TWO QUESTIONS IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
This paper discusses the applicability of doctrinal constraints which might prevent the Supreme Court from hearing and deciding the two cited hypothetical cases.
Under Article III of the Constitution the Supreme Court and other federal courts have original jurisdiction and under sec. 25 of the Judiciary Act appellate jurisdiction over cases involving the constitutionality of federal statutes. Both the Sierra Club and Tree Huggers cases involve suits against the United States Government challenging the constitutionality of the "Pave the Wetlands Case." In the Sierra Club case, plaintiff alleges that Congress has exceeded its powers under the Commerce Clause. In Tree Huggers, the claim is that Congress has exceeded its taxing and spending powers. Since constitutional issues are central to these cases, the cognizant federal district court has the authority (jurisdiction) to hear and decide these cases and the Supreme Court to hear and decide appeals of lower courts' decisions in these cases. In addition, since Marbury v. Madison (1803), the Supreme Court has had the authority to declare federal statutes unconstitutional through its power of judicial review and to enforce its rulings through injunctions.
Under Article III, federal courts, including the Supreme Court, can only decide "cases" and "controversies." Federal courts will not, however, issue advisory opinions or perform legislative functions, such as promulgating the requested regulations over interstate commerce requested by the Sierra Club, inasmuch as the issuance of such regulations would violate the separation of powers among the executive, legislature and judiciary.
A case is said to be non-justiciable if it is moot. According to the text, "the Court will not decide cases in which the controversy is no longer live by the time it reaches the Court's doorstep" (p. 99). Since both of the hypothetical cases are very much aliv...