Justiciability

Question 1

Standing Requirements

Answer 1

(1) Plaintiff alleges they suffered or will imminently suffer actual harm that is personal and particular
(2) Plaintiff must allege that the injury is fairly traceable to the Defendant’s conduct
(3) Plaintiff must allege that a favorable federal court decision is likely to redress the injury

Question 2

Ripeness Requirements/Test

Answer 2

(1) The fitness of the issues for judicial discussion (whether the court has all it needs to review it)

(2) The hardship upon parties if court consideration is withheld (the more hardship the more likely it is ripe)

Question 3

Mootness

Answer 3

Plaintiff must have a live injury, otherwise if the injury ends while the suit is pending it should be dismissed as moot

1) it can be said with assurance there is no reasonable expectation that the alleged violation will reoccur

2) interim relief of events have completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged violation

Question 4

Political Question Doctrine

Answer 4

1) Does the issue involve resolution of questions committed by the text of the constitution to a coordinate branch of government?

2) Would resolution of the question demand courts to go beyond areas of judicial expertise?

3) Do prudential considerations counsel against judicial intervention?

Question 5

Third-Party Standing (Considerations)

Answer 5

(1) whether the representative is close enough to the third-party that the enjoyment of the right in controversy is affected and is very nearly as effective as the proponent of the right; (2) the likelihood that the third party could sue on their behalf

Question 6

Taxpayer Standing

Answer 6

Flast v. Cohen: allowed taxpayers to challenge Congressional spending violating the Establishment Clause.

Two-prong test: (1) establish a logical link between their taxpayer status and the congressional enactment being attacked; (2) establish a nexus between their status and the nature of the alleged infringement

Question 7

Mootness Exceptions

Answer 7

(1) Wrongs capable of repetition but evading review
(2) Voluntary cessation–D must show that it is absolutely clear that the alleged conduct could not be reasonably expected to reoccur
(3) Class actions