EXPLAlN FederalismWhat powers are allocated to federal vs state and what powers are allocated to different brances Proper balance between state and national government is deeply contested ln generalIt has been towards enlarging the national government This enlargement is really useful in illustrating the biggest point of contact between common law now and its roots What are the major means for enlarging the federal government has been Make actions that are necessary to keep things afloat Commerce cause Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce Another venue for increasing federal power14th amendment Supremacy commerce and necessary amp proper clauses THE BIG DIFFERENCE Between how our system developed and how it developed in common law England is that statutes matter much more in the US Statutes are made by democratically enacted legislature NOT through royal writ Part of the reforms to the procedural structure to the American legal system were drawn from legislative action Federal Rules Through Civil Procedure Fied Code Between purely commonlaw and modern procedure Clarified things at the state level in state courts but this meant that the federal and state courts diverged even further Following the adoption of code pleading federal procedure is still confusing Tries to remedy this by introducing the Conformity Act 1872 Makes federal court same as state courts in that state NOW different federal courts and different states are different AND states don t have difference between equity and law Rules Enabling Act of 1934Solution to above 25 years in the making It gives the judicial branch the authority to make from a unified federal system for procedure a unified set of procedural rules for federal courts Merged Procedure for cases in law and equity for federal level in federal courts Important because The major entities in the legal system are the creatures of law judicial executive legislative What makes these powerful is that they are granted authority by law The Rules Enabling Act grants them this power Act like this that grants the power to the courts rather than having something over time build up laws is a step away from the common law system Statutes are an increasingly important part of law THE BIG SIMILARITY The big way that US is faithful to common law roots has to do with the way that the balance between state and national government shifts The basic way it shifts is the common law way through judgemade law in particular cases Even in the case where you have a statute giving some entity of the national government giving it authority it did not previously have The validity of the rules that congress makes to expand the national government s scope is subject to checks by the judicial branch The core of our legal system is still kind of the same core of common law sytem The idea that rules are built up over time The American legal system really consists of fifty one separate and independent legal systems corrugated by the principles of law established in the US Constitution Van Dervort 200025 BUT We are under a Constitution but the Constitution is what the court says it is Charles Evans Hughes The Supreme Court has risen to the status even though we have become more codification center How can we BOTH be more similar to code law system and more firmly judge center Code and common Answering questions requires that we look at what comes under the pervue of the legal system since the 18th century What is their responsibility The change in the role of the Supreme Court since the late 18th century lnitially the supreme court was looked at as a last resort people went to it only when things were not resolved to their satisfaction Initially this is what they handled particular individuals and particular issues An individual dispute can have far reaching consequences if it is settled by a court with larger implications BUT in general at first it was all about individual remedies Gradual movement over time about a focus on cases that deal with principles with wide governmental or public purposes sweeping implications It is now no longer a last resort it is engaged in public policy making through its interpretation of the constitution and particular statutes Structure that is more in line with common law system than it is with the code law system The Supreme court cannot issue advisory things Restrictions on Accepting Cases Is it within the court s jurisdiction Is that case capable of judicial resolution is a remedy possible Someone who is actually affected by case in question must bring it up The justices of the Supreme Court interpret all of these things lnterpret whether or not a case is justiciable Does an individual have standing to sue They need to determine FIRST if the issue is a real issue and SECOND if the party is bringing the case is being directly affected You must suffer an injury or be in imminent danger The injury must be reasonably the result of that law or the action in question The party has to show that a court decision in their favor will likely provide redress of their complaints JURlSDlCTlON Does the court have the authority to hear this case and is it within their jurisdiction Where is the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court Article 3 decides this What are the criteria for whether something is appropriate for Supreme Court decision Case or controversy Real case between actual dispute and actual things No advisory opinions adverseness Political questions Ripenessls the injury in the case ripe Has the injury occurred If not the court will not accept it If i am convicted of something and the trial court decides against me you must pursue the other avenues before the final court No moot questions f the pertinent fact of the case change or if the law in question changes so that there is no more case or controversy they will not hear yourcase Is the injury in the CONCLUSION American legal system has gotten more like a code law system in some ways It is in its core a common law system but it is not pure Key changes Procedural merger of law and equity rise of statutes But the US retains its common law roots flexible based on interpretation of cases Basic Structure of US Legal System Federalism What does the constitution do gtSets up the basic structure of the American government gtSetting boundaries of federal power Constitution delegates power to the governments says the government is limited in scope and authority The government has only what it is delegated and not an inch more ENUMERATED powers Create national court system Tax and spend Regulate commerce Naturalization intellectual property and bankruptcy Make necessary and proper laws Exclusive governance in DC Exclusive power to the military Exclusive power to declare war make treaties impose tariffs Exclusive power to coin money Powers that are DENIED No post facto laws and bills of attainder a law that applies after the fact that is committed in the past that is now punishable by law No suspension of habeas corpus except for national security like Lincoln in the Civil War Cannot appropriate money from treasury must be done by law May not grant titles of nobility Citizens cannot hold nobility either gtReguates national state relations 10th amendmentThe powers that are not expressly delegated to the federal government are reserved for the states of the people Elastic causenecessary and proper to carry out all its powers Federalism concerns the division of authority on a vertical level In the US we have 51 legal systems that occupy the same space there are many cross cutting jurisdictions Different laws and different courts can apply to and have jurisdiction over the same localeSometimes they come into conflict Conflicts between federal and state governmentslawsgt Questions of FEDERALlSM Problem for the courts Courts have to solve this problem and conflicts in accordance with the secondary rules for recognizing and resolving conflicts between laws within the same jurisdiction What do American federal principles tell us about how we should solve these SUPREMACY CLAUSE If anything in state law or a state constitution conflicts with national constitution the national constitution trumps it Figuring out when things actually are in conflictMarbury decision was important Without the ability to identify a conflicting event they would have no power Judicia review is the muscle behind the supremacy clause However it is a bit more complicated than just constitution wins every fight The more fundamental law wins ORDER OF PRlORlTY Federal sources of law US Constitution Acts of Congress and in equal footing with treaties Federal common law equity All state sources of law State sources of law Constitutional law Statutory law Common lawequity Except Louisiana Contracts If you would like to make a contract with someone to sell yourself into slavery can you do that NO because it is a violation of the constitution SO even if you make it according to the rules of making contracts you cannot make it because it violates the constitution Due Process Clause of 14th Amendment The Bill of Rights was not initially taken to apply to the staets gtReguates conflicts between states above gtDesignates protected individual rights Baron V Mayer and City Council of Baltimore 1833 ssue Man named Baron who owns a wharf in Baltimore takes a case to the government because the streams had been redirected and there wasn t enough money for his boat and he wanted compensation Initially the court gives him money then appealed by appellate court Does the 5th amendment prohibition against taking property without just compensation apply to the states as well as the national government HOLDlNG NO only applies to national government does not apply to state Marshall says that when it is meant to apply to the state it is very clear he says it did not say it applied to the state and thus it only applies to national government Thus the Supreme Court cannot give him a remedy to