Justiciability, Ban on Advisory Opinions, and Standing - Aug. 31 Flashcards
What two requirements must a claim meet to be justiciable? (Q)
To be justiciable, a claim must:
present an actual case or controversy ripe for determination and
not present a political question.
Even if a federal court has jurisdiction, the court must refuse to hear a claim if the claim is not justiciable.
Must the requirements of both jurisdiction and justiciability be met before a federal court may conduct judicial review? (Q)
Yes. Federal courts may conduct judicial review only when they have jurisdiction (meaning the power to decide a particular case involving a particular subject or parties) over a claim that fulfills the requirements of justiciability (meaning an actual case or controversy that is ripe for judicial determination and free of political questions and adequate and independent state grounds).
What is an advisory opinion? (Q)
An advisory opinion is a nonbinding opinion issued by a court that does not have the effect of adjudicating a specific legal case. Rather, it merely advises on the interpretation of a law or the legal consequences of a specific factual situation. Federal courts may not issue advisory opinions. Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement limits federal courts’ jurisdiction to actual disputes. Advisory opinions involve no such dispute.
Although federal courts may not issue advisory opinions, many states allow their state supreme courts to issue advisory opinions interpreting the law and indicating how the court would rule on an issue in response to questions submitted by lower courts or other branches of government.
What is standing? (Q)
Standing requires a plaintiff to have the capacity to bring a claim based on an interest in the outcome of a case or controversy. The doctrine of standing exists to ensure that the parties have a personal stake in the outcome of a case or controversy and that the courts are in position to provide the desired relief.
What is Article III, or constitutional, standing? (Q)
Article III standing, also called constitutional standing, is a jurisdictional prerequisite to federal court adjudication that arises directly from Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement (i.e., that any claim heard by a federal court present an actual dispute between the parties). The Supreme Court has interpreted Article III’s case-or-controversy language to require that all parties have constitutional standing.
What are the three elements of Article III standing needed to bring a case in federal court? (Q)
In order to have Article III standing to bring a case in federal court, a plaintiff must establish (1) an injury-in-fact (2) traceable to, or caused by, the defendant (3) for which the federal courts can provide a meaningful remedy (redressability). Failure to meet any of these three standing requirements results in the dismissal of the plaintiff’s action.
For purposes of Article III standing, what is an injury-in-fact? (Q)
An injury-in-fact is some type of concrete and particularized harm. In addition, the harm must be actual or imminent, meaning the harm cannot be merely conjectural or hypothetical.
The state legislature passed a bill that required all public-school teachers to lead their students in the Pledge of Allegiance. The governor considered whether to veto the bill. The state constitution expressly permitted the governor to seek an advisory opinion from the state supreme court regarding the constitutionality of a legislative bill. Invoking this provision, the governor sought an advisory opinion from the state supreme court regarding the bill. The state supreme court applied the federal constitution and responded that the bill violated the First Amendment. Relying on the advice given in that ruling, the governor announced that he would veto the bill. However, some members of the legislature wanted the U.S. Supreme Court to review the state court’s ruling first.
Can the U.S. Supreme Court review the state supreme court’s ruling? (Q)
No. The U.S. Supreme Court cannot review the state court’s advisory ruling. Article III limits what the federal courts can review. Under Article III, the federal courts cannot offer advisory opinions and can decide only matters that present a live case or controversy. For a matter to be a live case or controversy, the plaintiff must have standing. This means the plaintiff must have (1) an injury-in-fact (2) traceable to, or caused by, the defendant (3) that the court can redress or remedy.
Here, the bill has not caused any injury-in-fact because it has not yet passed the state legislature and become law. As a result, there is no live case or controversy. Although the state’s law allowed the governor to seek a purely advisory opinion from the state court, Article III prohibits federal courts from issuing advisory opinions. Thus, the Court cannot review the state court’s advisory ruling.
Will a generalized grievance suffice to show Article III standing? (Q)
No. A generalized grievance will not suffice to show Article III standing. To establish standing, a plaintiff must assert concrete and particularized harm. This is more than a generalized grievance shared by all citizens or, alternatively, all members of a large class of citizens. Rather, the plaintiff must allege some injury that is particularized and specific to himself or herself.
What must a plaintiff show to prove that an injury-in-fact was caused by the defendant for purposes of Article III standing? (Q)
To prove causation for purposes of Article III standing, the plaintiff must show that the injury-in-fact is fairly traceable to the defendant’s challenged conduct. In other words, there must be some causal connection between the defendant’s actions and the harm the plaintiff alleged.
What does it mean for an injury-in-fact to be redressable by the courts, as required for Article III standing? (Q)
Redressability exists if the plaintiff’s injury is likely to be remedied by a favorable decision from the court. In other words, the federal court must be able to offer some kind of recovery or compensation that would remedy a plaintiff’s injury.
Must a party have standing on appeal? (Q)
Yes. Although it is not a separate element of the constitutional standing doctrine, a party must have standing to appeal an adverse decision. This is true whether a party appeals a decision from a federal court or challenges one from a state court (which may not have a comparable standing requirement) to the U.S. Supreme Court. However, the adverse decision from the lower court will often suffice to establish the appellant’s standing to appeal.
What is statutory standing? (Q)
Statutory standing is when specific statutes create additional rules for who may sue to enforce them.
What is prudential standing? (Q)
Prudential standing involves contexts in which, even though the plaintiff may have established Article III standing, the court determines that prudent judicial administration nevertheless disfavors resolution of that particular dispute.
