Also known as: non-juridicus · nonjuridicus · non-juridical · nonjudicial
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A Latin adjective describing a proceeding conducted outside the judicial system. It applies to processes such as foreclosure conducted under a power-of-sale clause in a mortgage or deed of trust pursuant to statute rather than court order.
Nolan Nunez defaulted on a mortgage held by Nightingale Healthcare. The lender invoked the power-of-sale clause in the deed of trust and directed the trustee to sell the property without filing suit. Because the sale proceeded under the mortgage terms and state statute rather than court order, the process qualified as non juridicus.
Naveen Nanda and other voters sued state officials over legislative district lines that diluted their votes. The defendants argued the claim raised a political question. The court rejected the argument because population-equality standards supplied a judicially manageable rule, rendering the dispute justiciable rather than non juridicus.
Nancy Nelson missed payments on a home loan. The creditor sent the required default notice and waited the statutory period before commencing a trustee sale. Because every precondition in the mortgage and statute had been satisfied, the creditor could begin the non juridicus foreclosure.
Nadia Novak, an immigrant facing deportation, challenged a one-house veto provision that overrode an administrative suspension of removal. The Court held that the veto mechanism violated separation of powers because it allowed Congress to act in a non juridicus manner outside the constitutional lawmaking process.
In 1966 Jagdish Rai Chadha, an East Indian born in Kenya who held a British passport, was lawfully admitted to the United States on a nonimmigrant student visa that expired on June 30, 1972. In October 1973, the District Director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service informed Chadha that he had remained longer than permitted and was therefore deportable. Chadha conceded deportability but applied for suspension under section 244(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. On June 25, 1974, an Immigration Judge acting on behalf of the Attorney General suspended Chadha's deportation and adjusted his status to permanent resident after finding that he satisfied the statutory criteria of seven years' continuous presence, good moral character, and extreme hardship. A report of the suspension was transmitted to Congress as required by the Act. On December 16, 1975, the House of Representatives passed a resolution disapproving the suspension for Chadha and five other aliens on the ground that they did not meet the statutory requirements, particularly as to hardship. Pursuant to the House resolution, the Immigration Judge reopened the deportation proceedings. Chadha moved to terminate them on constitutional grounds, but the Immigration Judge ruled that he lacked authority to declare the resolution unconstitutional and ordered Chadha deported. Chadha appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which likewise held that it had no authority to pass on the constitutionality of the resolution and dismissed the appeal. Chadha then filed a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Immigration and Naturalization Service appeared and urged the court to hold the House resolution unconstitutional. After inviting briefs from the Senate and House as amici curiae, the Court of Appeals held the resolution unconstitutional because it was a legislative act that failed to satisfy the requirements of Article I, sections 1 and 7, and set aside the deportation order. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in the consolidated cases to address the constitutional question.
View caseNalini Narula delivered a speech in an auditorium that provoked audience unrest. City police arrested her for disorderly conduct. The Court reversed the conviction because the statute punished protected speech rather than regulating non juridicus conduct that created an immediate threat to public order.
On February 7, 1946, Albert Terminiello delivered a speech in the auditorium of the West End Women's Club in Chicago to an audience of about eight hundred people under the auspices of the Christian Veterans of America. An overflow crowd of about one thousand persons gathered outside the auditorium to protest the meeting. The crowd was angry and turbulent, with many making threats against the speaker, shouting, and attempting to force their way into the building while the police proved unable to maintain order. Terminiello was arrested and charged under a Chicago ordinance making it unlawful to make any improper noise, riot, disturbance, breach of the peace, or diversion tending to a breach of the peace. At trial the court instructed the jury that misbehavior may constitute a breach of the peace if it stirs the public to anger, invites dispute, brings about a condition of unrest, or creates a disturbance, and the jury returned a verdict of guilty resulting in a fine of one hundred dollars. The Illinois Appellate Court and the Illinois Supreme Court both affirmed the conviction. The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari to review the case.
View caseNoreen Nguyen won a congressional election but the House refused to seat her. She sued for her seat and back pay. The Court held the dispute justiciable because the House's action did not present a non juridicus political question committed exclusively to another branch.
In November 1966 Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., was duly elected from New York's Eighteenth Congressional District to serve in the 90th Congress. During the preceding Congress a Special Subcommittee on Contracts of the Committee on House Administration investigated expenditures of the Committee on Education and Labor. The subcommittee issued a report concluding that Powell had deceived House authorities about travel expenses and that illegal salary payments had been made to his wife at his direction. The report also found that Powell met the standing qualifications of age, citizenship, and residence. When the 90th Congress organized in January 1967 the House adopted House Resolution No. 1 by a vote of 363 to 65. The resolution appointed a nine-member Select Committee to inquire into Powell's qualifications and alleged misconduct. Powell appeared before the committee but, on advice of counsel, limited his testimony to the three standing qualifications and refused to answer questions about other matters. The Select Committee issued a report finding that Powell met the standing qualifications yet recommending that he be seated, censured, fined $40,000, and deprived of seniority. On March 1, 1967, the House rejected a motion to vote on that recommendation. The House then adopted an amendment calling for exclusion by a vote of 248 to 176 and passed House Resolution No. 278 by a vote of 307 to 116, thereby excluding Powell and declaring the seat vacant. Powell and thirteen voters from his district filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against Speaker John W. McCormack, four other House members, and the Clerk, Sergeant at Arms, and Doorkeeper. The complaint alleged that House Resolution No. 278 violated the Constitution because Powell satisfied the standing qualifications and requested declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and mandamus to compel seating and payment of salary. The district court dismissed the complaint for want of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals affirmed on different grounds, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari. While the case was pending the 90th Congress ended. Powell was reelected in November 1968 and seated in the 91st Congress under a resolution that imposed a $25,000 fine. Respondents filed a suggestion of mootness, but Powell's claim for back salary from the period of exclusion remained unresolved.
View caseIt describes a foreclosure conducted by a trustee under a power-of-sale clause rather than through court proceedings. The mortgage or statute controls the steps, and the process terminates the equity of redemption without judicial involvement.
A case presents a nonjusticiable political question when one of the six Baker factors is present, such as a textually demonstrable commitment to another branch or a lack of judicially manageable standards. When none of the factors applies, the dispute remains justiciable rather than non juridicus.
A creditor may begin the process only after default and after satisfying every condition required by the mortgage and by law. The notice must identify the creditor and any authorized person conducting the sale.
Yes. The adjective identifies days such as Sundays when courts do not sit and legal proceedings cannot be conducted.
…for the decisions of cases or controversies properly before it. The Court has held that executive or administrative duties of a nonjudicial nature may not be imposed on judges holding office under Art. III of the Constitution. United States v. Ferreira , 13 How. 40 (1852); Hayburn's Case , 2 Dall. 409 (1792). The Court has…