his problem No incorporation applying of BOR to states of BOB until 14th amendment passed Because of this decision until the passage of 14th amendment any attempt to protect rights at the state level had to come from state laws or state constitutional provisions These rights are NOW incorporated and we have gotten PAST the Baron precedence by amending the constitution We did this by slowly incorporating all of these individuals rights by holding them to apply to states DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF 14th AMENDMENT Due processProcedural regularityfairness If state laws differ in how they protect and enforce individual rights this can deprive people of their due process that is guaranteed under the 14th amendment If I write it into the CA constitution and it is in the CA constitution and not in Nevada then Nevada is deprived of their due process vis a vi CA constitution Selective incorporation of rights implicitly in the concept of ordered liberty neither liberty nor justice would exist if it were sacrificed The right that is implicit in ordered liberty is if it is not protected then the failure to protect it would destroy liberty and justice It took a very long time to say the BOR only applied to national government to the national government is allowed to act to counter private discrimination Example Fourth Amendment Prior to 1914 evidence that was seized in violation of fourth amendment was still permissible in court What is the problem hereYou can t break the law to prove someone broke the law A cop in 1914 has no incentive to conduct their searches by the book What good is the fourth amendment if in practice you can ignore it with no real consequences 1914 Weeks vs US If evidence that is obtained in violation with 14th amendment is inadmissable in court Exclusionary rule The idea is that the exclusionary rule will be a deterrent they will have incentives not to engage in it and incentives to engage in it CRUCIAL It applies to federal courts only If you are LAPD you get a pass The Weeks decision doesn t incorporate the exclusionary rule After this 30 states decided not to adhere to exclusionary rule The fourth amendment isn t incorporated in a meaningful sense until 1949 1949 Wolf vs Colorado Holds that evidence seized unlawfully is inadmissable in state courts Incorporated 4th amendment Odd because it says if state cops seize evidence illegal they can t use it but it still doesn t include exclusionary rule becausefederalism Leaves loopholes in Week s ruling Silver platter doctrineYou can get illegal evidence served to you on silver platte as long as you are not the one doing it The loophole meant that they could overlap State cop could get evidence for federal and federal could get evidence for state cop 1961 Mapp vs Ohio reversed Weeks ALL evidence seized by searches and seizures that violate the constitution is inadmissable Successful expansion of national government to oversee what goes on in states Relations Between State Governments A judgment that is made in another state is subject to the procedures of the state you are in to honor that judgment Article 4 ComityStates cannot discriminate the citizens of other states in favor of their own When a CA resident is in Nevada you cannot be denied the rights that Californians have States also have to extradite fugitives of other states A fugitive of Montana in LouisianaLouisiana has to send the fugitive back to Montana Each state has to have a republic form of governmentIndirect form of democracy limited government QUESTION lsn t CA direct democracy Separation of Powers 3 branches Basic scope of power of three branches is laid out in article 123 of constitution Structured in line with larger goals When the constitution was written the paramount value was limited government This goal is pursued through checks and balances and separation of powers More accurate to talk about the separation of powers between branches in terms of shared powers Something that is important to note is that ultimately the meeting of these constitutional checks and balances and the practical meaning of the constitutional checks is ultimately a matter of HOW the courts INTERPRET them and APPLY them What the courts hold them to mean in certain cases No branch can govern alone The idea that each branch should have some means of checking the power of the others is necessary to the rule of law Legislative Branch Article 1 This is who they thought would really dominate and expand in power Branch that makes statutes and does all of the Article 1 section 8 stuff There are legislative bodies at both national and state levels in the legislative branch there is concurrent jurisdiction This article only provides for structure of legislative branch at the national level At the state level the structure is established by individual state constitutions What else can the congress do Create federal agencies Crucial As the challenges that they are asked to handle become increasingly complex They create federal agencies through enabling acts Estabish jurisdiction of that entity Important to our purposes because it is part of the legal system As we have seen we are talking about the constitution which sets up and empowers a legislature The way that it makes these statutes belies a bit the point about the separation of powers The process of statutory law making the legislative process is a dialogue between legislative and executive branches Reflects negotiation with the president and the people who are working in the agency Lobbyists have a voice as well The final product reflects the negotiation between all of these people The laws that congress passes must be passed according to the accepted procedures Executive Branch Article 2 Carries out implements and enforces the law Article 2 vague on executive branch in general Contains not only the president but executive departments state treasury educationetc Independent executive agencies created by acts of Congress NASA WPA FDA etc Independent regulatory commissions Federal reserve SEC meant to be politically independenD Government corporations USPS FDIC private corporations owned by the congress Judicial Branch Article 3 Art 1 says Congress can establish national court system Dual system of federal courts federal and state Most interested with Supreme courts Article 3 sets up jurisdiction and appointmenttenure of justices SCOTUS Original jurisdiction Congress can modify SC s appellate jurisdiction Judicial Review Marbury vs Madison Power to strike down any act at any level of government as unconstitutional Checks for executive Can veto legislation from congress congress can override They nominate the justices on Supreme Court with advice of senatecongress Can check legislative by issuing executive orders that are subject to judicial review The executive branch has to interpret the laws in order to fulfill the legislative mandate You can interpret the laws that you are tasked with implementing broadly or narrowly lnformal means of checking what congress does Checks for legislative Veto override Congress has power to declare war even though the president is commander in chief Impeachment Funding Footing the billAppropriate funds Their check on judicial branch Approve the judges and constitutional amendments the constitution provides a process such that if a law that you pass is struck down as unconstitutional you can change the constitution While we usually think of the bureaucracy as something of the legislative branch the reality is that all three branches have grown increasingly bureaucratized Types of Law Challenges to Classification No overriding comprehensive plan of codification Law in the US is driven by particular cases Branches of law share methodsprocedures NONETHELESS There are ways to classify POSSIBLE CLASSIFICATIONS Law vs equity limited utility PubIic vs private Substantive vs proceduraladjective According to source next lecture Reason we are focusing less on contracts and more on constitutional issues We are concerned with the law as it relates to government and politics LOOK at powerpoint Differences between substantive and procedural SUBSTANTIVE Civil criminal regulatory PROCEDURAL Civil criminal administrative Sources of Law424 The Big Distinction The big distinction for us is the distinction between judge made law and statutory law Statutory lawMade by a body that is chosen according to rules legislators Judgemade aw Made by judges and includes case law as well as common law The line share of American law The interactions between statutory and judge made law yields the detailed legal requirements that claim our obedience and the obedience of officials Statutes and Judgemade LawLegal Requirements Because Statutes need interpretation not only by the executive branch and by judges that have to decide what the law requires in specific cases Statutes can change case lawStatutes can be passed when the common law tradition seems inadequateCan pass a law to fix precedences The people who write statutes are also subject to judicial review legislators The authors of law are also bound by law Legislators are bound to abide by judicial review The interaction between these two types of law creates what we generally think of as our legal duties They are governed by rules and principles of legal decision making EX Stare Decisis The statutes establish rights and remedies for the violation of those rights As well as the procedures for pursuing a remedy for a violated right Judges are bound to both apply and uphold statutes unless they are unconstitutional And to abide by existing precedent strong favor for existing precedent Talk about two main ways that statutory and judge made law differ The bindingness of precedence is much more flexible than statutes JudgeMade vs Statutory Law Precedent more flexible than statutory requirements 1 Statutes written in general termsNecessarily written in more broad language a By contrast judge made law is more