Misplaced Pages

#534465

60-636: The United States is a federal republic , governed by the U.S. Constitution , containing fifty states and a federal district which elect the President and Vice President , and having other territories and possessions in its national jurisdiction . This government is variously known as the Union, the United States, or the federal government . Under the Constitution and various treaties,

120-493: A parliamentary system of government, are largely a matter of legal form rather than political substance, as most federal states are democratic in structure if not practice with checks and balances ; however, some federal monarchies, such as the United Arab Emirates , are based upon principles other than democracy. Federal states primarily contrast with unitary states, where the central government retains many of

180-419: A ban that was ruled unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled that the proponents of Proposition 8 has no standing in court since they failed to show that they were harmed by the decision. State law on standing differs substantially from federal law and varies considerably from state to state. Californians may bring " taxpayer actions" against public officials for wasting public funds through mismanagement of

240-608: A cognizable interest. It requires that the party seeking review be himself among the injured". The injury must be imminent and not hypothetical. Beyond failing to show injury, the Court found that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the standing requirement of redressability. The Court pointed out that the respondents chose to challenge a more generalized level of government action, "the invalidation of which would affect all overseas projects". This programmatic approach has "obvious difficulties insofar as proof of causation or redressability

300-494: A crime under the laws of the state in which a federal enclave is situated is also a federal crime. As most such enclaves are occupied by the military, military law is especially concerned with these enclaves, especially the issue of establishing who has jurisdiction and what type of jurisdiction. In such areas, the federal government may have proprietary jurisdiction (rights as landowner), concurrent jurisdiction (with federal and state law applicable), or exclusive jurisdiction over

360-553: A government agency, where the relief sought is an order compelling the official not to waste money and fulfill his duty to protect the public fisc. On December 29, 2009, the California Court of Appeal for the Sixth District ruled that California Code of Civil Procedure Section 367 cannot be read as imposing a federal-style standing doctrine on California's code pleading system of civil procedure. In California,

420-427: A litigant to be heard in a state court, and may deny access to the courts premised on taxpayer standing alone. In California , taxpayers have standing to sue for any 'illegal expenditure of, waste of, or injury to the estate, funds, or other property of a local agency'. In Florida , a taxpayer has standing to sue if the state government is acting unconstitutionally with respect to public funds, or if government action

480-413: A narrow right of standing while others provide for a broader right of standing. Frequently a litigant wishes to bring a civil action for a declaratory judgment against a public body or official. This is considered an aspect of administrative law, sometimes with a constitutional dimension, as when the litigant seeks to have legislation declared unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of Canada developed

540-488: A number of requirements that a plaintiff must establish to have standing before a federal court. Some are based on the case or controversy requirement of the judicial power of Article Three of the United States Constitution , § 2, cl.1 . As stated there, "The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases . . .[and] to Controversies . . ." The requirement that a plaintiff have standing to sue is a limit on

600-433: A president, rather than by a monarch or any hereditary aristocracy . In a federal republic, a division of powers exists between the federal government and the government of the individual subdivisions. While each federal republic manages this division of powers differently, common matters relating to international affairs and treaties, security and defense, inter-state relations, and monetary policy are usually handled at

660-414: A sufficient interest in the matter to which the application relates. This sufficient interest requirement has been construed liberally by the courts. As Lord Diplock put it: [i]t would ... be a grave danger to escape lacuna in our system of public law if a pressure group ... or even a single public spirited taxpayer, were prevented by outdated technical rules of locus standi from bringing

SECTION 10

#1732779727535

720-522: Is a company or person who bid for a contract, or a prospective bidder, whose "direct economic interest would be affected by the award of the contract" to another business. In Hollingsworth v. Perry , the Supreme Court ruled that being the proponents of a ballot measure is not by itself enough to confer legal standing. In that case, Proposition 8 had banned same-sex marriage in California,

780-476: Is a condition that a party seeking a legal remedy must show they have, by demonstrating to the court , sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case. A party has standing in the following situations: In the United States, the current doctrine is that a person cannot bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless they can demonstrate that they are or will "imminently" be harmed by

