SCOTUS Authority and Role; limits on constitutional adjudications the "Case or Controversey" Requirement.

What are the three major constraints on the Courts Ability to Decide Cases: (Must have all three)

1. Jurisdiction

2. Justiciability

3. Standing

What is Jurisdiction?

Courts need to possess the authority to hear the case.

What is justiciability?

Cases must be appropriate for judicial resolution. Can the court even provide a remedy on the case?

What is standing?

Is the correct party bringing the case to the court?

What are the powers that are found in Article III? Can the court hear anything that is not considered a case or controversy?

Judicial power does not extend to anything but a case or controversy.

What are Case or Controversy Issues?

• Ripeness

• Mootness

• Advisory Opinions

• Standing

What is an Advisory Opinion?

An advisory opinion is a hypothetical question without adversarial action.

• A proposed legislative or executive action without having any case involved.

• A friendly non-adversarial case between two parties with no actual dispute.

What is Standing and what are the elements for standing?

Standing is the allowance of a party to bring a case before the court. In order to have standing the Plaintiff must have:

1. An injury in fact

2. That is causally connected to the defendant’s actions and

3. That is redressable by the courts.

Why do courts refrain from issuing advisory opinions?

• Cases are better briefed by two parties engaged in an adversarial process.

• Actual cases provide more detailed information about a particular controversy.

• Judicial restraint (Limited enforcement powers, respect for checks& balances)

• A construction may be possible where the constitutional questions would be avoided.

• Constitutional issues only if necessary.

Will federal courts hear non-adversarial cases?

No. Federal courts will not decide cases in a friendly, non adversarial proceeding between two parties.

First Element of Standing: What is an Injury in Fact?

An injury in fact is a concrete (actually exists) and particularized injury (affect someone personally) that is actual or imminent towards the Plaintiff rather than likely or probable. It is not conjectural or hypothetical.

Ex. Bodily injury, financial harm, vote dilution, loss of opportunity to participate, aesthetic offense.

Element 2 of Standing: What is Causal Connection?

Causal connection means that an injury must be fairly traceable to defendant’s action and not result of independent actions of third parties.

• If causation is too attenuated, then there is no standing.

• Not a result of an independent action taken by a third party.

Element 3 of Standing: What is Likelihood of redressability?

• The likelihood of redressability means that the court must be able to provide a resolution.

• Focuses more on the remedy than the liability.

• A remedy to injury must be likely not speculative.

Causation and remedy overlap; often the lack of one will entail the lack of the other.

What is a Prudential Standing {Limiting} Doctrine?

Third-Party Standing:

• A person cannot bring a suit on behalf of another person (no injury to the plaintiff).

• Exceptions:

  • First Amendment Overbreadth Doctrine: Where the plaintiff is also injured or the plaintiff’s interests are so closely tied to the injured party that the interests are aligned.

What are some other standing issues?

• Zone of Interest

• Congressional Conferral of Standing

• Legislator Standing

• Generalized Grievances: No taxpayer standing grievances

What is a Zone of Interest?

• Must be in the “zone of interest” to be able to bring a suit.

• Test is purely prudentail (based on wisdom) and that prudentail standing obstacles may always be negated by express action of congress.

  • Congress through statutes give people the right to bring a suit under that statute.

What is Congressional Conferral of Standing?

• Congress can authroize “citizen suit” or “private attorneys general” provisions (private citizens can sue to enforce government compliance with the law if they are injured by government non-compliance.

What is legislator standing?

Legislators generally lack standing to challenge a statute they oppose e.g. Line Item Veto Act.

Under what circumstances will the court hear a case challenging a statute even though the executive branch agrees with the plaintiff that the statute is unconstitutional?

• Injury was concrete, persisting and underdressed.

• Adversarial presentation of issues was assured.

• Prudential Consideration Countless lawsuit not resolved

No generalized grievances: No taxpayer standing grievances

• Courts decline to adjudicate constitutional claims on the behest of a plaintiff who is merely one of millions of taxpayers or citizens interested in resolving constitutional doubts about the government action.

Standing and Federalism: Do certain judicially-created (prudential) limitations on standing prevent a person who has been indicted under a federal law from challenging that law on the ground that Congress exceeded its constitutional authority—specifically, by intruding on powers that the Constitution reserves to the states (i.e., violating federalism principles).

No, they do not.

Standing and Direct Democracy—If a measure enacted by a ballot initiative is unconstitutional and the state government declines to defend it, should the original sponsors have a standing on the behalf of their initiative?

No. To have standing a litigant must seek relief for an injury that affects him in a “Personal and Individual way” Petitioners have no direct stake in the outcome of their appeal.