particularMuch more articulated to the specifics of that case than the broad language of statutory b This is important when you are dealing with a precedence A lot of cases are similar with similar facts broadly but not necessarily identical ones i When you are faced with a precedent that you don t want to apply it gives you a way of dealing with that ii The thing to do in this case is to distinguish the precedent point to relevant factual difference between your case and the case that set the precedence as a reason why it wont apply to your case iiiThe rule from the proceeding case will be a bit more broad more broad than the actual verdict a bit more general the rule will go beyond that to make some claim iv If not only the facts of the case differ but the general rules from the previous cause don t match your case you can argue that there is no grounds RATIO DECIDENDI The legal principle upon which the decision in a specific case is founded a key factual point or chain of reasoning in a case that drives the final judgement This is one part about why precedence is more flexible than statutes Even if precedence applies judges can decide to set it aside If you run into a precedence that sucks you have two options can choose to set aside a law or practice or even an existing precedent Precedent can be set aside The idea here is that stare decisis is not a mechanical formula of adhere to past decisions but in fact a principle of policy of making decisions Just a guideline The question of when you can decide when you can set aside precedent is not one you can take lightly LESS harm must be done by overturning the rule than adhering to it This is all in relation to the first difference of statutory and judgemade 2 Legislation is usually prospective while judgemade law can be retrospective as well b Question of why it is acceptable to apply a new legal rule to people had acted on a rule on the basis of the old rule The amount of retrospectivity that is acceptable in the judgemade opinion is difficult to determine hard to decide how far back those decisions should apply The challenge is that we think there is something wrong with penalizing someone for acting on the basis of what WAS a legally binding rule But we also think it is perverse for the litigant to not get to benefit from the new rule Things change and we need people to litigate those cases Why should someone go through a case and see it through only to not be benefitted by the rule that their litigations precipitated Interaction between the statutes that are passed by legislators and determined by judges how far back these rules are applied If we go back to the order of priority of laws we see that statutory and judgemade are woven together in this priority of laws Order of Priority Please explain this graph Constitutional law shows the nexus of these two types of law as well A written constitution is more akin to a statute than judgemade lawWHY QUESTlON The constitutional law involves judgemade law it involves decisions about the meaning of a written document The most obvious thing is that unreasonable searches and seizures are not allowed the meaning of reasonable searches and seizures is not clear The consequences of violating 4th amendment is decided partially by judicial decisions and partially by statutory law Weeks decision Established by judge made law However it is partially established by statutory laws Even though Weeks didn t incorporate the fourth amendment some states chose to adopt an exclusionary rule Think back to our cases from last time the wolf decision says that illegally obtained evidence is inadmissable in state courts States have the option of banning the silver platter rule A really good example of how statutory and judge made interact California VS Greenwood 1988 Greenwood is arrested after warrantless searches of trash State superior court excluded this evidence found in warrantless searches of the trash based on a previous decision that warrantless searches of trash are unconstitutional Dismisses the charges The state appellate court 31 00 The state of CA was prosecuting Greenwood and appealed to Supreme court NATIONAL The Supreme Court holds in this place that garbage on the curb is not protected by fourth amendment Idea is to overturn the CA Supreme Court decision This is interesting because how are they able to do this Greenwood argues that this is a 14th amendment violation That the CA supreme court that warrantless searches of trash are unconstitutional HOWEVER voters chose by referendum to remove the exclusionary rule from the CA constitution Referendum is example of STATUTORY The decision to remove the exclusionary rule state from the constitution yields the violation of 14th amendment right to protect him The supreme court says that this is irrelevant QUESTlONgtgtgtgtWHAT IS EXCLUSIONARY RULE What states do or don t do has to be consistent with any existing rules on that question If there had been a fourth amendment rule here then there would be a problem It is irrelevant precisely because warrantless searches of trash are not unconstitutional Hold that there is no fourth amendment violation against warrantless trash searches The Supreme Courts interpretation of 4th amendment overrides the CA Supreme Court interpretation If they had found that it constituted a fourth amendment violation then CA would be bound to protect against it as it is then CA would be required to protect against it which it did but there was no violation of the 4th amendment Even though there is no state exls Exclusionary Rule Matt vs Ohio holding is that evidence that evidence that is seized without a warrant is inadmissable Appeal to a higher authority Fed supreme court which overturns the decision of the CA supreme court that these actions are unconstitutional Precedent in US Judges have the authority to decide when precedent should not stand The prior decision is no longer applicable to the facts and norms of when the precedent was decided The legal system is not just about keeping order it is also about justice and holding jus ce We think it is very important to be able to overturn precedent EXAMPLES Both involved women whose husbands were injured Wives sued for loss of consortium BALDWIN VS STATE 1965Wives can t sue for loss of consortium CRAIG VS BOREN 1976 VT statute gave wives standing 1977 WHlTNEY VS FISHER 1980They say a wife may in fact sue for loss of consortium due to her husbands injuries What changed between Baldwin and Whitney VT passed a law in 1977 that said men and women could sue for loss of consortium that was an indirect cause of negligence Statutory law changes as well as the Supreme Court Precendent Craig vs Boren Two prong test about whether a gender based classification is constitutional 1st prong Is the classification serving an important government interest You can distinguish between men and women if it advances some compelling state or government interest If you think that an important interest of the state is the welfare of its citizens and the distinction serves its interest in the welfare of its citizens 2ndAnd if that distinction is actually relevant to furthering that interest 105 Through changes both in the statutory and judge made law is how it came about that women could sue for consortium If the test fails then it is not constitutional Tips on Reading Cases What is the issue Can they recover for loss of consortium Holdinganswer to the issueNo they cannot Rule What will future courts see as the precedent established by that case RATIO DECDENDI Justification and reasoning for the rule and how does it apply to rule What precedence and why What are they abiding by Conclusion Some LawsDecisions are Unprecedented Have to come up with a rule that deals with this new situtation State agents and private citizens can choose to bring or forgo legal action Our system of law proceeds on a case by case basisThe crucial thing here is that people can choose to bring case or notPublic officials or private citizens Just because you have a case doesn t mean you must pursue it The most important discretionary power of a prosecutor is the power to decide NOT to prosecute MILLE PERSECICan plead someone out The law evolves through choices to bring legal action Not something that is required Changes in the law and changes in judge made law are precipitated only by the Supreme Court does not have to accept every case that petitions and wants to be heard by it The Supreme Court can deny review which is a very good things because the Supreme Court has many more petitions than the court could conceivably hear No requirement that is bringing people to bring these cases to court Overarching point here is that legal requirements are the effect of human action Meaning of Legal Requirements A matter of interpretationhuman judgements Things acquire their meaning through interpretation through government officials Interpret requirements that attach to them in their requirements as a legal official Ultimately it is up to the justices themselves to decide what is required of them and if they can handle it How should they enforce themselves and conduct themselves They have to decide what upholding the constitution actually means in practice Some objective component to these legal requirements but the tricky bit is the standards 133 Judges flesh out the meaning of what the law requires based on the interpretation of the particular case that they think is relevant They have to decide where there are grounds for overturning precedent Have to make decisions in places where precedence is not a good enough standing They interpret their own legal duties that are attached to democracy Quiz Game James Madison argued that the confederation suffered in terms of power Why What did he mean by this The confederation was not given power so it did not have authority to do the things it needed to so it was limited and pointless What is legislation prescibed Basically a law making body or