POL353 Midterm Exam Study Guide Marbury v. Madison- Judical Review
This document is a study guide for a midterm exam on Marbury v. Madison and judicial review, likely in a political science course.
Ethan Brown
Contributor
4.3
57
about 1 month ago
Preview (2 of 6)
Sign in to access the full document!
POL353 Midterm Exam Study Guide
Marbury v. Madison- JUDICAL REVIEW
What the Court Ruled: Marbury was entitled to his commission, the court
ordered a writ of mandamus to Madison requesting he pay Marbury.
o Mandamus: A court order issued to a government official to do
something.
Why the court ruled that way: The court determined that Marbury was
officially appointed and had a right to his commission. The court said that if
rights are violated there should be a remedy. The court determined that the
best way to remedy the violated right was to issue the writ requesting the
commission.
Why the courts ruling is important: Through the issuance of the writ of
mandamus the court claimed the power of judicial review.
Cooper v. Aaron- ICORPORATION
What the court ruled: The court ruled that Arkansas, despite the violence
and turmoil that may result, needed to follow the courts ruling in Brown v.
Board.
Why the court ruled that way: Arkansas argued that public education is the
responsibility of the states, and therefore they are not bound to obey federal
court rulings. The court cited the 14th Amendment to apply the ruling to the
states, where it says, “no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction
equal protection of the laws.” The court established in Brown v. Board that
segregated schools were inherently unequal keeping segregated schools in
Little Rock denies African Americans equal protection.
Why the courts ruling is important: Selectively Applied the courts ruling in
Brown v. Board through the 14th Amendment
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992)- casual connection, injury has to be
committed, STANDING
What the court ruled: The court ruled that the defenders of wildlife did not
have standing, because they could not prove injury.
Why the court ruled that way: The court ruled that since the defenders of
wildlife did not have immediate plans to travel to see the animals that were
going extinct they did not have standing.
o The court cites 3 things plaintiffs must satisfy before they can grant
standing:
1: Plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in fact”; an invasion of
a legally-protected interest which is concrete and
particularized and actual and imminent NOT conjectural or
hypothetical
2. There must be some casual connection between the injury
and the conduct complained of – the injury has to be fairly
traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and not the
result of the independent action of some third party not before
the court.
Marbury v. Madison- JUDICAL REVIEW
What the Court Ruled: Marbury was entitled to his commission, the court
ordered a writ of mandamus to Madison requesting he pay Marbury.
o Mandamus: A court order issued to a government official to do
something.
Why the court ruled that way: The court determined that Marbury was
officially appointed and had a right to his commission. The court said that if
rights are violated there should be a remedy. The court determined that the
best way to remedy the violated right was to issue the writ requesting the
commission.
Why the courts ruling is important: Through the issuance of the writ of
mandamus the court claimed the power of judicial review.
Cooper v. Aaron- ICORPORATION
What the court ruled: The court ruled that Arkansas, despite the violence
and turmoil that may result, needed to follow the courts ruling in Brown v.
Board.
Why the court ruled that way: Arkansas argued that public education is the
responsibility of the states, and therefore they are not bound to obey federal
court rulings. The court cited the 14th Amendment to apply the ruling to the
states, where it says, “no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction
equal protection of the laws.” The court established in Brown v. Board that
segregated schools were inherently unequal keeping segregated schools in
Little Rock denies African Americans equal protection.
Why the courts ruling is important: Selectively Applied the courts ruling in
Brown v. Board through the 14th Amendment
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992)- casual connection, injury has to be
committed, STANDING
What the court ruled: The court ruled that the defenders of wildlife did not
have standing, because they could not prove injury.
Why the court ruled that way: The court ruled that since the defenders of
wildlife did not have immediate plans to travel to see the animals that were
going extinct they did not have standing.
o The court cites 3 things plaintiffs must satisfy before they can grant
standing:
1: Plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in fact”; an invasion of
a legally-protected interest which is concrete and
particularized and actual and imminent NOT conjectural or
hypothetical
2. There must be some casual connection between the injury
and the conduct complained of – the injury has to be fairly
traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and not the
result of the independent action of some third party not before
the court.
Preview Mode
Sign in to access the full document!
100%
Study Now!
XY-Copilot AI
Unlimited Access
Secure Payment
Instant Access
24/7 Support
Document Chat
Document Details
University
Ashford University
Subject
Political Science