The Judiciary

Article III.

Section 1.  The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. . . .

Section 2.  The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States; [between a State and Citizens of another State;--*] between Citizens of different States--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, [and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.*]

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction.  In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

*  Changed by the Eleventh Amendment.

Current Issues

Ripeness.  The Sixth Circuit ruled on July 11, 2008, that Steven Warshak's claim that an ex parte order under the Stored Communications Act violated the Fourth Amendment was not ripe for judicial review.  A magistrate judge issued two ex parte orders pursuant to the Act that required Warshak's internet service provider to turn over Warshak's account information as part of an ongoing investigation against Warshak for mail and wire fraud (among others).  A divided Sixth Circuit held that Warshak's claim was not ripe, because Warshak failed to show that the government would again seek an ex parte order from his ISPs for this information.  Read the edited opinion here.

Standing to Sue.  The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 26, 2008, that a plaintiff had standing to challenge the "Millionaire's Amendment" in federal court, even though the campaign had not yet begun, because he declared his candidacy and his intent to spend enough of his own money to trigger the increased contribution caps for his opponent under the Millionaire's Amendment.  The Court held that the alleged injury was "real, immediate, and direct."  Click here for the edited opinion.

Standing to Sue (too).  A sharply divided U.S. Supreme Court (5-4) ruled on June 23, 2008, that an assignee of a legal claim for money owed has standing to sue in federal court, even when the assignee has promised to remit the proceeds of the litigation to the assignor.  Justice Breyer's majority opinion and Chief Justice Roberts's dissent in Sprint Communications Co. v. APCC Services, Inc. contain excellent examples of historical arguments on the standing requirement.  Click here for an edited version.