a popular initiative or statutes In what way does the doctrine of stare decisis relate to the common law concept of precedent What language does phrase come from What is the greatest problem inherent with stare decisis that is offered by Brodenheimer Let the decision stand Very modest in decision making and don t overturn precedence Greatest problem No court is bound by its own decisions they are encouraged by the doctrine to be modest but ultimately they are an independent body to take the law into its own hands Does a person have the right to claim loss of consortium if they are only engaged rather than married to the victim No they don t The argument was made that if you were engaged then it was close enough but the court ruled that you actually need the marriage license How does the stare decisis doctrine promote efficent judicial administration Adhering to the stare deicis doctrine Conserves energy and labor of judges Reduces the cost of litigation between the parties What are the 3 characteristcs of American law system that makes it hard to classify 1 No explicit plan of codification 2 Because of its case oriented approach it is more practical than theoretical 3 What are the three broad divisions within the American Law Law and equity substance and procedure and public and private law How does Stare Decisis affect the power of judges and how does it assist attorneys in their practice For attorneys Something to rely on and base their line of reasoning on For judges Prevents arbitrary adminstration of justice Attorneys can predict better Judges are not inclined to follow their own bias or precedences Conclusion Laws come in statutory and judge made forms Precedent is important but not absolute Legal requirements are the product of human judgement What is the best compact car around2007 Mazda 3 Know what appellate litigation stare decisis means Federalism Jurisdiction and the Court System The Question of Federalism Within in the Court System 10th Amendment Limited JurisdictionFederal court only has the power that is explicitly stated to themAuthority to decide subject matter disputes over particular things Where does Federal court jurisdiction come fromArticle 3Sets up the original and appellate jurisdiction of the court All other power comes from power established in Article onePower that is granted and implemented by acts of congress Article 3 section 2 gives us a brought framework for federal court jurisdiction Federal Question Jurisdiction Basic jurisdiction to hear all cases in law and equity arising under Constitution US laws and treaties Examples Federal crimes federal income tax laws bankruptcy constitutional rights Cases in which an individuals constitutional rights have been violated Lots of wiggle room in federal question jurisdictionLots of arguing that a particular action falls under federal question jurisdiction Look for a minute at exclusive jurisdiction of federal courts Exclusive Jurisdiction of Federal Courts Narrow Admiralty Ambassadors All cases where US is a party Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction covers all disputes between states or between a state and the federal governmentAll disputes between sovereign entities Specifically laid out in article 3 section 2 Other areas implied by Constitution and established by case law Cases that involve antitrust violations or interstate commerce Federal courts have criminal and civil jurisdiction as well Federal Jurisdiction Criminal All federal crimes are laid out in statutes Civil Cases where US is a party Federal question jurisdiction Diversity jurisdictionInvolves civil legal actions with disputes between citizens of different states where the sum in question is more than 75000 If I sue someone from NY then the federal courts could have jurisdiction Federal Civil Jurisdiction ExclusiveCases where US is a party Parts Excusive Federal Question jurisdictionMaleabe Some actions that you could choose to pursue either in state or federal level ConcurrentDiversity Jurisdiction Eg Civil legal actions involving disputes between citizens of differetn states where the sum in question is greater than 75000 There are actually bits of the US code that state the criteria for diversity jurisdiction The party bringing a case in the diversity action has the opportunity to decide which venue to file their case is in State they live in state they are pursuing or federal courtConstrained by parts of the US code that tells you where you should be Federa system organizes the legal system Conficts between circuit courts state and federal courts The Supreme Court is the final authority only on certain issues in state issues Ony when the state court decision involves a question of federal law A controlling question in the case Supreme Court of the US Jurisdiction The Supreme Court can directly review decisions by federal district courtsEX review district court decisions involving equitable relief in the antitrust decisions can review anything that hold an act of congress unconstitutional Jurisdiction to review state court decisions when the highest court in a particular state has given its final decision on a case and that case involves a critical question About a US statute or treaty State courts are not bound by the decision of federal courts on any federal matters by federal courts below Supreme Court However they do look to them for guidance The jurisdiction to review state cases if the state has rendered a decision involving federal law the validity of treaties and statutes involving the United States When they ve rendered a decision that violates federal When they make a decision involving constitutional rights For example CA vs Greenwood The Supreme Court can overturn CA supreme court decision that warrantless search of trash is unconstitutional Review of Court of Appeals decisions Review by issuing a review of certiorari Supreme Court has original jurisdictionExclusive jurisdiction over ambassadors and concurrent jurisdiction by the US against the state and between states Federal and state laws obviously have concurrent jurisdiction in the sense that whatever state you are in in the US you are under the jurisdiction of federal and state laws How do courts deal with this The first point is that state courts are not bound by the decision of any federal court on nonfederal matters And on federal matters they are only bound by Supreme Court On matters that are purely state law not bound by supreme court However a matter of purely state law means no conflict between federal and state no federal question involved no question on constitution This is what makes federal jurisdiction rather challenging cases do not exist in a vacuum the action that you are bringing under state law may bring something under federal law So on nonfederal they are not bound by supreme In both state and federal courts an action that arises under one type of law state law can be met by a defense from federal law and vice versa The defendant can defend him or herself on the more stringent federal law Incredible complexity in a legal system like ours Federal courts are often asked to apply state law and vice versa Tricky question and one that is governed by important precedents Swift v Tyson 1842 Supreme court holds that federal courts must apply state statutory law but not state common law because state statutes are within the law making power of the state the state has the power to make state statutes but it does not have the power to make the meaning of common law Because state common law is about what the general provisions of common law mean which is the providence of the state Overturned almost a century later in Erie Railroad Co vs Tompkins 1938 In absence of federal legislation federal courts have to apply both statutes and common law from the states this leads to more or less many judicial problems One of the important things of Erie doctrine that federal courts resolving cases arising under state law have to arrive at more or less the same decisions that a state court where that federal court is located would arrive at With same precedence and relevant statutes However in the absence of applicable federal legislation If you have a case that arises under state law but it is in some way related to federal legislation then that changes the game Why would a federal court be hearing a case that arises under state law and the answer is diversity jurisdiction or the other answer is if its a dispute where the US is a party and its a dispute that arises under state law Erie Doctrine and the complexity involved with applying the Erie doctrine Final Type of Jurisdiction Pendent Another form of overlapping jurisdiction between federal and state courts Form that allows federal district courts to make decisions on something that would otherwise be the exclusive jurisdiction of state court If the federal district court alraeady has jurisdiction over a case a case that involves federal questions and matters that are the exclusive provinance of state courts both federal and state the trial court the district courts the trial court of the federal court system can choose to extend its jurisdiction over the case it gets because there is a federal question involved because it has jurisdiction over the question that that state is tied to ATTEMPTED EXPLANATION 2 If you have a case that involves federal and state questions mostly state but some federal all of the state part of the case the state will have exclusive juridiction over but there is something in the case that give federal courts jurisdiction If there is something that will allow them to hear it the federal courts no longer have to stick to just that part of the case they can extend their jurisdiction in that case to decide on these matters They can choose not to extend their jurisdiction as well Example Civil suit that claims that the defendanct violated federal anti trust laws and that in some way angered you so you sue for some sort of relief