Instructions:
Briefs should be 1-1.5 pages (generally ~400-500 words, though length will depend on the complexity of the case), and should demonstrate your understanding of both the specific details of the case as well as the larger constitutional issues at stake. A good brief is an excellent study tool. It forces you to summarize and analyze a complicated case, to isolate the key features, and then to express them in your own words.
TOPIC FOR MY ASSIGNMENT (CASE) : Hamdi v. Rumsfeld
Rubric for assignment:
1. Issue(s)
What is the central
legal
question addressed in this case? That is: what constitutional provision is at stake.
2. Facts of the case
A brief summary of the facts that brought the parties to court. This section can be quite brief. Do not spend more than 3-4 sentences here)
3. Holding
What was the decision of the court?
4. Reasoning
What was the basis for the decision?
How
did the court answer the key question, and what issues were they required to resolve in order to reach their conclusion? How did this decision fit into the existing caselaw (if any) on the subject (i.e. – what precedent did they engage)?
Generally this section should focus on the
majority opinion, but if there are important concurring or dissenting opinions, you should cover those as well.
5. Discussion
(not always necessary)
What are the larger implications of this decision? What political, social, or economic factors may have contributed to the Court’s approach? Is this decision still regarded as good precedent?
This is an example of the assignmenthow it will need to look:
Marbury v. Madison
(1803)
Context:
Having lost the election, Adams retreats to the judiciary as a bastion for federalist policies.
Facts:
The new Jefferson administration refuses to honor the commissions and cancels them
Marbury goes to the Court and demands a writ of mandamus ordering the commission be delivered, based on the Judiciary Act of 1789, which makes the Supreme Court the location of original jurisdiction on this question
Issues:
1. Does Marbury have a right to the commission?
2. If so, is there a remedy?
3. If so, is mandamus from the SC the proper remedy?
4. The real question: does the Supreme Court have the power to rule a law unconstitutional? Judicial review.
Decision:
The Court unanimously strikes down the portion of the act the makes grants original jurisdiction on this question. The law Marbury is using to contest the decision is unconstitutional, so the Court is not able to grant him relief
Importance:
Asserts the right of judicial review.
“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.”
More a signpost than a world-shaping force
Judicial review as a supplement to politics, not an exception
Another example:
Marbury v. Madison
(1803)
1. Issue
Judicial review. Does the Court possess the power to review the constitutionality of acts taken by other branches?
2. Facts of the case
Having lost the election of 1800, President Adams seeks to fill the judiciary with Federalist nominees. One man, William Marbury, is appointed, but his commission is not delivered in time. The incoming Jefferson administration refuses to honor the commission.
In response, Marbury goes to the Court and demands a writ of mandamus ordering the commission be delivered, based on the Judiciary Act of 1789, which makes the Supreme Court the location of original jurisdiction on this question
3. Holding
In a unanimous decision, the Court ruled that the portion of the Judiciary Act that grants original jurisdiction on this question was unconstitutional. Therefore, it must be struck down, and the Court is unable to grant Marbury relief.
4. Reasoning
The Court begins by deciding that Marbury is being wrongfully denied his commission. Once the order was signed and sealed, the right vests. They further state that there must be some mechanism for remedy. However, they conclude, the Supreme Court is not the appropriate location for such remedy.
The portion of the Judiciary Act which granted the Court jurisdiction was unconstitutional. Since the specific subjects of the Court’s jurisdiction were enumerated in the Constitution, it is implied that Congress lacks the authority to
create
new areas of original jurisdiction.
This judgment presumes the capacity of the Court to exercise judicial review. While that power was not explicitly named in the Constitution, it logically follows from the supremacy of the Constitution and from the role of the Court as the interpreter of constitutional meaning. The key quotation:
“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.”
5. Discussion
In his opinion, Marshall works hard to escape a difficult political dilemma. On the one hand, if he ruled for Marbury, he would likely be unable to compel the Jefferson administration to accept the ruling, and thus reveal the weakness of the judiciary. On the other hand, if he ruled against Marbury, he would be forced to undermine the Court’s authority as an objective judgment of legal facts. In either case, the judiciary is weakened, and the cause of the Federalists is undermined.
Marshall’s solution is to rule against Marbury—and thus lose on the local question—but to do so via the exercise of judicial review. This allows the Court to assert a broad and important power, while accepting defeat on the specific facts of the case. While the claim that
Marbury
created judicial review is historically dubious, the case is nevertheless crucial as a benchmark for judicial authority, and to define the role of separated power under the US Constitution.