The Judicial Power: Case and Controversy Requirement: Ripeness and Mootness

Question 1

Two Basic Questions for Ripeness

Answer 1

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?

Question 2

United Public Workers v. Mitchell

Answer 2

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

Question 3

United Public Workers v. Mitchell

Issue

Answer 3

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.

Question 4

United Public Workers v. Mitchell

Facts

Answer 4

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.

Question 5

United Public Workers v. Mitchell

Reasoning

Answer 5

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.

Question 6

United Public Workers v. Mitchell

Holding

Answer 6

The case was dismissed, except for Poole’s claim.

Question 7

United Public Workers v. Mitchell

Dissent

Answer 7

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.

Question 8

Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner

Answer 8

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

Question 9

Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner

Issue

Answer 9

Whether the Commissioner exceeded his authority when he issued regulations saying companies must do this every time the names were printing on anything.

Question 10

Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner

Facts

Answer 10

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.

Question 11

Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner

Reasoning

Answer 11

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.

Question 12

Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner

Holding

Answer 12

The case was ripe and the plaintiffs had standing.

Question 13

Toilet Goods Association v. Gardner

Answer 13

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.

Question 14

General Rules for Mootness

Answer 14

• 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)

Question 15

DeFunis v. Odegaard

Answer 15

An issue is moot when the outcome would no longer affect the parties

Question 16

DeFunis v. Odegaard

Issue

Answer 16

Whether a case is moot when the outcome would not affect the parties involved

Question 17

DeFunis v. Odegaard

Facts

Answer 17

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.

Question 18

DeFunis v. Odegaard

Reasoning

Answer 18

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

Question 19

DeFunis v. Odegaard

Holding

Answer 19

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.

Question 20

DeFunis v. Odegaard

Dissent

Answer 20

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.