to the damage caused by their violation of federal anti trust laws So the federal district court would have jurisdiction The suit also claims that the defendant committed state common law fraud If it was just the fraud case you wouldn t hear it in the federal law court but because the fraud issue was issued in the context of a federal case as well then the federal court will hear it A lot of interpretation and negotiation in the process that decides who has jurisdiction over a case The cases that come with federal courts are a matter of CHOICES by the judges choices to exercise theiry ability to extend their jurisdiction to nonfederal cases Marbury vs MadisonJudiciary Act of 1789 Effect of that ruling was to strike down section 13 of judiciary actGive it original jurisdiction in a case like Marbury in issuing the writ of mandamusMarshal s reasoning does not give power to change the reasoning of court on the appellate decision The court should not have been told that they have jurisdiction State courts have general jurisdiction and can decide between federal or state except for the matters that federal courts have EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction over As a result most things take place in state courts Where every day practice of the law is in state courts Judges take their office swearing to obey both US constitution and the constitution of state in which they are a judge Their oath indicates that they are bound to both levels to two sovereign entities Which means that they have to figure out what to do if those entities conflict Ultimately the decisions that state judges make when state and federal law conflict are subject to review by the Supreme Court Quiz Game According to Farnsworth reading Litigants or the peopel bringing the case would prefer the federal courts controversial because the court could give them the advantage Framers did not want that to happen because they did not want a home court advantage Did not want state to give preference to the person living in the state What according to Farnsworth are the two First the weight that is given to a multi legged holding basically a point that is argued before the court that is not the sole basis of the court s decisions not the controlling principle of law Second retroactive effect According to Farnsworth what are some limitation on the work of supreme court and lower federal courts Doesn t give advisory opinions only issue cases of controversy Federal law is supreme only where is exists in the constitution Federal questions must be substantial According to Farnsworth by what means are the power of federal jurisdiction defined based on in the federal district courts How are the powers of the federal jurisdiction de ned Federal government has limited powers under the constitution basically rest is given to the state as the congres What are the three pronged civil jurisdictional bounds of federal district courts The national local federalism is an example of what structure of federalism Contrasting with the government produced No clearly defined supremacy under the articles of confederation The state can still maintain the power so conflict When state conflicts with federal government wh The conflict in the vertical dimension of federalism brings balance to the force Need for consistency need to keep government in its place What is the function of common law system Midterm Review Three primary problems of law Ambiguity must be interpreted in applying What is the difference between problems of law COmbo of primary and secondary and defects with the system of pure primary rules rules that tell you what to do not rules of how to make rules not clear what they mean or how they adapt to new circumstances Second set of problems is why you need secondary rules Homocide In order to deal with a single violation of substantive law single violation of private substantive law you have to also deal with plenty of procedural laws an act of violation of private substantive law is homocide however in order to investigate into it cops must follow procedural public and lawyers must follow criminal public prodedure Basic Point No matter what if you are engaging in legal action it will involve procedure as well as the law in action When did the idea that judges discover law change into judges making law Well I think it starts to decline or people start to express more open skepticism to it in the middle of the 19th century strong national law in America national law philosophy we hold these truths to be sef evident Government exists to protect rights rather than oppress its people American pragmatism that undoes that the idea that many of the truths we cling to are dependent on the truths we find as human beings not just discovering but interpretive choices are actually a part of what constructs the laws that we have What is the availability heuristic Finding that people tend to overestimate the representativeness of the thing thats right in front of them What is the concept of retroactivity Does the law apply backwards If you make a decision or change a precedent do you apply that precedent to earlier cases or the case that caused the precedent Even though people were acting on the old law if you find that thats not the correct interpretation do you apply that Problem of retroactivity to the extent that you are balancing competing injustices Injustice of applying rules to someone who didn t realize it would be the rules against the injustice of someone who just went through the trouble of changing those rules not getting it applied to them Primary and secondary rules synonymous with procedural and substantive NO because the difference between the two is the distinction is There is greater Distinction between how Hart defines the two identification change and adjudication of primary rules Not the procedures by which you pursue your legal rights Secondary rules are CRITERIA FOR LEGAL VALDlTlTY what makes a law a law not just how you carry out the law Greater differentiation within the concept of secondary rules than within procedural rules as we looked at them Procedural rules are about legal action With secondary rules it is about how to deal with What does the distinction tell you about Is it telling you HOW to go about pursuing legal action or is it telling you whats a law how you make them and how you carry out laws Procedural law lays out procedures secondary is about how we know which things are actually laws Reconstruction amendments ls law in the US made through process of rupture or sedimentation Reconstruction was dramatic rupture with prior precedent in whole fell swoop they changed the rules they changed the defintion of thingsBUT the RUPTURE was because of PRECEDENCE However the precendent on what the 13 14 and 15 mean developed over time after they were made through rupture Greenwood Case Interaction between statutory and judge made law The idea is that the requirements you have reflect the interaction between judge made and statutory law as mediated by the priority shit Vermont consortium cases Trends of it points on it points that made the trend need to know enough about cases to know how they change Where are you starting off what did the first case do and how did the second case change the first case Questions of Right to a jury trial A right to a jury trial in an action arising under the civil rights act What you see is first the lower court decision in first case How did the lower court come to the wrong answer in Rogers How did the lower court and supreme court come to different conclusions about whether a jury trial was warranted in that case The point here is that depending on how you interpret law and that boundary between law and equity you will come to different conclusion about what the remedy requires It is not clear in the statute whether to remedy that new legal right you will actually have to have a jury trial or not The second decision says that in order to answer question we have to look at what the plaintiff is asking for she is asking for damages and as such she needs to be given a jury trial as required by the seventh amendment Trial by Jury was popular because the alternative was having your hand burned off How did law and equity merge Initially there was a dual system for courts of law and courts of equity inefficient and costly Law and equity emerged in mid 19th century was through a procedural merger creation of field code NY state of civil procedure One unified system of civil procedure where you would pursue both motions of law and motions of equity You and the court follow the same procedure except for the mode of trial Actions of equity are not entitled to jury trial What did Rules Enabling Act solve Solved the problem of unifying a system of federal civil procedure by granting the court the power to establish federal rules of civil procedure Prior to that federal procedure was pretty wonky and it enabled them to create a standardized set of rules If federal courts have to follow the current rules of states they are in then what is the problem All the federal courts would follow different procedures in different states Procedure for filing in different states were made the same Conformity Act What was the problem in 1872 You had a system in which state courts and federal courts were not following same procedure in that state because federal courts were following procedures of when the state joined the union Act says you have to follow the current procedure in the state you are sitting in In CA federal courts were following the rules that were in place 20 years earlier within the same state procedures would be different Conformity Act solves that problem Recap Crosscutting jurisdictions This simply means that areas where the jurisdictions overlap and where different levels of government and different branches of government have some finger in the pie Are crosscutting and concurrent the same thing Crosscutting also involves