Learning Outcomes
After reading this article, you will be able to explain the operation of judicial review in US constitutional law, including the requirements for standing, the prohibition on advisory opinions, the doctrines of ripeness and mootness, and the political question doctrine. You will be able to identify when a federal court can hear a case and apply these principles to MBE-style questions.
MBE Syllabus
For the MBE, you are required to understand the principles governing the operation of judicial review in federal courts. This includes:
- The "case or controversy" requirement and its components: standing, ripeness, mootness, and the prohibition on advisory opinions.
- The doctrine of adequate and independent state grounds.
- The political question doctrine and justiciability.
- The limits of federal judicial power and the circumstances in which federal courts may or may not hear a case.
Test Your Knowledge
Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, remember to look more closely at that area during your revision.
-
Which of the following is NOT a requirement for standing in federal court?
- The plaintiff must have suffered an injury in fact.
- The plaintiff's injury must be traceable to the defendant's conduct.
- The plaintiff must be a US citizen.
- The court must be able to redress the injury.
-
Which doctrine prevents federal courts from issuing decisions when the dispute is no longer active or the parties' interests have disappeared?
- Ripeness
- Mootness
- Standing
- Advisory opinion
-
Which of the following is most likely to be dismissed as a non-justiciable political question?
- A challenge to the constitutionality of a federal tax.
- A dispute over the impeachment procedures of the Senate.
- A claim that a state law violates equal protection.
- A suit for damages against a state official.
-
The Supreme Court will NOT review a state court judgment if:
- The state court relied on an adequate and independent state ground.
- The state court decided a federal constitutional issue.
- The state court's decision conflicts with federal law.
- The state court's decision is final.
Introduction
Judicial review is the power of federal courts to determine the constitutionality of acts by Congress, the President, and the states. However, this power is subject to important limits. Federal courts may only decide actual cases or controversies, not hypothetical disputes or political questions. Understanding these limits is essential for MBE success.
Key Term: Judicial Review The authority of federal courts to determine whether acts of government are consistent with the Constitution and to invalidate those that are not.
The "Case or Controversy" Requirement
Federal courts may only hear cases that present an actual, ongoing dispute between adverse parties. This is known as the "case or controversy" requirement and is rooted in Article III of the Constitution.
Key Term: Case or Controversy A real, live dispute between parties with adverse legal interests, required for federal court jurisdiction.
Standing
A plaintiff must have standing to bring a case in federal court. Standing requires:
- An injury in fact: a concrete and particularized harm.
- Causation: the injury must be fairly traceable to the defendant's conduct.
- Redressability: the court must be able to provide a remedy.
Key Term: Standing The requirement that a plaintiff have a personal stake in the outcome of a case, including injury, causation, and redressability.
Prohibition on Advisory Opinions
Federal courts cannot issue advisory opinions. They may not decide hypothetical questions or give legal advice outside the context of a real dispute.
Key Term: Advisory Opinion A statement by a court on the legality of a proposed action, issued outside the context of an actual case—prohibited in federal courts.
Ripeness and Mootness
Ripeness bars cases that are brought too early—before a real injury has occurred or is imminent. Mootness bars cases where the dispute has already been resolved or the parties no longer have a stake in the outcome.
Key Term: Ripeness The requirement that a case involve a present or imminent injury, not a hypothetical future dispute.
Key Term: Mootness The doctrine that a case must be dismissed if events after filing eliminate the actual controversy between the parties.
Key Term: Exception—Capable of Repetition, Yet Evading Review An exception to mootness for disputes that are likely to recur but typically become moot before review is possible (e.g., pregnancy cases).
Political Question Doctrine
Federal courts will not decide certain issues that are committed by the Constitution to another branch of government or lack judicially manageable standards. Common political questions include challenges to impeachment procedures and partisan gerrymandering.
Key Term: Political Question A dispute that the federal courts will not decide because it is constitutionally committed to another branch or lacks standards for resolution.
Adequate and Independent State Grounds
The Supreme Court will not review a state court judgment if the decision rests on a state law ground that is both adequate to support the result and independent of federal law.
Key Term: Adequate and Independent State Ground A state law basis for a judgment that is sufficient to support the result regardless of federal law, preventing Supreme Court review.
Worked Example 1.1
A taxpayer files suit in federal court challenging a federal spending program, claiming it is unconstitutional. The taxpayer alleges no personal injury other than being a taxpayer.
Answer: The court will dismiss the case for lack of standing. Taxpayers generally do not have standing to challenge government spending unless a narrow exception applies (e.g., Establishment Clause challenges to congressional appropriations).
Worked Example 1.2
A state court finds a state law unconstitutional under both the state constitution and the US Constitution. The losing party seeks review in the US Supreme Court.
Answer: The Supreme Court will not review the case if the state court's decision rests on an adequate and independent state ground. The federal issue is moot because the state law would remain invalid under state law regardless of the federal question.
Worked Example 1.3
A plaintiff sues in federal court, seeking a declaration that a proposed law, not yet enacted, would be unconstitutional if passed.
Answer: The court will dismiss the case as an advisory opinion. Federal courts cannot decide hypothetical disputes or give opinions on laws that have not yet caused actual injury.
Exam Warning
Federal courts cannot hear cases that are moot, unripe, or seek advisory opinions. Always check for standing, ripeness, and mootness before analyzing the merits.
Revision Tip
When analyzing justiciability, always ask: Is there a real injury? Is the dispute ongoing? Is the issue committed to another branch? If not, the case may be dismissed.
Key Point Checklist
This article has covered the following key knowledge points:
- Federal courts may only decide actual cases or controversies—not hypothetical disputes.
- Standing requires injury, causation, and redressability.
- Advisory opinions are prohibited in federal courts.
- Ripeness bars premature cases; mootness bars cases where the dispute is resolved.
- The political question doctrine excludes certain issues from judicial review.
- The Supreme Court will not review state court judgments resting on adequate and independent state grounds.
Key Terms and Concepts
- Judicial Review
- Case or Controversy
- Standing
- Advisory Opinion
- Ripeness
- Mootness
- Exception—Capable of Repetition, Yet Evading Review
- Political Question
- Adequate and Independent State Ground
