Justiciability Doctrines

Federal courts cannot hear just any case. Article III of the Constitution specifies that federal courts can only hear actual "cases and controversies." This constitutional language is the foundation for the four main justiciability doctrines:

• Standing: Does the plaintiff have a personal stake in this case?
• Ripeness: Is the issue before the court developed enough for a meaningful decision?
• Mootness: Is there still a controversy for the court to settle? If not, the court’s opinion would be moot and the case is non-justiciable.
• Political Questions: Is another branch of government better suited to handle the issue at hand?

These doctrines focus federal courts on resolving genuine disputes. Disputes where their opinions are necessary. They help the courts avoid issuing abstract or irrelevant decisions.

Article III Explained

Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 states:

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."

This clause limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to actual disputes between parties. This section is the basis for the doctrines of justiciability. It ensures that courts do not issue advisory opinions or engage in abstract debates.

Determining what cases and legal issues the judiciary may hear protects the sanctity of the courts and their rulings. The federal courts are organized hierarchically; there are district courts, and above those courts are appellate courts or courts of appeals. At the top of the hierarchy is the Supreme Court.

When higher courts make decisions, they set a precedent for the lower courts to follow. Case decisions can, therefore, impact future cases for years. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance to remain prudent about what issues the court can decide.

State courts generally follow the same rules of justiciability as federal courts, but they are not bound by Article III in the same way. For example, some states allow their courts to issue advisory opinions.

The Core Justiciability Doctrines Under Article III

Under Article III of the Constitution, there are four core justiciability doctrines. The courts must consider a claim's ripeness and potential mootness, the political question doctrine, and standing.

Mootness Doctrine: When Cases Become Non-Justiciable

The mootness doctrine prevents courts from deciding cases that no longer need a solution. It requires that the issue before the court involve an actual controversy.

Imagine a student is upset because their school rule prevents them from wearing light-up shoes. They take the issue to court. But before the court makes a decision, the school changes the rule to allow light-up shoes. The problem is already solved. The case is "moot" and doesn't need a court's opinion.

Under this controversy requirement, if the court can’t fix a case anymore, then the case is moot. If litigation would be pointless, then the court wouldn’t bother with it.

The Supreme Court’s decision In DeFunis v. Odegaard (1974) illustrates the mootness principle. In this case, Marco DeFunis sued the University of Washington Law School. He was denied admission and claimed their admissions process was racially discriminatory, but he was later admitted while the case was still pending. The U.S. Supreme Court declared the case moot because DeFunis was about to graduate, meaning there was no longer a live controversy to resolve.

Other important mootness cases include:

• Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (2000)
• Powell v. McCormack (1969)
• County of Los Angeles v. Davis (1979)
• Richardson v. Ramirez (1974)

There are also a few exceptions to the mootness doctrine:

• Capable of repetition, yet evading review: This exception applies when an issue could happen again to the same person. Some issues are short-lived in nature and will always end before the court can review them. For example, a student might challenge a rule that only applies during a short school event each year. Even if the event is over, the issue might come up again next year.
• Voluntary cessation: If the person or organization that caused the issue stops their behavior but could easily start it again. For example, if a company stops a harmful practice just to avoid a lawsuit, the court might still hear the case to prevent future harm.
• Collateral consequences: Sometimes, an otherwise moot case has lasting effects. For example, if you are convicted of a crime and serve your time, you may still face consequences like losing your job or not being able to vote. The court might hear the case to address these ongoing issues.

These exceptions ensure that the courts can address important issues. Even if the original problem has been resolved, judicial intervention may still be necessary.

Ripeness Doctrine: Timing Matters in Legal Challenges

Under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, courts can only decide cases that are "ripe" for review. This means cases where the court can provide relief. Here are the criteria for determining ripeness:

1. Actual harm or immediate threat of harm: The person bringing the case must show that they are experiencing real harm. If they cannot, they must show that harm is about to happen soon. For example, if a new law is passed but hasn't caused any problems yet, a court might say the case is not ripe.

2. Clear legal issue: You must have a clear legal question that the court can decide on. If the situation is still developing, the court might wait until things are more settled.

3. Avoiding hypothetical questions: Courts won't decide on issues that are hypothetical or speculative. For instance, if you are worried that a law might affect you in the future, but it hasn't yet, the court may say the case is not ripe.

A ripe case contains a real, immediate problem. It must involve legal issues that need a decision—legal issues that are clear and well-defined. This helps ensure that courts are dealing with actual, present conflicts rather than potential or future ones.

Political Question Doctrine: Limits of Judicial Review

The political question doctrine prevents courts from deciding issues that are for other branches of government. This doctrine protects the separation of powers. Each branch of government has its own distinct responsibilities, and political questions don't fall to the courts to answer. Essentially, if a case involves a political question, the courts will deem it unsuitable for judicial review.

The Supreme Court has shaped this doctrine through its decisions. In Baker v. Carr (1962), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that issues of legislative apportionment (how voting districts are drawn) are justiciable. This means legislative apportionment issues aren't considered purely political questions, so the courts can make decisions about them. This case established that courts can review and rule on cases involving the fairness of electoral district boundaries. It clarifies the limits of the political question doctrine.

Other important political question cases include:

• Nixon v. United States (1993)
• Vieth v. Jubelirer (2004)
• Rucho v. Common Cause (2019)

Standing: Justiciability Considerations

Standing is a legal concept that determines whether a person has the right to bring a lawsuit to court. To bring your claim to court, you must show you have been directly affected by the issue at hand. To have standing, a person must show three things:

1. Injury: They must have suffered a real harm or are in immediate danger of being harmed.

2. Causation: The person or entity being sued is the cause of the harm.

3. Redressability: The court must be able to do something to fix the harm or prevent it from happening in the future.

Standing ensures that only people who are directly affected by an issue can bring a case to court, ensuring that courts resolve real, concrete problems.

The landmark case Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (2007) is significant for its role in clarifying the criteria for legal standing. Particularly as it pertains to environmental litigation involving state governments. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Massachusetts had the standing to sue the EPA for not regulating greenhouse gases. The state showed that climate change was causing harm, such as rising sea levels, that could be addressed by EPA action. This case highlighted that states can have standing to sue the federal government.

Other important standing cases include:

• City of Los Angeles v. Lyons (1980)
• Flast v. Cohen (1968)

Advisory Opinions

Federal courts cannot issue advisory opinions. The U.S. Constitution requires that courts only engage in actual cases and controversies involving adverse parties. This means your case needs a real dispute between opposing sides.

Chief Justice John Jay established this principle. He emphasized that courts should not offer legal advice or opinions on hypothetical situations. This prohibition ensures that judicial intervention occurs only through formal adjudication. This concept, often taught in law school, underscores the importance of maintaining judicial impartiality and separation of powers.

Justiciability doctrines play a crucial role in constitutional law. The doctrines of mootness and ripeness prevent the court from hearing cases it would be fruitless for them to spend time on. Standing considerations and the political question doctrine ensure that the correct parties are before the court and that the issue at hand is in the correct branch of government.

These doctrines help maintain a balanced, efficient judiciary. Limiting the jurisdiction of the federal courts also protects the judiciary and the other branches of power. They prevent courts from encroaching on the roles of Congress and the president.