different branches ConcurrentVertical CrosscuttingHorizontal InterpretationJudges and Statutes Legal Precedent As we saw in our readings written judicial meanings are a minority But they are disproportionately important because they actually deliver meaning to law Elements of a Decision Ration Decidendi What s necessary to support the result in that case Binding precendent What you need in order to get to the resolution that the court has decided upon Dicta Aspects of the opinion that are not strictly speaking necessary to say why we got to the conclusion in that case The dicta can be disregarded in the future because they are not strictly speaking seen as the essential part of the case Editorializing comments make claims that are not necessarily ones that we would accept in the rule of law Distinction between the two has broken down the dicta has become more important If you are looking at old cases trying to figure out what you should take care of it reasonable people would disagree about what is necessary and what is not Legal realismWhat judges do when they decide Challenge that judges apply mechanically the existing rules of law Legal Realism Challenge to scientific account of law The life of the law has not been logic it has been experience Judicial lawmaking not simply automateddictated by rules Interpreting the meaning of words and facts rather than just looking at the rule of law This is not to say that logic is wholly uninvolved in the process of unjudicating legal disputes All of the intangibles the consideration to justice that cannot necessarily be codified into a rule matter too A central tenet of legal realism is the idea that judges decide cases more or less intuitively they come to a conclusion and look for a way to defend that decision The process of writing an opinion in a case is finding some kind of credible legal grounds for decisions that share beyond just the reasons of this is what the case said Legal support for decisions that you have reached through considerations of justice Virtues of mercy or clemency On a legal realist view judicial opinions aren t fully candid they were rent to act like the decisions was built on existing legal rules But a lot of the time they were notlntuitively The law is not like baking it is more like the stereotypical chef who adds a dash of this and that and explains to you afterwards how they did it THE POINT is to the legal realist law is not simply about applying a precedent or discovering legal rules nevertheless this does not mean that they are doing whatever they want still recognize distinction between principled and unprincipled Principled mean a decisions that the judge would be willing to follow in other decisions in the future Unprincipled decisions is if they wouldn t be willing to act on it in future cases For example if someone asked to borrow my car and couldn t think of a good reason well i don t lend my car to people that are wearing red and gold But then her mom shows up and she is wearing red and gold and she says yes So if she had said I don t lend my car to assholes it would be a reason to apply to future cases Reason giving is at the heart of judicial opinionThe reading points out quite nicely if all you needed was an opinion to say heres the decisions for this case then supreme court decisions would not be hundreds of pages long Explain and justify the decision you come to Makes reasons for how future cases will be decided This process of writing judicial opinions is somewhat analogous to another social practice PROMISINGA promise commits the promiser to do something partly because you committed yourself and the courts integrity rides on that fact The other side of it is if I promise to pick you up at LAX and I don39t show up RetroactivitySometimes we do need to change the rules to update rules Seeing judicial decision making as a principled reasongiving process is kind of analogous to once you start down the dark path you have to choose the lesser of two evils to overturn it eventually Rules Versus Standards Rules Detailed specific concrete determinate ex 65 mph speed limit Standards Broad vague general imprecise open to discretion Ex no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of laws Allows law enforcement to pull people over for a wide range of things reasonable and prudent Even though they are set up as two different things is that this distinction exists on a spectrum gradations of the platonic idea of a standard Figuring out what it means to deny someone a certain thing Where on a spectrum the law falls the character of a law If you think the judicial discretion ought to be more tightly constrained then have more things that are more like rules and less like standards Meaning that when you are adjudicating a rule that has a standard it would be equally right where rules would involve less These more detail and specific rules are in many cases The margin of error might be greater on rules Preclude behavior that might not necessarily be harmful but nevertheless that downside balances out the you get from blah blah The example that Schauer gives that is a great example the Miranda rights you are read are taken directly from an opinon that is read Right in the text That is something that leaves no wiggle room either you re properly mirandized or you re not Whereas if he issued a standard that said cops have to issue miranda rights when you are arrested it d be up to the cops If the precedent is more like a standard and less like a rule it will change the impact of that decisions Important because it is also tied to discretionary authorityIrreducable part of the process of judgingYou can t judge without a little discretion slip in Example of this would be supreme CourtThey have power to decide which cases they want to hear Come through petitions certiorari rather than original jurisdiction Once the Writ of Cert has arrived Cert poolAll of the clerks share this burden of writing the cert summaries Clerks review and give a summary of the cases and a recommendation on whether they should grant cert take the case or not Interpretive discretion of that clerk that reads that case and provides the memo It is in their understanding of whether or not it poses an important legal question If they re being proactive and looking for a particular case in a particular issue they will tell the clerks to be on the look out The cert pool prepares all of these memosOne set of justices eyeballs on it Once it is all done the chief justice will prepare the discuss list Debate whether or not to grant cert Only 15 make it out to the discuss list Associate justices can add but cannot take off If your case does not make it onto the discuss list then your cert is denied Discretionary authority right there about which cases deserve to be given further consideration JusticesWhether to grant cert or not Minimum of 4 justices has to say it has merits for full consideration of SCRule of 4 Rule 10Conflict between state and federal courts Cases that were decided against the SC decisions should be looked at 1 in 3 chance that the court will grant review as opposed to 1 in 50 Once they have decided which cases they are going to hear how does the SC make its actual decisions Supreme Court of US SCOTUS Procedures Oral argumentThe time for oral argument is severely restricted At present 30 mins per side 30 mins where you might get a couple of words out before you get a lot of questions from the bench ConferenceThere is no formal requirements for when justices must recuse themselves The chief justice will start out the discussion in the case by giving their opinions first and then they will go in order of authority and they will vote that way as well Several possible outcomes VoteTie vote the judgement of the lower court is upheld Clear majorityCreates binding precedent Plurality opinion4 sign majority another separate opinion concure in results but not necessarily reasoning and 4 disagree Don t have a majority for majority opinion Binding in the case at hand but does not create a binding precedent Plurality opinions can be a little bit confusing Concurring and majority The importance of the concurring is not entirely clear because it is not binding but neither is majority reasoning Assigning the opinion Exercise in discretionChoice of which justice they give it to and knowing their tendencies and narrow or broad opinions whether they kind of adhere very closely to strict necessity is an important question WHO to give that opinion to will shape the courts opinion Writing Opinions They can lobby one another and try and convince their colleagues to vote one way or the other to work towards a common ground One way to do this is by circulating drafts and trying to bargain with one another Example If I am writing an opinion and I want one of my justices to write a separate opinion rather than a concurring one that gives that potential fifth voter leverage over what goes into opinion Threat of dissentAppeal to everyone in the future and appeal to history to change the decision of the majority If you have a strong dissenting opinion it weakens the credibility of the opinion The most significant negotiating tools that justices have are there votes and their concurrence in opinions Threatening to change their votes or opinion are ways that judges can exercise to influence other judges to modify the opinion Especially powerful in cases where you really want consensus It is a lot easier for people to push the majority Something you really want a unanimous decision for Do not want to overturn precedent weekly The challenge here is that justice who is writing the opinion needs to avoid watering that opinion to the point where it couldn t be a useful precedent BUT some dilution of the rule might be the only alternative to an outright rejection Possible to switch your vote at the last minute Role of the Court Judicial activism Judicial restraint Lecture 9Statutory Interpretation Back to Hart The