Justiciable Flashcards
case or controversy
Federal courts can hear a matter only if there is a “case or controversy.”
Whether there is a “case or controversy” (that is, whether a case is “justiciable”) depends on:
* What the case is requesting (is it an advisory opinion?)
* When it is brought (is it ripe or moot?)
* Who is bringing it (does the plaintiff have standing?)
No Advisory Opinions
Federal courts cannot issue advisory opinions, which are decisions
that lack (1) an actual dispute between adverse parties, or (2) any
legally binding effect on the parties.
Ripeness
Courts wait until laws and policies
have been formalized and can be felt in concrete ways. This means
that pre-enforcement reviews of laws or policies are generally not
ripe. However, a plaintiff can establish ripeness before a law or policy
is enforced by showing two things:
* The issues are fit for a judicial decision AND
* The plaintiff would suffer substantial hardship in the absence of review
Fitness for Judicial Decision
The more the case involves legal as opposed to factual issues, the more likely the case will be fit for review. This means that, generally, an issue is not fit for judicial decision if it relies on uncertain or contingent future events that might not occur.
Hardship to Parties
The plaintiff also needs to show that they would have to risk substantial hardship to provoke enforcement of law.
Mootness
A live controversy must exist at all stages of review. Therefore, the plaintiff needs to be suffering from an ongoing injury
Mootness Exceptions
A claim is not considered to be moot in the following situations, even if the injury has passed:
* Controversies capable of repetition but that evade review because of their inherently short duration
* Cases where the defendant voluntarily stops the offending practice but is free to resume it
* Class actions in which the class representative’s controversy has
become moot but the claim of at least one other class member is still viable
Standing
A person must have standing at all stages of litigation, including on
appeal
Standing Components
Standing has three major components: injury, causation, and redressability.
Injury in Fact
To have standing, a person needs to show an injury in fact, which requires both:
* A particularized injury—an injury that affects the plaintiff in a personal and individual way AND
* A concrete injury—one that actually exists (that is, not hypothetical)
Exception—Tenth Amendment
A person may have standing to allege that federal action violates the
Tenth Amendment by interfering with powers reserved to the states
as long as the person has a redressable injury
Exception—Congressional Spending
People have standing to challenge congressional spending measures on First Amendment Establishment Clause grounds
Standing to Assert Rights of Others
A claimant with standing in their own right may assert the rights of
a third party if: (1) it is difficult for the third party to assert their own
rights, or (2) a close relationship exists between the claimant and the
third party.
Standing of Organizations
An organization has standing to sue on behalf of its members if (1) there is an injury in fact to the members, (2) the members’ injury is related to the organization’s purpose, and (3) individual member participation in the lawsuit is not required
Standing for Free Speech Overbreadth Claims
A person has standing to bring a free speech claim alleging that the
government restricted substantially more speech than necessary except for commercial speech
