Simone Lawson
The US Constitution gives Congress the authority to define the jurisdiction of federal courts and decide which cases they can and cannot rule on. However, the Supreme Court typically does not get involved in cases involving political questions. Congress has the power to impeach the President, but it is a political punishment and not a legal one. The Constitution has no provision to force a compromise between the two branches of government, and the courts will not decide on abstract legal controversies or give advisory opinions on interpreting the Constitution. While there have been discussions and efforts to pass legislation allowing the House to sue the President for refusing to carry out laws passed by Congress, it is unclear whether this would be successful.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Can the House sue the President for refusing to carry out laws passed by Congress? | No specific provision in the Constitution to force a compromise. |
| Can the President sue Congress? | Yes, but SCOTUS won't get involved in political questions. |
| Can Congress sue the President? | No, but they can always impeach. |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
- The House of Representatives suing the President for refusing to carry out laws passed by Congress
- Congress's authority to define federal court jurisdiction
- The Supreme Court's jurisdiction over suits brought by the US against persons or corporations
- The federal district courts' jurisdiction to hear civil suits brought by the US as plaintiff
- The US suing to protect the constitutional rights of citizens
The House of Representatives suing the President for refusing to carry out laws passed by Congress
The Constitution does not provide a clear pathway for the House of Representatives to sue the President for refusing to carry out laws passed by Congress. While there is frustration in the White House when the President is unable to get his legislative agenda through Congress, and frustration in Congress when the President takes unilateral action without legislative approval, the Constitution assumes that those in national leadership will find ways to govern successfully.
The Constitution's Article III acts as a barrier to the courts acting as an arbiter of inter-branch disputes between Congress and the White House. According to Article III, "the judicial power [...] shall extend to all cases [...] and controversies," where a "case or controversy" refers to a live lawsuit with disputing parties, capable of being decided by rules of law.
Some lawyers and scholars have suggested that Congress could pass a law declaring that its members have the right to sue the President over legitimate inter-branch disputes. However, it is unclear if this would be a viable solution, as frustration does not constitute a real lawsuit.
Syndicated columnist George F. Will has praised efforts in the House of Representatives to pass legislation that would allow the House to sue President Obama for allegedly unconstitutionally refusing to carry out laws passed by Congress. Will argues that without robust judicial assistance, Congress cannot reverse egregious executive aggressions, such as Obama's more than 40 suspensions of laws.
Presidential Strategies: Key Components for Success
You may want to see also
Congress's authority to define federal court jurisdiction
Congress has the power to establish the jurisdiction of these inferior federal courts, determining the types of cases they can hear and the geographic areas they cover. This authority is not unlimited, however, and is subject to checks and balances from the other branches of government. The judicial branch, for example, has the authority to decide the constitutionality of federal laws and resolve cases involving federal laws.
The federal court system in the United States is structured to provide a framework for resolving disputes and administering justice. The district courts are the trial courts that hear cases and make decisions, while the circuit courts of appeals review the decisions of the district courts. There are 12 regional circuits and one Federal Circuit, each with multiple judges. These judges are appointed for life by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
In addition to the general federal courts, there are also specialised courts with nationwide jurisdiction over specific issues, such as tax, claims against the federal government, and international trade. These courts function separately from the regional circuits and have their own jurisdiction and procedures.
While Congress has the authority to define the jurisdiction of the federal courts, it is important to note that the courts themselves play a role in interpreting and applying that jurisdiction through their decisions. The dynamic between Congress and the federal courts is a key aspect of the US legal system, with each institution playing a part in shaping the country's legal landscape.
The Process of Amending the US Constitution
You may want to see also
The Supreme Court's jurisdiction over suits brought by the US against persons or corporations
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the American judicial system. It has original jurisdiction over certain cases, such as suits between two or more states, cases involving ambassadors, and other public ministers. The Court's original jurisdiction also extends to cases where the United States is a party, including controversies between citizens of different states, and those involving ships on the high seas (admiralty cases).
The Judiciary Act of 1789 and its subsequent amendments vest jurisdiction over suits brought by the United States against persons or corporations in the lower federal courts, specifically the federal district courts. This is because the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction is limited to cases explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.
However, the Supreme Court can hear appeals on almost any case involving a point of constitutional or federal law. For example, in Texas v. New Jersey, the Court adjudicated a multistate dispute regarding the escheat of intangible property held by a corporation. The Court has also ruled on the constitutionality of state laws, as in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, where it held that students could not be punished for wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War.
While the Supreme Court has broad jurisdiction, it is not required to hear every appeal. The Certiorari Act of 1925 grants the Court the discretion to decide whether to hear a case brought before it on appeal.
The Ever-Changing French Constitution: Rewrites and Revisions
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The federal district courts' jurisdiction to hear civil suits brought by the US as plaintiff
The federal district courts have jurisdiction to hear civil suits brought by the US as the plaintiff, as per the Judiciary Act of 1789 and its subsequent amendments. This jurisdiction is vested in the lower federal courts as the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is limited to cases explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.
The federal district courts, therefore, have the power to hear all suits of a civil nature at law or in equity brought by the United States as the plaintiff. This includes suits against persons or corporations, as well as against a state, which may also be brought in the Supreme Court under its original jurisdiction.
In civil cases, magistrate judges, appointed by the district court, handle pre-trial motions and discovery. Federal trial courts have been established for specific subject areas, such as tax, claims against the federal government, and international trade. Each federal district also has a bankruptcy court for related proceedings.
It is important to note that the federal district courts' jurisdiction in civil suits brought by the US as the plaintiff does not extend to criminal cases, as these are initiated by the government, usually through the US Attorney's Office, in coordination with law enforcement agencies. While civil cases require a jury to determine the defendant's responsibility and damages, criminal cases involve arraignments, pleas, and potential trials, with over 90% of defendants pleading guilty.
The Unwritten British Constitution: Pre-1776 Era Explored
You may want to see also
The US suing to protect the constitutional rights of citizens
The United States may sue to protect the constitutional rights of its citizens, although this has proven controversial. The Judiciary Act of 1789 and its subsequent amendments vest jurisdiction in federal district courts to hear all suits of a civil nature at law or in equity brought by the United States as a plaintiff. The original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is limited to cases explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, and suits brought by the United States against persons or corporations are heard in lower federal courts.
The Supreme Court generally does not get involved in cases involving political questions, leaving these to be decided by the "political" branches of Congress and the Executive Branch. This has resulted in Congress being unable to sue the President over inter-branch disputes, despite Congress's authority to define the jurisdiction of federal courts. For example, in United States v. City of Philadelphia, the court found there was no standing to sue to correct allegedly unconstitutional police practices.
However, there are instances where the United States has sued to protect the constitutional rights of its citizens. In United States v. Raines, the federal court upheld its jurisdiction over an action to enjoin state officials from discriminating against black citizens seeking to vote in state elections. Similarly, in Oregon v. Mitchell, the United States sought to enjoin state compliance with the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1970.
Drafting a Constitution: A Guide for Organizations
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
No, Congress cannot sue the President for not carrying out the laws. The courts will not decide abstract legal controversies and will not hand out advisory opinions on how the Constitution is to be interpreted.
Congress can pass a law declaring that its members have a right to sue the President over an inter-branch dispute. Congress can also impeach the President.
The President can get aggrieved parties directly affected by a law passed by Congress to file their own suits to challenge the constitutionality of the law.
