Judicial Review and the Federal Judicial Power
What this domain tests
Article III confines federal courts to cases and controversies and makes judicial review the power to declare what the law is, not to set policy. The exam tests justiciability, congressional control of jurisdiction, and the source and limits of review.
Core rules
- Marbury v. Madison (1803): a federal court may refuse to enforce a statute that conflicts with the Constitution; the Constitution is paramount.
- Standing: injury in fact that is concrete and particularized, traceable to the defendant, and redressable by a favorable ruling. Generalized grievances are insufficient.
- Ripeness and mootness: review must be timely and live. Mootness has exceptions, including voluntary cessation and wrongs capable of repetition yet evading review.
- Political question: limited to issues textually committed to another branch or lacking judicial standards, as in Baker v. Carr; Nixon v. United States applied it to Senate impeachment procedures.
- Jurisdiction control: Congress may limit federal jurisdiction under the Exceptions Clause but cannot direct outcomes or reopen final judgments.
- Adequate and independent state ground: the Supreme Court will not review a state judgment resting on an adequate state ground.
Worked example
A resident sues a federal agency, alleging that a rule is unlawful and that agency spending harms taxpayers. She shows no personal injury. The court dismisses for lack of standing: injury must be particularized and actual or imminent; a generalized grievance about legality is not enough. Taxpayer standing is narrow and does not fit. If she alleged denial of a permit, with causation and redressability, standing would exist.
Traps
- Standing is not waivable and can be raised at any time.
- Third-party standing needs a close relationship and a hindrance to the third party's own suit.
- Not every foreign-affairs or impeachment issue is a political question.
- Ripeness and mootness are distinct from standing.