840-538: Is also available in non-constitutional cases, as the Court found in Finlay v. Canada (Minister of Finance) . Like in other jurisdictions, the right to approach a court is contained in the Constitution. The right to approach a court has been interpreted in several cases, this has led to the right to be view differently in different cases. In recent times, there have been different approaches to locus standi. They are: In British administrative law, an applicant needs to have

900-480: Is causing some special injury to the taxpayer that is not shared by taxpayers in general. In Virginia , the Supreme Court of Virginia has more or less adopted a similar rule. An individual taxpayer generally has standing to challenge an act of a city or county where they live, but does not have general standing to challenge state expenditures. With limited exceptions, a party cannot have standing to challenge

960-613: Is concerned". In a 2000 case, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens , 529 U.S. 765 (2000), the United States Supreme Court endorsed the "partial assignment" approach to qui tam relator standing to sue under the False Claims Act — allowing private individuals to sue on behalf of the U.S. government for injuries suffered solely by the government. In a 2009 case, Summers v. Earth Island Institute , 555 U.S. 488 (2009),

1020-405: Is constitutionally sufficient to sue a municipal government in a federal court . States are also protected against lawsuits by their sovereign immunity . Even where states waive their sovereign immunity, they may nonetheless have their own rules limiting standing against simple taxpayer standing against the state. Furthermore, states have the power to determine what will constitute standing for

1080-422: Is sought, consideration must be given to three aspects. First, is there a serious issue raised as to the invalidity of legislation in question? Second, has it been established that the plaintiff is directly affected by the legislation or if not does the plaintiff have a genuine interest in its validity? Third, is there another reasonable and effective way to bring the issue before the court? Public-interest standing

1140-588: Is whether the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues." John Rutledge , the second chief justice of the United States, was largely responsible for denying the Supreme Court the right to give advisory opinions at the Constitutional Convention . Being a judge himself, he strongly believed that a judge's sole purpose was to resolve legal conflicts; he held that judges should hand down an opinion only when they rule on an actual case. There are

1200-536: The Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 and common law decisions of the High Court of Australia especially the case Australian Conservation Foundation v Commonwealth (1980). At common law, the test for standing is whether the plaintiff has a "special interest in the subject matter of the action". Under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 to have standing

1260-502: The United States government . The Court has consistently found that the conduct of the federal government is too far removed from individual taxpayer returns for any injury to the taxpayer to be traced to the use of tax revenues, e.g., United States v. Richardson . In DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno , the Court extended this analysis to state governments as well. However, the Supreme Court has also held that taxpayer standing

SECTION 20

#1732779727535

1320-483: The Congress. The American legal system includes both state courts and federal courts . State courts hear cases involving state law, and such federal laws as are not restricted to hearing in federal courts. Federal courts may only hear cases where federal jurisdiction can be established. Specifically, the court must have both subject-matter jurisdiction over the matter of the claim and personal jurisdiction over

1380-717: The Supreme Court elaborated on the redressability requirement for standing. The case involved a challenge to a rule promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior interpreting §7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). The rule rendered §7 of the ESA applicable only to actions within the United States or on the high seas. The Court found that the plaintiffs did not have the standing necessary to bring suit, because no injury had been established. The injury claimed by

1440-441: The Supreme Court held the petitioner environmental organizations' claim that it was "statistically likely" that some of their members would visit the affected lands was insufficient to support Article III standing. The majority opinion stated the "deprivation of a procedural right without some concrete interest that is affected by the deprivation . . . is insufficient to create Article III standing." The initial case that established

1500-506: The Supreme Court reviewed and further outlined the standing requirements in a major ruling concerning the meaning of the three standing requirements of injury, causation, and redressability. In the suit, parents of black public school children alleged that the Internal Revenue Service was not enforcing standards and procedures that would deny tax-exempt status to racially discriminatory private schools. The Court found that