irreducible problem of interpretationthe open texture of language Laws are written with words Words always involve a core of settled meaning and a penumbra of debatable meanings Ex No vehicles allowed in park under penalty of aw does this mean skateboards ambulances Linguistic indeterminancyWhat does equal protection actually mean What do you have to do to ensure equal protection When the word tells you exactly what it means and the language of the law gives you a clear answer but the answer seems wrong How do you figure out how to solve these problems Challenge of interpretation To go back to something that we talk about at the start of the course he had told you all that conceptual stuff mattered the open texture of law in inherent latent vagueness the fact that it will always involve these judgement calls when you are dealing with the wide view rather than the core Open texture becomes apparent when you have to apply the case in unusual terms What gives a judge the power to say that nonetheless applying the law in that case would be unjust so it should be set aside Approaches to Interpreting Law OriginalismIt is not necessarily just one of these types they are somewhat of a combination Originalism Often taken with constitutional law text of a statute or constitution is the document itself what you need to be focused on What is the intent TextualismSeen as a form of judicial restraint Justices should stick to texts of the law interpret rather than make law Keeps justices from going beyond very tightly constrained goal If you go beyond the text where do you draw the line The other benefit is you look at the playing words of the text Argle Bargle Plain meaning More useful as a basis for forming expectations and keep the Supreme Court or any court more transparent CONCERNS The plain meaning of words is not necessarily selfevident and obvious Understanding any words on the page involves interpretation in part of reader If you don t recognize that you interpret it you won t realize that you are always bringing something to the text Structuralismz Larger structure of constitution holistically Meaning of some section of the law in the context of the entire piece of legislation If upside is flexibility then downside will be over broadness Too much opportunity to read between the lines Competing Interpretations The Problem Of Interpretation Which approach is best and how do we know for sure For Hart it would be impossible to make rules that could be applied to every single future situation without any choices about what that rules means in some future situation Law involves classifying particular cases as instances of general terms Basic problem of classification They all have a core of subtle meaning and a penumbra of doubt as well For this reason a legal system cannot rest on rules aloneWe need people to interpret and apply those rules because situations are always going to arise in courts where people have no primary rules yet dealing with a particular situation Also there will always be places where people dispute the validity of an already existing rule EXAMPLE Today no one would dispute that separate but equal schools were a duly enacted wrong enacted according to secondary rules valid law BUT they were manifestly unjust People challenge not the fact that they had been made improperly but the fact that they shouldn t have been made in the first place And there is no rule that tells us what to do when people raise these objections This is what gives laws their open texture Up to discretion of judge to fill in the meaning of that law that is why they are called judges because they must exercise judgement The problem for Hart is that he cannot explain how and why a judge might deal with the open texture of law in a particular way He cannot explain how you should address it If he could it wouldn t be open texture It would not fall within the penumbra if you could conclusively give a right answer Any legal system requires a balancing act Owing to Open Texture of Law Legal system inherently involves a balancing act Need for certainpredictable rules to guide individual behavior VERSUS Need to leave certain questions ie those that can only be settled in contact of a particular case open for future decision Interpretive canons can t ever be fully settled Both the primary rules and more important for our purposes of today it is also true for rules of how we interpret lawhow to deal with cases that fall into the penumbra Three Basic Interpretive Approaches Exist on a SPECTRUMMost close to law to most far Literal RulePlain Meaning If the language can only mean one thing courts must apply the statue regardless of whether it would yield a perverse outcome Kind of similar to textualism GOLDEN Rule Take whole statute together and give words their literal meaning unless it s inconceivable that legislators woud ve wanted that outcome Want to give them their literal meaning unless it seems like a particularly ridiculous outcome that no one had intended that law to do PURPOSIVE Most freewheeling Try and discern the true purpose of a law the piece of legislation and interpret it in light of what you see to be this purpose Involve drawing on lots of materials beyond simply the text of the law Draw on extra legal things for interpretation because they in some way give you insight into the context in which the law was made Now going to go through the cases that we were given to figure out which approach was at work in these cases United States VS Kirby 82 1868 Sheriff was charged under this law for arresting a mail carrier so the COURT HOLDS that a law prohibiting the obstruction SHOULDN T be applied to that sheriff because that would be patently ridiculous What was the approach takenGolden ruleBecause they listen to the law but says its ridiculous answer to the problem so decided not to be applied Common sense approach to figuring out whether that s a perverse outcome Holy Trinity Church VS US 1892 Supreme Court reverses a trial court ruling that a church that had brought a pastor in from England had violated an act that prohibited assisting of foreign nationals PURPOSIVEBecause they looked at other things and cases as opposed to purely just that rule This would not be a sensible interpretation of the law The church violates letter of law but you can look at all these different passages of the law and realize that it does not prevent clergymen more of an economic focus Caminetti VS United States 1917 Divided court 53 upheld Caminetti s conviction that he transported people over state borders Brought a women from CA to Nevada in order to have an affair He argues that it wasn t commercial activity AKA not a prostitute nonetheless the court upholds his conviction Literal because they are going directly by the lawThey are not going by what the law means only what the letter of the law requires in this case United States VS American Trucking Associations 1940 This was about whether the motor carrying act of 1935 met the interstate commerce commission had to regulate the hours of all motor carriers or just trucks in it the supreme court reversed the lower court that said they do ApproachPurposiveReevaluated the prior intent of the rule Say in actual decisionsIn the interoperation of statutes the function of the court is easily statedSo as to give the effect of the intent of congress Interpret language that best serves as the intention of Congress in making that law Jurists differ on whether you should rely on extrinsic aids at allDiffer on HOW MUCH you should rely on such extrinsic aids Also no clear answer for how we should determine legislative intent How to determine Legislative Intent What counts as evidence is a tricky questions Legislative history is a tricky question Whose writings or speeches do you take as authoritative evidence of what that law meant law makers have different reasons for writing a law whose reasons do you go with What do you do when a law reflects strategic rather than pure motives How do you interpret intent in law roll For example food stamps passed because the people who wanted food stamps cut a deal with the people who wanted farm subsidies Does that mean to think about food stamps you have to think of farm subsidies What do you do after the fact and law makers go out and claim credit for it LINGUISTIC CANONS OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATIONA specialized body of precedent that arises in cases dealing with questions of interpretation Specialized questions about how you interpret laws These canons can be used to figure out what the law means and to figure out what the intent of the law makers might have been Linguistic Canons 1 Expression unius est exclusion aterius the expression of one thing is the exclusions of another If you specifically infer one thing you can figure out that thats the only particular version of that general category that the lawmakers means If you have a law saying cars in CA must be smogged except for Mazdas There is only one exception expressed there so all other things are excluded from that exception they all have to be smogged 2 Noscitur a sociis A thing is known by its associaties You should figure out what a word in the text means by looking at the words that surround itLook at words that give it context Figure out what the word is meant to refer to 3Ejusdem GeneresIf you have a specific word that refers to a specific thing mazdas that is followed by more general terms you should interpret those general terms to only refer to that subset covered by that specific word The key point with the different approaches to statutory interpretation is that the approach you choose is going to affect your decision shape the conclusion you reach Each of these approaches has pros and cons Choosing an Interpretive Approach Involves Tradeoffs The more you talk about literal use to of text the more you limit the outcome for greater limits on More literalistz less discretion but more chance