This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. This means you can view content but cannot create content. You can access the new platform at https://opencasebook.org. Thank you.
Today we consider the role of the judiciary in the budgetary process.
We will first discuss the ability of courts to intervene in the budgetary process, including the threshold question of which parties have standing to challenge budget decisions, and the role of the “political question” doctrine. A student briefing paper on the role of the standing and political question doctrines in budget jurisprudence is included as reference.
Then, we will consider the courts' authority to direct the budget decisions of state and local governments. Please read the selection from Missouri v. Jenkins (1990) (“Jenkins II”). As part of the process of court-ordered desegregation of the Kansas City, Missouri school system, a federal district court in Missouri ordered a local tax increase in order to fund the costs of desegregation. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that the district court could not raise taxes directly, but court order to local government to do so; Justice Kennedy authored a fervent dissent that claimed that the majority's decision violated federalism and separation-of-powers principles. The desegregation saga in Kansas City went on: Five years later, the Supreme Court heard a challenge to a federal district court's order, which had directed the State of Missouri to raise teacher salaries and fund remedial programs as part of the same desegregation process (“Jenkins III”). Another 5-4 decision resulted, but this time, the Court held that courts do not have the authority to order such spending increases. The text Jenkins III is included below as background.
Team Assignment (Teams DH): Please write a short memorandum (3-5 pages) considering whether the Supreme Court’s decision in the two Missouri v. Jenkins cases are consistent or inconsistent.
Finally, we will discuss recent litigation regarding the budget of the District of Columbia. Congress still has oversight over Washington, DC's local budget, but in a 2012 referendum, DC voters overwhelmingly approved a “budget autonomy” law. Please read the brief materials on the DC litigation below; the district court's decision explains the history of Congress' oversight of the DC budget and the District's efforts to increase local control of budget decisions.EDIT PLAYLIST INFORMATION DELETE PLAYLIST
Edit playlist item notes below to have a mix of public & private notes, or:MAKE ALL NOTES PUBLIC (4/4 playlist item notes are public) MAKE ALL NOTES PRIVATE (0/4 playlist item notes are private)
|2||Show/Hide More||Missouri v. Jenkins, 495 U.S. 33 (1990) (Jenkins II), edited for Federal Budget Policy|
|3||Show/Hide More||Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70 (1995) (Jenkins III)|
|4||Show/Hide More||District of Columbia Budget Litigation Materials|
January 09, 2016
Howell E. Jackson
James S. Reid, Jr. Professor of Law
This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. This means you can view content but cannot create content. If you would like access to the new version of the H2O platform and have not already been contacted by a member of our team, please contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org. Thank you.