Law Environmental Services

I agree with Ginsburg in Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Environmental Services that while to abandon a case at an advanced stage may prove more wasteful than frugal. FBS is capable of freely returning to the allegedly improper behavior at any time and this case will likely come back up through our judicial system if we discard it now. To balance the increased expenses resulting from our broad standing doctrine adopted today, to best serve efficiency and justice, this court maintains a presumption against mootness.

FBS will argue that efficiency is best served by discarding this case because the allegedly improper activities have been voluntarily ceased. We do not find this argument convincing. Because FBS may return to the allegedly improper behavior, we find this case is not moot. 3) Class actions U. S. Parole Comm’n v Geraghty: (D was released from jail while case was pending) If existing class has enough at stake, then a live controversy can continue. The issue is whether Congress has validly stripped jurisdiction of this most powerful court.

Merely asking the question seems to provide an answer. Since at least Marbury v Madison we have held the power to rule on the constitutionality of federal statutes. Marbury v. Madison means we cannot apply an unconstitutional law to a case. Hence, we must decide whether a statute that restricts jurisdiction is constitutional before it can be applied to deny our review. Congress argues that the framers intended congressional control of courts’ jurisdiction as a necessary check on our power.

They say that this intent is evidenced by the first Congress’s refusal to vest the supreme court with appellate jurisdiction over all types of cases and controversies enumerated in Article III. They Cite ex parte McCardle as establishing that Congress may prevent our review of constitutional issues and 2) for the proposition that we cannot inquire into the motives of Congress. IF LOWER FEDERAL COURTS AFFECTED: Congress asserts it has virtually plenary authority to define jurisdiction of lower federal courts.

Congress has the authority to determine the jurisdiction of the federal courts because Congress has discretion as to whether to establish those tribunals. Article III, §1 provides that the judicial power of the U. S. will be vested in 1 Supreme Court and in “such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. ” Therefore, Congress need not create those courts. We interpret the constitution to afford Congress the power to establish those courts and tribunals, but their power vests through our authority to hear cases and controversies arising under the Constitution, U. S. laws, and treaties.

Congress argues that the text of Article III § 2: “The supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact without such exceptions and under such regulations as the Congress shall make” is an unambiguous Constitutional authorization for Congress to create exceptions to our jurisdiction. However, we read the word “exceptions” to modify only the word “fact” because the framers did not want the supreme court to overrule findings of facts made at the lower levels, especially when by juries. Therefore, Congress could create an exception to our ability to review facts, but not strip our jurisdiction for issues of law.

Source: law aspect