1560-765: The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas (finding that state's sodomy law unconstitutional), Virginia's anti-fornication law was also unconstitutional for the reasons cited in Lawrence. Martin argued, therefore, she could, in fact, sue Ziherl for damages. Lower courts decided that because the Commonwealth's Attorney does not prosecute fornication cases and no one had been prosecuted for fornication anywhere in Virginia in over 100 years, Martin had no risk of prosecution and thus lacked standing to challenge

1620-479: The U.S. Supreme Court held that a criminal defendant charged with violating a federal statute does have standing to challenge the constitutionality of that statute under the Tenth Amendment . There are three standing requirements: Additionally, there are three major prudential (judicially created) standing principles ( prudential standing ). Congress can override these principles via statute : In 1984,

1680-576: The Virginia Supreme Court decided that the statute against fornication was unconstitutional. The finding gave Martin standing to sue Ziherl since the decision in Zysk was no longer applicable. However, the only reason Martin had standing to challenge the statute was that she had something to lose if it stayed on the books. Only an "interested party" has standing to challenge a federal contract award. In this context, an "interested party"

1740-440: The amount in controversy exceeds $ 75,000. If a Federal Court has subject matter jurisdiction over one or more of the claims in a case, it has discretion to exercise ancillary jurisdiction over other state law claims. The Supreme Court has "cautioned that ... Court[s] must take great care to 'resist the temptation' to express preferences about [certain types of cases] in the form of jurisdictional rules. Judges must strain to remove

1800-449: The applicant must be "a person who is aggrieved", defined as "a person whose interests are adversely affected" by the decision or conduct complained of. This has generally been interpreted in accordance with the common law test. There is no open standing, unless statute allows it, or represents needs of a specified class of people. The issue is one of remoteness. Standing may apply to class of aggrieved people, where essentially

1860-452: The central government has complete sovereignty over all aspects of political life. This more decentralized structure helps to explain the tendency for more populous countries to operate as federal republics. Most federal republics codify the division of powers between orders of government in a written constitutional document. The political differences between a federal republic and other federal states , especially federal monarchies under

Federal jurisdiction (United States) - Misplaced Pages Continue

1920-443: The closeness of the plaintiff to the subject matter is the test. Furthermore, a plaintiff must show that he or she has been specially affected in comparison with the public at large. Also, while there is no open standing per se, prerogative writs like certiorari , writ of prohibition , quo warranto and habeas corpus have a low burden in establishing standing. Australian courts also recognise amicus curiae (friend of

1980-542: The concept of public interest standing in three constitutional cases commonly called "the Standing trilogy": Thorson v. Attorney General of Canada , Nova Scotia Board of Censors v. McNeil , and Minister of Justice v. Borowski . The trilogy was summarized as follows in Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) : It has been seen that when public interest standing

2040-470: The constitutionality of a statute is if the existence of the statute would otherwise deprive him of a right or a privilege even if the statute itself would not apply to him. The Virginia Supreme Court made this point clear in the case of Martin v. Ziherl 607 S.E.2d 367 (Va. 2005). Martin and Ziherl were girlfriend and boyfriend and engaged in unprotected sexual intercourse when Martin discovered that Ziherl had infected her with herpes , even though he knew he

2100-511: The constitutionality of a statute unless they will be subjected to the provisions of that statute. There are some exceptions, however; for example, courts will accept First Amendment challenges to a statute on overbreadth grounds, where a person who is only partially affected by a statute can challenge the parts that do not affect him on the grounds that laws that restrict speech have a chilling effect on other people's right to free speech. The only other way someone can have standing to challenge

2160-512: The contract expressly grants them the right to do so. Almost all criminal prosecutions are brought by the state via the Crown Prosecution Service , so private prosecutions are rare. An exception was the case of Whitehouse v Lemon where Mrs Mary Whitehouse , a self-appointed guardian of suburban morality, was permitted to bring a private prosecution for blasphemous libel (an offence still in existence until 2008) against

