https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=marbury v madison&hl=en&as_sdt=2006&case=9834052745083343188&scilh=0
The decision in Marbury v. Madison established the legal concept of judicial review.
1. What types of cases does the Supreme Court of the United States have original jurisdiction according to Article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution?
2. Does Congress have the authority to change the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction? Why or why not?
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=marbury v madison&hl=en&as_sdt=2006&case=9834052745083343188&scilh=0 The decision in Marbury v. Madison established the legal concept of judicial review. 1. W
JUDICIAL REVIEW Nature and Scope Judicial review is a doctrine that gives federal courts the power to hear a case, despite subject matter jurisdiction. Judicial review empowers the Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of acts of other branches of the federal government. It can also review state acts pursuant to the Supremacy Clause. Limitations on Judicial Review (1) Case or Controversy Requirement: Article III, Section 2 of the Constitu tion limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to cases or controversies . In other words there must be a substantial dispute between the parties. (2) Mootness: A real and actual controversy must exist at all stages of the case litigation. If the contr oversy has been resolved, the case will be dismissed as moot. Note: mootness bars consideration of claims after they have been resolved. (3) Ripeness: A genuine immediate threat of harm must exist. Note: ripeness bars consideration of claims before they have fully developed. Without ripeness, the federal courts would be deciding constitutional issues before it would be necessary. (4) Standing: A person must have a concrete personal stake in the outcome of a case. (5) Adequate and Independent State Grounds: The Supreme Court will not exercise jurisdiction if the state court judgment is based on clear, adequate, independent and fully dispositive state law grounds. (6) Political Questions: Political questions will not be decid ed but nonpoliti cal questions will be like the production of presidential papers and communications…….think of U.S. v. Nixon which we examined earlier . (7) Abstention: The federal court may abstain or refuse to hear a particular case when there are undecided issues of s tate law presented. (8) Eleventh Amendment: The 11 th Amendment prohibits federal courts from hearing a private party’s or foreign government’s claim against a state government. Note, there are exceptions to this rule that are beyond the scope of this course. Landmark Case The early case of Marbury v. Madison , 5 U.S. 137 (1803) created the concept of judicial review. Though the Justices agreed that William Marbury had a right to his job, they also ruled that issuing the writ of mandamus to force that to happen did not fall under their jurisdiction as stated in the Constitution. The Supreme Court opinion explained that it is within their power and authority to review acts of Congress, such as the Judiciary Act of 1789, to determine whether or not the law i s unconstitutional. By declaring Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional, the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine of Judicial Review. The decision set the precedent that the Supreme Court could declare Congressional acts unconstitutional. Other subsequent cases have expanded or narrowed the scope of judicial review. The limitations referred to above came from later court decisions. Due to the nature of this course, I’ve outlined the limitations rather than review the cases. Some subsequent Supreme Court cases involving judicial review have been summarized below. Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 1966 Facts – Annie Harper was not allowed to register t o vote in Virginia because she wasn’t able to pay the state’s poll tax. Virginia law required voters to pay $1.50 tax to register, with the money collected going to public school funding. Ms. Harper sued the Virginia Board of Elections, claiming the poll t ax violated her 14 th Amendment right to equal protection. Note: The 24 th Amendment to the Constitution already banned poll taxes in federal elections, but not in state elections. Issue – Was the Virginia law requiring a tax to vote in a state election unconstitutional? Decision – The Supreme Court declared the Virginia poll tax law un constitutional. By making it more difficult for poor people to vote, the state was violating the 14 th Amendment guarantee of equal protection. Voting is a fundamental right, and should remain accessible to all citizens. The amount of wealth someone has sho uld have no bearing on their ability to vote freely. Ladue v. Gilleo, 1994 Facts – In 1990, Margaret Gilleo placed a sign in the yard of her home in Ladue, Missouri. The sig n said “Say No to War in the Persian Gulf, Call Congress Now.” The city of Ladue had a law against yard signs, and told Ms. Gilleo to take her signs down. Ms. Gilleo sued the city of Ladue for violating her 1 st Amendment rights. Issue – Was Ladue’s law against signs unconstitutional? Decision – Th e U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower courts. Ladue’s law against yard signs violated the 1 st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The 1 st Amendment protects political speech, and banning yard signs takes away the main avenue by which peop le traditionally express their personal political views. The value of protecting personal political speech is more important than Ladue’s desire to keep the city free of clutter.