of perverse outcomes Ex West VA University Hospitals INC VS Casey 1991 This is a super textualist decisions Relies very heavily on the literal construction of the statute to reach his conclusion Now as Justice Marshall alleges in his descent this literal meaning is used to wound rather than administer to Perverse outcomes in a civil rights case seem a little bit troubling nonetheless there are cases where textualism isn t the danger More purposive more discretion but less change of unjust outcomes The Establishment Cause of the First Amendment What specific laws are precluded by this Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion How should we interpret the legal requirement of what this text imposes The first of these interprets this narrowly as a narrow prohibition on congress 1 NONPREFERENTIALIST The only thing this clause bars Congress from doing is creating an official state religion or preferring one religion to another Congress can support religious activities as long as it doesn t discriminate between different religions and doesn t promote one thing at the expense of another 2 SEPARATIONIST The establishment clause bars Congress from having ANY involvement with religion and that it DOESN T matter if they treat all religions equally they should still not have anything to do with religion We look here at one of the Freedom of Religion cases Lee VS Weisman 505 US 577 1992 Case about prayer in school Question Whether the establishment clause of first amendment prohibits prayer in school a nondemonational prayer at graduation HOLDING Yes this does prohibit school prayer in public school RULE A public school cannot sponsor a nondenominational prayer as part of a public school graduation ceremony TYPE OF INTERPRETATION Separationist resolution The interesting thing to look at is the separate opinions Souther s Concurring opinion Textualistliteral rule derivation of separationism The 1st amendment says congress shall make no law regarding establishment of religion not A or the Religion A RELGON Not the religion of an official religion They only mean Religion as such The establishment of religionCannot promote any religion Scaia s Dissent Not his usual textualism Appeal to historical practices Appeal to civic virtue Unusual because it is departure from his usual practice Join by Thomas His argument is that the court holds that the establishment clause requires separationism this is a problem because it lays waste to a long tradition that non denominational prayer in public celebrations This decision ignores that history So it doesn t matter what 1st amendment says or interpretation it only matters that Americans like saying nondenominational prayers at public events and by taking that away you are messing with them Also says schools should cultivate civic virtue by teaching tolerance by making them listen to nondenominational prayers Departure from his usual approach to the resolution of these cases Again this gets back to the issue about whether a particular decision is judicial Does he just like prayer and this wouldn t hold up in other cases then this is not a principled decision The approach you take will shape the resolution you think the case should be given What types of things YOU think matter in what the First Amendment is Interpretation of 4th Amendment Your rights against unreasonable search and seizure Example here concerns electronic surveillance and wire taps Pose unique challenge in adjudicating 4th amendment questions Much easier to figure out if you are talking about search and seizure of physical objects However if you are talking about conversations or intangible things that are being searched and seized it becomes trickier If a court is listening in on a convo that someone is having in a phone booth out in public does it matter whether they stick their head into the booth to hear you or just have a super sensitive mic to pick up what you re saying These questions of electronic surveillance and wire tappingThey show the open texture of the 4th amendment No clear guidance about how the court should deal with wire tapping cases Two diff cases on electronic cases that show two ways to deal with particular 4th amendment cases Olmstead VS United States 1928 About whether or not a wire tap is a violation of the defendant s 4th amendment right of unreasonable search and seizure RULES that wire taps are NOT unreasonable search and seizure Take a literal approachLook at the plain meaning of words of 4thSearch and seizure can only refer to searching real things and seizing real things can only refer to physical property wire tap is not physically searching through things Not taking any tangible objects Under their literal reading wire taps are not covered by 4th amendment because they are not searches and seizures Brandeis DISSENTS Preposterous use of literal approach It is unjustified to go with literal meaning of law before wire taps were even dreamed up Cannot give 18th century interpretation when given a 20th century problem Unduy itera if you look at the broader purpose of 4th amendment it is a check on government authority government officials shouldn t be released from laws that private individuals have to obey As a private citizen you cannot bug your neighbors house He offers PURPOSIVE DISSENT Used eventually as groundwork for overturning this whole thing in Berger VS New York 1967 Berger convicted through evidence collected through wire tap from states something commissioner he had been bugging this commissioner and caught on tape Berger doing illegal things He says the evidence was illegally obtained In this case unlike in Olmstead the court holds that electronic surveillance are actually a form of search and seizure that they do constitute this and thus are subject to 4th amendment law Must be governed by requirements that the 4th amendment require by law enforcement This is a case that touches on all the interpretive issues Disagreements about which part of the constitution was the relevant one in deciding the case Two main issues in the BUSH V GORE CASE Bush VS Gore Did Florida SC court over step its constitutional boundaries and encroach on power constitution gives to state legislators in electionsDid FL SC decision establish new standards for resolving Presidential elections and therefore violate article 2 clause 2 Does a manual recount without a clear standard violate the 14th amendment These are two questions that court decided upon in this case Horizontal federal issue As text of constitution shows Article 2 section 1 Clause 2Procedure for electing president Power given to state legislature not judicial branch of THAT STATE The contention of the majority is that the FL SC stepped into the constitutional turf of the state legislature and thus violated this provision of constitution to make new election law The majority says yes they did violate this The majority opinion relies on two thingsFirstTextualist approach justification for their holding relies on a reading of this text SecondAlso relies on particular linguistic canon the expression of one thing is exclusion of the other You express that it is power of legislature meaning you exclude all other branches of government According to decision we don t have inherent right to vote for president Only have right to decide if that s how legislature decides Electors are appointed in matter chosen by legislature BUT on a literal reading of this this is what they conclude Not relevant that Florida wants a recount to vindicate the right to vote Irrelevant to deciding this question Whether the MANNER of the recount violates 14th amendment Not about purpose of reaction it s not about whether the recount is justified by its purpose vindicating rt to vote but whether manner of the recount violates 14th Amendment guarantees Yes because recanters have to determine intent of voter HANGING CHAD Stephen s DissentThe core of it is that this case does not raise a significant federal question SC should not have intervened rather than taking textualist approach that pre curium took Stephens gives structuralist approachSC did have authority to intervene in this election because of an order of authority of laws pg 123 Yes fine the legislature gets to choose the manner of election what is above state statutory laws Interpretations of state constitution The court knows this you should know better pre curium people State legislative power is supreme power except as limited Says FL SC is perfectly within its right to review choices made by legislature The FL SC does have appellate jurisdiction over this The SC of US should not be intervening Structuralist approach In addition he says different point of law larger principles of priority of laws Ginsberg DissentShows yet another take on what issue was actually involved in this case and what legal principles should be taken into consideration Takes broad structuralist and purposive approach that majority doesn t agree with She argues that majority is woefully mistaken about what federalism requires what the majority doesn t realize but sure is that the core of federalism is that the courts defer to state high court s interpretation of that state s law VERTICAL We are supposed to based on our own decisions in the past are supposed to let the state high courts decision stand on matters of state law unless it conflicts with some sort of federal legal requirement Thinks majority is being unprincipled Judicial sass Pg 142 What s at work in this case is the work of lots of different approaches and claims GinsbergAdvocating judicial restraint you have to suck it up federal court Diff interpretiveMore textualist vs structuralist and purposive text taken by dissenters Different ideas decide what part of the law Main issues argued by Bush v Gore Three institutional developments that have shaped the reception of judicial decisions in Development of suborn structures for litigation
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'