2220-542: The court will hear a case, it must find that the parties have a tangible interest at stake in the matter, the issue presented must be "mature for judicial resolution" or ripe , and a justiciable issue must remain before the court throughout the course of the lawsuit. The American doctrine of standing is assumed as having begun with the case of Frothingham v. Mellon . However, legal standing truly rests its first prudential origins in Fairchild v. Hughes , (1922) which

2280-404: The court), and the various Attorneys General have a presumed standing in administrative law cases. In Canadian administrative law , whether an individual has standing to bring an application for judicial review, or an appeal from the decision of a tribunal, is governed by the language of the particular statute under which the application or the appeal is brought. Some statutes provide for

2340-414: The doctrine of standing, Frothingham v. Mellon , was a taxpayer standing case. Taxpayer standing is the concept that any person who pays taxes should have standing to file a lawsuit against the taxing body if that body allocates funds in a way that the taxpayer feels is improper. The United States Supreme Court has held that taxpayer standing is not by itself a sufficient basis for standing against

2400-483: The federal district ( Washington, D.C. ) and other territory ceded to the federal government by the states, such as for military installations. Federal jurisdiction in this sense is important in criminal law because federal law does not supersede state criminal law. Congress has enacted the Assimilative Crimes Act ( 18 U.S.C.   § 13 ), which provides that any act that would have been

2460-409: The federal level, while matters such as infrastructure maintenance and education policy are usually handled at the regional or local level; however, views differ on what issues should be a federal competence, and subdivisions usually have sovereignty in some matters where the federal government does not have jurisdiction. A federal republic is thus best defined in contrast to a unitary republic , whereby

Federal jurisdiction (United States) - Misplaced Pages Continue

2520-415: The fundamental inquiry is always whether the plaintiff has sufficiently plead a cause of action, not whether the plaintiff has some entitlement to judicial action separate from proof of the substantive merits of the claim advanced. The court acknowledged that the word "standing" is often sloppily used to refer to what is really jus tertii , and held that jus tertii in state law is not the same thing as

2580-401: The government. If the non-governmental party loses, the constitutional issue may form part of the appeal . Eventually, a petition for certiorari may be sent to the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court grants certiorari and accepts the case, it will receive written briefs from each side (and any amici curiae or friends of the court—usually interested third parties with some expertise to bear on

2640-406: The influence of the merits from their jurisdictional rules. The law of jurisdiction must remain apart from the world upon which it operates". Generally, when a case has successfully overcome the hurdles of standing , Case or Controversy and State Action , it will be heard by a trial court . The non-governmental party may raise claims or defenses relating to alleged constitutional violation(s) by

2700-545: The land where an act was committed. Courts-martial involving military members subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice apply regardless of location. Article Four of the United States Constitution also states that the Congress has the power to enact laws respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States. Federal jurisdiction exists over any territory thus subject to laws enacted by

2760-425: The law. Otherwise, the court will rule that the plaintiff "lacks standing" to bring the suit, and will dismiss the case without considering the merits of the claim of unconstitutionality. The Council of Europe created the first international court before which individuals have automatic locus standi . Australia has a common law understanding of locus standi or standing which is expressed in statutes such as

2820-469: The laws, treaties, or Constitution of the United States, as opposed to claims arising under state law. By the "Well-Pleaded Complaint" rule, federal question jurisdiction is not available if the federal issue arises only as a defense to a state-law claim. Diversity jurisdiction, on the other hand, is available regarding state-law claims if every plaintiff is from a different state from every defendant (the requirement for so-called complete or total diversity) and

2880-480: The legal jurisdiction of the United States includes territories and territorial waters . One aspect of federal jurisdiction is the extent of legislative power. Under the Constitution , Congress has power to legislate only in the areas that are delegated to it. Under clause 17 Article I Section 8 of the Constitution however, Congress has power to "exercise exclusive Legislation in all cases whatsoever" over

2940-464: The matter to the attention of the court to vindicate the rule of law and get the unlawful conduct stopped. In the law of contract , the doctrine of privity means that only those who are party to a contract can sue or be sued upon it. This doctrine was substantially amended by the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 , which allows third parties specified in a contract to enforce it provided

