the justiciability doctrines

8/14/2019 The Justiciability Doctrines

1/4

The Justiciability Doctrines

Case or Controversy

Article III states that the judicial power of the federal courts extends only to cases and

controversies which arise under the Constitution, federal laws of the United States and

its treaties. This remains the overlying principle y which the courts determine

whether or not an issue is justiciale, and has led to the estalishment of the

justiciaility doctrines. These doctrines are used to determine whether a case or

controversy actually exists, and if one does then the issues are considered justiciale.

Advisory Opinions

Since Article III mandates that the judiciary only has power over cases and

controversies, the Supreme Court has held that where a case or controversy does not

exist, the judiciary is not to issue any advisory opinion regarding the matter. This

prohiition against advisory opinions helps to serve separation of powers! y not

issuing advisory opinions, the federal judiciary is "eeping the courts out of the

political process, and leaving that process solely to the discretion of the legislative and

executive ranches. Additionally, y not issuing advisory opinions, the judiciary is

conserving its resources for cases that actually need adjudication.

Three asic re#uirements must e met so that the judiciary may hear a case and issue

an opinion that would not e advisory. $irst, the case needs to present an actual

dispute, not a hypothetical legal #uestion. %y re#uiring an actual dispute, the judiciary

is ensuring that any decision issued in the case is the final one ecause it was ased

upon concrete factsand not upon some fanciful situation which may not have

presented a complete picture of the controversy. The second re#uirement is that the

dispute is etween adverse litigants. Adversarinessis re#uired to ensure that the case

rought efore the courts truly involves a controversy that is in need of a resolution& if

the opponents are not true adversaries, then any issued opinion would e advisory.

The last re#uirement is that if a decision is issued in favor of the claimant, there is a

sustantial li"elihood that it would have some effect. In any situation where the

opposing party could ignore the ruling, then the opinion lac"sfinalityand is in effect

advisory. 'eclaratory judgments are justiciale as long as they present a real

controversy. 'eclaratory judgmentsthat meet these criteria are themselves justiciale.

Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Haworth, ()) U.S. **+ -(+/.

Mootness and Ripeness

0ootness and 1ipeness oth deal with the existence of an actual controversy&

mootness with whether the controversy has terminated, and ripeness with whether it is

ready for adjudication. A case will e declared moot if the defendant dies during a
http://classes.lls.edu/archive/manheimk/fedcts/echarts/justdoc-t.htm#tophttp://classes.lls.edu/archive/manheimk/fedcts/echarts/justdoc-t.htm#tophttp://classes.lls.edu/archive/manheimk/fedcts/echarts/justdoc-t.htm#tophttp://classes.lls.edu/archive/manheimk/fedcts/echarts/justdoc-t.htm#tophttp://classes.lls.edu/archive/manheimk/fedcts/echarts/justdoc-t.htm#top


2/4

criminal trial, if the plaintiff dies during a civil action and the action does not survive

the death usually y statute/, and if the parties settle etween themselves efore a

final judgement is entered. In these situations the issues are no

longer redressale.2xceptionsdo exist to the mootness doctrine which allow a case to

e heard! where secondary injuries exist that may e addressed y the court& cases

which involve a wrong that is capale of repetition and li"ely to evade review& where

an illegal practice has een terminated ut it could e resumed at any time& and in a

properly certified class action suit.

Cases are declared not ripe ecause the injuries are either too speculative or they may

never occur. The rationale ehind the ripeness doctrine is that a court should not issue

premature judgements ased on astract disagreements. Abbott Laboratories v.

Gardner, (3+ u.s. -(4 -4+/. 1ipeness typically arises when preenforcement review

of a statute is sought, at which point to considerations are examined, and oth must e

present in order for an issue to e ripe. $irst, the plaintiff must show that a hardship is

li"ely to e suffered in the asence of a judgement. This hardship could e caused y

the law as it will eventually e applied, y collateral injuries, or ecause compliance

with the law causes the hardship, and the only other choice is to rea" the law with the

resulting conse#uences of eing prosecuted. The second consideration is whether the

issues are fit for a judicial decision. An issue that specific facts would assist in the

judicail consideration will e found not ripe, while an issue is ripe when it is mostly a

#uestion of law, one which does not depend on context.

StandingA determination that a person lac"s standing means that person is not the proper party

to ring the issue efore the court for adjudication. The Standing 'octrine is viewed

as a tool that promotes oth the Separation of 5ower and judicial efficiency.

