Ripeness [Justiciability Doctrine [3/5]]

Question 1

Ripeness

Answer 1

• Some overlap with the injury requirement for standing [“imminence”] (but often treated differently)
• Has separate menting becuase it usually refers to the distinct, separate issue: When may plaintiff obtain pre-enforcement review of a statute or administrative regualtion?

Question 2

Ripeness Factors

Answer 2

1. Probability that the predicted harm will take place
2. Hardhips to the parties if immediate review is denied.
3. Fitness of the record to resolve the legal issues presented.

Question 3

Abbott Labs V. Gardner

Answer 3

Congress amended FFDCA to require manufacturers of prescription drugs to print the established name of drug on labels. FFDCA mandated that drug manufactuers do this “everytime.”
Abbott- sued arguing that the “every time” rule was outside the scope of the authority given to the commissioner by Congress.

Ct said - congress did not intend to forbid pre-enforcement review of regulations like the “every time” rule. The legislature designed that statute’s specific review provisions to provide additonal remedies for partied in Abbott Labs’ position, NOT to cut down traditional channels of review. The Ct remended the case to the Ct of Appeals.

Question 4

Driehaus casts Doubt on “Prudential Ripeness” Doctrine

Answer 4

Court casts doubt about the “fitness” and “hardship” factors.

Court seemed to suggest that “prematurity” challenges to an action should be assessed primarily under the injury in fact “imminence” standard, the crucial question being whether the threatened injury is “certainly impending” or there is a “substantial risk that harm will occur”

Court suggests that once imminence is established [as part of the injury prong of standing], any attempt to dismiss a case on prudential ripeness grounds would be “in some tension with … the principle that a federal court’s obligation to hear and decide cases within its jx is virtually unflagging.”