|
In the United States, Constitutional law generally refers to the body of law based on the United States Constitution, and the interpretation of that Constitution by the [U.S. Federal courts]?, particularly the United States Supreme Court. Most significant are those Supreme Court cases reflecting the Court's inherent power of [judicial review]?, which is the review of other law based on its compatability with the Constitution. When exercising judicial review, the Court will either uphold or strike down legislative and executive actions. Lower courts in the US, which do most of the day-to-day judicial work, will apply the principles of those rulings as law in other cases. This flows from the nature of the US as a common law system, where precedent carries great weight. Contrast this with civil law systems, where court rulings may be informed by prior rulings but judges feel no particular obligation to apply precedent. |
|
In the United States, Constitutional law generally refers to the provisions of the United States Constitution, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court. Early in its history, the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison assumed the power - called judicial review - to review federal laws passed by Congress and executed by the executive branch to decide whether those laws (or their application) conformed to the Constitution. The court later extended this power to review for constitutional conformity to all state laws. |
|
Key concepts in general US law, at all court levels, include Standing and the Case or Controversy Requirement. These apply as strongly to Constitutional cases as to any others, and often a seemingly "civil rights" related issue is rejected by the courts for these reasons. They flow from Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution itself. Standing means that a person raising a constitutional issue must be someone who, if his or her assertion is correct, will personally suffer an infringement of his or her rights if the court does not intervene. This means that, except in unusual circumstances (see class action), one cannot sue on behalf of another. The Case or Controversy requirement means that there must be at least two adversarial parties and an actual problem between them. The effect is that US courts do not issue "advisory opinions" or rule on hypotheticals (but see Declaratory Judgment). |
|
When exercising judicial review, the Court will often seek to avoid conflict with the Congress or President by basing its decision on non-constitutional grounds. However, the court's assumed power to invalidate federal and state laws or actions has no counterpart in common or civil law. |
|
To these two concepts, Constitutional Law adds the State Action Requirement. Simply put, a private citizen cannot violate another private citizen's Constitutional rights. A case does not become a Constitutional issue unless one party can show that a local, state, or federal government agency or official was involved. For example, if a private citizen invades another citizen's house, the first citizen is liable to the second one in a lawsuit for trespassing; on the other hand, if a policeman invades a citizen's home without a warrant or probable cause, the police agency can be found liable for violating the citizen's Constitutional rights. The first example is merely a violation of the legal right to privacy; the second is a violation of the Constitution's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. (Note here: Some cases which the Supreme Court accepts and decides involve Constitutional rights; others involve the interpretation of legal rights.) |
|
The Supreme Court's interpretations of Constitutional law are binding on the legislative and executive branches of the federal government, on the lower courts in the federal system and on all state courts. This system of binding interpretations or precedents evolved from the common law system, where precedent binds lower courts. However, neither English common law courts or continental civil law courts generally have the power to declare legislation illegal or unconstitutional but only the power to interpret the law itself. There are a number of related doctrines that, once raised by a party, the Supreme Court will examine before deciding on a constitutional question. Perhaps the most important of these is whether the court can avoid the constitutional question by basing its decision on a nonconstituional reason. For example, if a federal statue is on shaky constitutional footing but applied to the challenging party in a manner that does not implicate the basis for the constituional claim, the Supreme Court will not decide whether the statue might be unconstituional if it were applied differently. Or, when reviewing a decision of a state's highest court, the Court may avoid constitutional decision making if the state court's decision is based on an independent and adequate state ground of law. That is, even if the state court decided the question of state law incorrectly, the Supreme Court will not review that decision for its correctness. There are also many related doctrines that federal courts in general and the Supreme Court in particular will consider before allowing a lawsuit to go forward. These implicate whether there is a case and controversy before the court and include proper standing of the parties, whether the case raises abstract, hypothetical or conjectural questions, whether the case is ripe for decision, or moot and thus past decision, or whether the question presented is a political question, unreviewable by the Court because the Constituion relegates it to another branch of government. These doctrines, because they apply to all federal cases whether of constitutional dimension or not, are discussed separately in a note on federal jurisdiction. |
|
Generally, when a case has cleared 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 violations by 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 accepts the case, it will receive written briefs from each side (and any "amici curiae" or friends of the court--usually third parties with some expertise to bear on 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 opinion for the majority 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 the same reasoning or face reversal of their decision by a higher court. |
When exercising judicial review, the Court will often seek to avoid conflict with the Congress or President by basing its decision on non-constitutional grounds. However, the court's assumed power to invalidate federal and state laws or actions has no counterpart in common or civil law.
The Supreme Court's interpretations of Constitutional law are binding on the legislative and executive branches of the federal government, on the lower courts in the federal system and on all state courts. This system of binding interpretations or precedents evolved from the common law system, where precedent binds lower courts. However, neither English common law courts or continental civil law courts generally have the power to declare legislation illegal or unconstitutional but only the power to interpret the law itself.
There are a number of related doctrines that, once raised by a party, the Supreme Court will examine before deciding on a constitutional question. Perhaps the most important of these is whether the court can avoid the constitutional question by basing its decision on a nonconstituional reason. For example, if a federal statue is on shaky constitutional footing but applied to the challenging party in a manner that does not implicate the basis for the constituional claim, the Supreme Court will not decide whether the statue might be unconstituional if it were applied differently. Or, when reviewing a decision of a state's highest court, the Court may avoid constitutional decision making if the state court's decision is based on an independent and adequate state ground of law. That is, even if the state court decided the question of state law incorrectly, the Supreme Court will not review that decision for its correctness.
There are also many related doctrines that federal courts in general and the Supreme Court in particular will consider before allowing a lawsuit to go forward. These implicate whether there is a case and controversy before the court and include proper standing of the parties, whether the case raises abstract, hypothetical or conjectural questions, whether the case is ripe for decision, or moot and thus past decision, or whether the question presented is a political question, unreviewable by the Court because the Constituion relegates it to another branch of government. These doctrines, because they apply to all federal cases whether of constitutional dimension or not, are discussed separately in a note on federal jurisdiction.
See also: United States Constitution
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)