Bing Chatgpt: Court cases dealing with public v. private rights and separation of powers

QUESTION 1:

What cases are part of the doctrine of separation of powers and Article III judicial power as it relates to public rights?

ANSWER 1:

Several Supreme Court cases have addressed the doctrine of separation of powers and Article III judicial power, particularly as it relates to public rights. Here are some notable examples:

1. Murray’s Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co. (1856): This case established the distinction between public rights and private rights, holding that Congress could assign adjudication of public rights to non-Article III tribunals¹.
2. Crowell v. Benson (1932): The Court upheld the constitutionality of administrative adjudication in workers’ compensation cases, emphasizing that such adjudication involved public rights and could be assigned to non-Article III bodies¹.
3. Thomas v. Union Carbide Agricultural Products Co. (1985): The Court ruled that arbitration of disputes under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) did not violate Article III because it involved public rights¹.
4. Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Schor (1986): The Court upheld the CFTC’s authority to adjudicate state law counterclaims, finding that the scheme did not violate Article III because it involved public rights and the parties had consented to the CFTC’s jurisdiction¹.
5. Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg (1989): The Court held that a party in a fraudulent conveyance action under bankruptcy law was entitled to a jury trial, distinguishing between public and private rights and emphasizing the importance of Article III courts in adjudicating private rights¹.

These cases illustrate the nuanced approach the Supreme Court has taken in balancing the separation of powers and the role of Article III courts, particularly in the context of public rights. If you have more questions or need further details on any of these cases, feel free to ask!

Learn more

1supreme.justia.com

2usconstitution.net

3constitution.congress.gov

4law.cornell.edu

5law.justia.com

6law.cornell.edu

7en.wikipedia.org— See Less

QUESTION 2:

What other cases are part of the doctrine of separation of powers and Article III judicial power as it relates to public rights and denying appeals to higher courts?

ANSWER 2:

Several Supreme Court cases have addressed the doctrine of separation of powers and Article III judicial power, particularly in the context of public rights and the denial of appeals to higher courts. Here are some notable examples:

1. Ex parte Bakelite Corp. (1929): This case upheld the constitutionality of the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, a non-Article III court, in adjudicating public rights disputes¹.
2. Atlas Roofing Co. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (1977): The Court ruled that Congress could assign the adjudication of public rights to administrative agencies without violating Article III, as long as the essential attributes of judicial power were preserved for Article III courts¹.
3. Stern v. Marshall (2011): The Court held that a bankruptcy court, which is not an Article III court, could not enter a final judgment on a state law counterclaim that did not stem from the bankruptcy itself, emphasizing the importance of Article III courts in adjudicating private rights¹.
4. Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC (2018): The Court upheld the constitutionality of inter partes review, a process used by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to reexamine the validity of patents, as it involved public rights and did not require adjudication by an Article III court¹.
5. Patchak v. Zinke (2018): The Court ruled that Congress could strip federal courts of jurisdiction over certain cases, as long as it did not violate the separation of powers or the essential attributes of judicial power¹.

These cases illustrate the Supreme Court’s approach to balancing the separation of powers and the role of Article III courts, particularly in the context of public rights and the limitations on appeals to higher courts. If you have more questions or need further details on any of these cases, feel free to ask!

Learn more

1supreme.justia.com

2brennancenter.org

3law.justia.com

4law.cornell.edu

5law.cornell.edu

QUESTION 3:

Is a case against the government involving violation of constitutional rights rather than statutory privileges a public rights case?

ANSWER 3:

A case against the government involving the violation of constitutional rights is generally not considered a “public rights” case. The distinction between public rights and private rights is crucial in determining the appropriate forum for adjudication.

Public rights typically involve matters that arise between the government and individuals as part of the regulatory scheme or public policy, such as disputes over benefits, taxes, or administrative regulations. These can often be adjudicated by non-Article III tribunals because they involve statutory privileges granted by the government.

Private rights, on the other hand, involve traditional common law claims or constitutional rights that are typically adjudicated by Article III courts. When a case involves the violation of constitutional rights, it usually falls under the category of private rights because it concerns fundamental protections guaranteed by the Constitution, rather than statutory privileges.

For example, cases involving claims of unconstitutional search and seizure, due process violations, or free speech infringements are typically heard in Article III courts because they involve the adjudication of private rights.

QUESTION 4:

Would a case where statutory privileges are forced upon a party who doesn’t want them and is domiciled outside the jurisdiction of the granting power be a public rights or a private rights case?

ANSWER 4:

A case where statutory privileges are forced upon a party who does not want them and is domiciled outside the jurisdiction of the granting power would likely be considered a private rights case. Here’s why:

Private Rights:

• Nature of the Claim: If the party is challenging the imposition of statutory privileges on the grounds that it violates their constitutional rights or exceeds the jurisdictional authority of the granting power, it involves fundamental legal protections and individual rights.
• Jurisdictional Issues: The fact that the party is domiciled outside the jurisdiction of the granting power suggests a potential overreach of authority, which is a matter typically adjudicated by Article III courts.
• Consent and Autonomy: Forcing statutory privileges on an unwilling party raises issues of consent and autonomy, which are central to private rights disputes.

Public Rights:

• Regulatory Context: Public rights cases generally involve regulatory schemes or benefits provided by the government, where the government is acting in its sovereign capacity.
• Administrative Adjudication: These cases can often be resolved by administrative agencies or non-Article III tribunals because they involve statutory entitlements or obligations.

Given these distinctions, a case involving the imposition of statutory privileges on an unwilling party, especially one outside the jurisdiction, would more likely be seen as a private rights case, requiring adjudication by an Article III court to ensure constitutional protections are upheld.

If you have more specific details or further questions, feel free to share!