Procedural due process applies to any governmental deprivation of life, liberty, or property. What process did the government follow for figuring out that the tax applied?
Procedural due process does not apply to taxes.
A court should consider whether the benefits of the 100-unit pollution limit outweigh the costs.
A court should consider how the government determine the pollution level of Mr. Taxpayer's car
Procedural due process does not apply to local taxes.
Was there adequate process for figuring out if she violated the law?
Her procedural due process claim will fail if the governmental interest in restricting speech outweighs the individual liberty interest.
Her procedural due process claim will fail if the school used adequate procedure when firing her.
Her procedural due process claim will fail because public employment is privilege, not a right.
Her procedural due process claim will fail because the court proceedings provide adequate process for deciding her free-speech claim.
It was legally valid as to Mr. Scott's lawsuit, but the President could still choose to recognize black citizenship in other instances.
It was legally valid and binding in all respects.
It was legally invalid and non-binding in all respects.
Cooper v. Aaron is a judicial supremacy case.
"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is."
"The federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution"
"Each of the three departments has equally the right to decide for itself what is its duty under the constitution."
States were segregating individual students on the basis of race.
The constitutionality of federally mandated segregation in public schools.
The constitutionality of federally mandated segregation in railroad cars.
The constitutionality of state-mandated segregation in railroad cars.
The constitutionality of state-mandated segregation in public schools.
Injury, causation, and redressability are the three prongs of standing.
Causation (i.e., the defendant caused the injury)
Redressability (i.e.d, the court can order something that helps fix or remedy the injury)
Injury in fact (i.e., a concrete, particularized injury)
Cause of action (i.e., the plaintiff has a legal basis to sue)
A plaintiff usually cannot assert rights that aren't derived from the Constitution.
A plaintiff usually cannot assert another person's legal rights.
A plaintiff usually cannot assert rights derived from state law.
Federal standing rules are about Article III courts hearing cases and controversies.
It depends on the circumstances
Both the government and Mrs. Windsor agreed that DOMA was unconstitutional and that Mrs. Windsor should win.
The government lacked an "injury in fact."
The government refused to file an appeal.
Mrs. Windsor lacked an "injury in fact."
The government and Mrs. Windsor agreed about the law and the proper outcome.
There was jurisdiction.
There wasn't jurisdiction.
The Court remanded the case for further fact finding.
Chadha was discussed in Justice Alito's separate opinion - In Chadha there was a similar situation where the executive branch and Chadha thought the line-item veto was unconstitutional and so they agreed. The House stepped in to defend the law.
Thornton (term limits)
City of New York (line-item veto)
Myers (removal power)
Chadha (legislative veto)
What we are asking with standing law is: is this the right person to be bringing this claim? Is the sort of claim that ought to be heard in federal court? Here we have a generalized injury, he would likely not have standing.
A worker at Lou's Cafe who seeks an injunction to remove public monuments on Monument Ave (no injury-in-fact)
The owner of Lou's Cafe who is challenging a bad health department rating (no injury-in-fact)
A customer who sues Lou's Cafe for giving her food poisoning but without any proof (no causation)
A fully recovered customer sues Lou's Cafe for damages based on an earlier slip-and-fall injury (no injury-in-fact)
We just look to whether the Senate has convicted following a valid impeachment, we don't look at the procedures the Senate used in the conviction process.
The Supreme Court *can* review a Senate conviction (following impeachment) for any claim in which there is standing.
The Supreme Court *cannot* review a Senate conviction (following impeachment) because that decision in solely vested in the Senate.
The Supreme Court *can* review a Senate conviction (following impeachment ) but only for procedural errors.
The Supreme Court *cannot* review a Senate conviction (following impeachment) because there is no standing.
The question isn't about who is better at deciding a certain issue - it has to be stronger than that to be a political question. It has to be that the Constitution itself gives the decision making power to the other branch or that the judiciary just is incapable of deciding.
A case that has major political implications.
A question or decision that the Constitution vests solely in the political branches.
A question that doesn't have a clear answer.
A question best decided by the political branches.
Mootness is about whether the suit should be dismissed because the problem has gone away, ripeness is about whether the suit should be dismissed because the injury hasn't matured yet, and standing is partly about the timing (imminent injury). Adversity isn't about timing as it is what the parties think about each others legal position.
选择要在Apple App Store上查看的Topgrade应用程序。