3000-417: The parties. The Federal Courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, meaning that they only exercise powers granted to them by the Constitution and Federal Laws. There are several forms of subject-matter jurisdiction, but the two most commonly appealed to are federal-question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction . Federal question jurisdiction is available when the plaintiff raises a claim that arises under

3060-532: The plaintiffs did not have the standing necessary to bring suit. Although the Court established a significant injury for one of the claims, it found the causation of the injury (the nexus between the defendant's actions and the plaintiff's injuries) to be too attenuated. "The injury alleged was not fairly traceable to the Government conduct respondents challenge as unlawful". In another major standing case, Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife , 504 U.S. 555 (1992),

SECTION 50

#1732779727535

3120-471: The plaintiffs was that damage would be caused to certain species of animals and that this in turn injures the plaintiffs by the reduced likelihood that the plaintiffs would see the species in the future. The court insisted though that the plaintiffs had to show how damage to the species would produce imminent injury to the plaintiffs. The Court found that the plaintiffs did not sustain this burden of proof. "The 'injury in fact' test requires more than an injury to

3180-724: The powers that are delegated to the subdivisions in federal republics. While there are exceptions, the overall tendency is for federal republics to be larger, more populous, and more internally heterogeneous than unitary states, with such larger size and internal heterogeneity being more manageable in a federal system than in a unitary one. - Alain Berset - Ignazio Cassis - Albert Rösti - Élisabeth Baume-Schneider - Guy Parmelin - Karin Keller-Sutter - Viola Amherd State Union of Serbia and Montenegro (2003–2006) Standing (law) In law, standing or locus standi

3240-421: The publisher of Gay News , Denis Lemon . Victims of crime have standing to sue the perpetrator and they may claim criminal injuries compensation from the state. If the state fails properly to bring a case, the victim or his family may have standing to bring a private prosecution, as in the case of Stephen Lawrence . In United States law , the Supreme Court has stated, "In essence the question of standing

3300-484: The role of the judiciary and the law of Article III standing is built on the idea of separation of powers. Federal courts may exercise power only "in the last resort, and as a necessity". The Supreme Court has determined that the case or controversy requirement found in Article Three of the United States Constitution prohibits United States federal courts from issuing advisory opinions . Accordingly, before

3360-416: The same reasoning or face reversal of their decision by a higher court. Federal republic List of forms of government A federal republic is a federation of states with a republican form of government. At its core, the literal meaning of the word republic when used to reference a form of government means a country that is governed by elected representatives and by an elected leader, such as

3420-467: The statute. Martin appealed. Since Martin had something to lose – the ability to sue Ziherl for damages – if the statute was upheld, she had standing to challenge the constitutionality of the statute even though the possibility of her being prosecuted for violating it was zero. Since the U.S. Supreme Court in Lawrence had found that there is a privacy right in one's private, noncommercial sexual practices,

3480-456: The subject) and schedule oral arguments. The Justices will closely question both parties. When the Court renders its decision, it will generally do so in a single majority opinion and one or more dissenting opinions . Each opinion sets forth the facts, prior decisions, and legal reasoning behind the position taken. The majority opinion constitutes binding precedent on all lower courts; when faced with very similar facts, they are bound to apply

3540-676: Was authored by Justice Louis Brandeis . In Fairchild , a citizen sued the Secretary of State and the Attorney General to challenge the procedures by which the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified. Prior to it, the doctrine was that all persons had a right to pursue a private prosecution of a public right. Since then the doctrine has been embedded in judicial rules and some statutes. In 2011, in Bond v. United States ,

3600-492: Was infected and did not inform her of this. She sued him for damages, but because it was illegal (at the time the case was filed) to commit "fornication" (sexual intercourse between a man and a woman who are not married), Ziherl argued that Martin could not sue him because joint tortfeasors – those involved in committing a crime – cannot sue each other over acts occurring as a result of a criminal act ( Zysk v. Zysk , 404 S.E.2d 721 (Va. 1990)). Martin argued in rebuttal that because of

#534465