Separation of 5ower is achieved through limiting the issues the judiciary hears, thus

limiting review of the other ranches of government. The limiting of cases efore the

courts promotes judicial efficiency, and this limiting also improves the decision6

ma"ing aility of the judiciary through ensuring a specific controversy and that an

advocate with a sta"e in the outcome is present to pursue the matter.

$our re#uirements must e met efore a party will e granted standing in the federaljudiciary, all of which must e met. The first three re#uirements are ased upon

Article III as Constitutional arriers to standing, and the last is an exercise ofjudicial

restraintwhich may e overridden y Congressional statute.

The first re#uirement is that the parties must e adversaries. This is shown through the

plaintiff having suffered or imminently li"ely to suffer a distinct and palpale injury.
http://classes.lls.edu/archive/manheimk/fedcts/echarts/justdoc-t.htmhttp://classes.lls.edu/archive/manheimk/fedcts/echarts/justdoc-t.htmhttp://classes.lls.edu/archive/manheimk/fedcts/echarts/justdoc-t.htmhttp://classes.lls.edu/archive/manheimk/fedcts/echarts/justdoc-t.htm#tophttp://classes.lls.edu/archive/manheimk/fedcts/echarts/justdoc-t.htm#tophttp://classes.lls.edu/archive/manheimk/fedcts/echarts/justdoc-t.htmhttp://classes.lls.edu/archive/manheimk/fedcts/echarts/justdoc-t.htm


3/4

A mere interest in the prolem is insufficient to estalish standing. Therefore, the

complaint must specifically allege that the plaintiff has suffered or is li"ely to suffer a

distinct injury. The injury may even e one of aesthetic concerns, so long as it is

personally suffered and is legally cogni7ale. U.S. v. SCRAP, 8-* U.S. 44 -+(/.

Additionally, a plaintiff see"ing declaratory or injunctive relief must show a

li"elihood of injury in the future. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 84- U.S. 9 -3(/.

Injuries which are sufficient to satisfy this re#uirement have generally een found to

e any injury ased on the common law and injuries ased on a violation of the

Constitution. Congress may create adversariness through statute, ut it cannot create

standing so that the pulic in general satisfies the statutory re#uirement. Luan v.

!efenders of "ildlife, --* S. Ct. *-() -*/. Along this same line of reasoning, the

Court will not permit an individual to sue the government on the asis of eing a

taxpayer or forcing the government to comply with the law.

The second and third re#uirements are that the named defendants/ e the causationof

the injuries and that the injury is redressalethrough the court. The Supreme Court

has declared that these are separate in#uiries, ut they are very often examined at the

same time. The plaintiff must show that the injury is fairly traceale to the defendant

through a causal nexus lin"ing the action of the defendant with the injury. The lin"

must usually e a direct one, without the intervention of a third party. :here there is

the intervention of a third party, the court may find that there was no causation, or that

the injury is not redressale. In examining redressaility, the court loo"s to the

remedies sought in the pleadings and examines those for the li"ely affect they would

have on the injury. :hen the injury depends on the actions of a third party, a court

order will not affect that party, and the injury cannot e redressed. ;owever, an injurycaused y the defendant can e directly compensated for y the court.

See elow for a detailed description of thejudicial restraintre#uirement the courts use

to find an issue non6justiciale.

Political Question

An issue, even a Constitutional one, which the Court feels is est resolved y one of

the other ranches of government may denied judicial review under the 5olitical


4/4

Congress@ control of its own internal processes.

Judicial Restraint

udicial restraint has two aspects to its nature. The first is the use of discretion in

granting certiorari, and the second is a set of prudential rules used to deny a partystanding in a particular case. Currently, the Supreme Court has the power to deny

certiorari in any case. Congress, however, has the power under Article III to re#uire

Supreme Court review for any issue.

The prudential restraint rules focus on whether the plaintiff@s own rights are eing

asserted, or whether someone else@s rights are eing asserted. There is no general third

party standing, except in cases of the -st Amendment and where a special relationship

exists etween the injured party and the party asserting the right. The special

relationships which are permitted to exert third party standing are very limited. A

close relationship is re#uired etween the third party and the right eing asserted, suchas an association which is closely tied to the claimed right or a party which has a 7one

of interest encompassing the right. Congress may also change any of these rules since

they are not ased within the Constitution.
http://classes.lls.edu/archive/manheimk/fedcts/echarts/justdoc-t.htm#tophttp://classes.lls.edu/archive/manheimk/fedcts/echarts/justdoc-t.htm#tophttp://classes.lls.edu/archive/manheimk/fedcts/echarts/justdoc-t.htm#top

the justiciability doctrines

Documents