The Judicial Power: Case and Controversy Requirement: Ripeness and Mootness Flashcards
Two Basic Questions for Ripeness
Is the matter currently fit for judicial review, or conversely, will it be better presented for a judicial decision in the context of a particular set of facts that sharpen the issues to be decided?
To what degree will delaying the issue impose hardship on the plaintiff?
United Public Workers v. Mitchell
A court cannot issue declaratory judgement of the constitutionality of a law when a law has the potential to violate people’s rights if they violate the law
United Public Workers v. Mitchell
Issue
Whether a court can issue declaratory judgement of the constitutionality of a law when a law has the potential to violate people’s rights if they violate the law.
United Public Workers v. Mitchell
Facts
The Hatch Act prohibited federal executive-branch officers and employees from participating in political activities. Except for Poole, none of the appellants had participated in political acts, but they want a declaration of the legally permissible limits of regulation.
United Public Workers v. Mitchell
Reasoning
There’s no case or controversy. Except for Poole, no one has been harmed and there’s nothing to redress. The court cannot adjudicate a case nor judge the constitutionality of a law based on how the appellants’ rights might be violated if they perform certain acts in the future. That would threatened the separation of powers and cause the judiciary to act outside its sphere of power. The idea of a general threat of a possible interference of their personal interest in their civil rights does not make justiciable case or controversy.
United Public Workers v. Mitchell
Holding
The case was dismissed, except for Poole’s claim.
United Public Workers v. Mitchell
Dissent
It’s unfair to make these people first suffer (especially when the harm is grave and irreparable). Their only alternatives would be to lose their jobs and then sue or pull up their roots, change their life careers, and seek employment in other fields. This constituted an actual case, not a hypothetical one.
Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner
In determining whether a conflict is ripe, the court must decide whether the issue is fit for judicial decision and the hardship on the parties if adjudication is denied
Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner
Issue
Whether the Commissioner exceeded his authority when he issued regulations saying companies must do this every time the names were printing on anything.
Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner
Facts
The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act required manufacturers of prescription drugs to print the established name of the drug prominently and in type at least half as large as that used thereon for any proprietary name or designation for such drug. The Commissioner issued regulations saying companies must do this every time the names were printing on anything. Drug companies sued saying the Commissioner exceeded his authority.
Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner
Reasoning
The law and regulations were finalized and so fit for adjudication. Denying adjudication would greatly harm the pharmaceutical companies because they had two options: destroy their current labels, ads and promotional materials and create new ones that comply with the regulations at great cost or continue using the material they have and risk civil and criminal penalties.
Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner
Holding
The case was ripe and the plaintiffs had standing.
Toilet Goods Association v. Gardner
A regulation authorized the Commissioner of the FDA (Commissioner) to suspend statutorily mandated FDA services to the TGA if the TGA refused to grant the FDA free access to TGA facilities. Although this was similar to Abbot Laboratories, the court distinguished it from that case because there was no imminent harm. In fact, the harm was uncertain because legal obligations would only occur if the FDA decided to inspect a facility.
General Rules for Mootness
- A case is mute when it’s presented too late to be adjudicated.
- A defendant’s voluntary cessation of the activity will not moot a case if nothing would prevent the defendant from starting again after the case is dismissed
- A case will not be moot if the activity is capable of repetition but is expe
- cted to evade review (e.g. pregnancy)
DeFunis v. Odegaard
An issue is moot when the outcome would no longer affect the parties
DeFunis v. Odegaard
Issue
Whether a case is moot when the outcome would not affect the parties involved
DeFunis v. Odegaard
Facts
Plaintiff challenged the University of Washington Law School’s admission proceed, claiming that it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The trial court agreed with him and issued an injunction forcing the school to admit him. By the time this got to SCOTUS, Plaintiff was a 3L.
DeFunis v. Odegaard
Reasoning
An issue is moot when the outcome would no longer affect the parties, except when the respondent voluntarily stops doing the illegal activity and could continue later without review or when the issue was “capable of repetition, yet evading review,” The case revolved around DeFunis’ ability to finish school, not the school’s admission policy, so the first exception doesn’t apply. DeFunis wouldn’t be going to law school again and it’s unlikely that the school will be able to discriminate against applicants again without the case getting to SCOTUS in a timely manner, so the second exception doesn’t apply
DeFunis v. Odegaard
Holding
Because DeFunis would complete his legal studies at the end of the term regardless of the decision the court reached, they couldn’t consider the substantive constitutional issues tendered by the parties.
DeFunis v. Odegaard
Dissent
DeFunis still had time left before graduating. If any unexpected event happened, he would have to extend his time at the school and the school would make him would face the same hurdles as before. In addition, the school had no reason to change its admission policy based on the court’s decision.
