Learning Outcomes
After reading this article, you will be able to explain the doctrines of political questions and justiciability, identify when federal courts will decline to hear a case, and apply the concepts of standing, ripeness, mootness, and the political question doctrine to MBE-style questions. You will also understand how these doctrines limit federal judicial power and recognize their exam significance.
MBE Syllabus
For the MBE, you are required to understand the limits on federal judicial power, especially as they relate to justiciability and the political question doctrine. This article covers:
- The "case or controversy" requirement for federal courts.
- The doctrines of standing, ripeness, and mootness.
- The political question doctrine and its application.
- The prohibition on advisory opinions.
- The concept of adequate and independent state grounds.
- How these doctrines restrict federal court jurisdiction.
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 most likely to be dismissed as a nonjusticiable political question?
- A challenge to a state tax as violating the Commerce Clause.
- A suit seeking review of the Senate’s procedures for impeachment trials.
- A challenge to a city ordinance as violating the First Amendment.
- A claim that a state law is preempted by federal law.
-
Which of the following best describes the "case or controversy" requirement?
- Federal courts may issue advisory opinions.
- Federal courts may decide hypothetical disputes.
- Federal courts may only decide actual, ongoing disputes between adverse parties.
- Federal courts may rule on any legal question presented by Congress.
-
Which of the following is NOT a recognized justiciability doctrine?
- Standing
- Ripeness
- Mootness
- Judicial immunity
-
The Supreme Court will decline to hear a case if:
- The issue is a political question committed to another branch.
- The plaintiff lacks standing.
- The case is moot.
- All of the above.
Introduction
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Article III of the U.S. Constitution restricts federal judicial power to "cases" and "controversies." This means federal courts may only decide actual disputes between adverse parties and cannot issue advisory opinions or decide hypothetical questions. The doctrines of justiciability—including standing, ripeness, mootness, and the political question doctrine—define the boundaries of federal judicial power and are frequently tested on the MBE.
Key Term: Justiciability The set of doctrines determining whether a court can properly hear and decide a case, including standing, ripeness, mootness, and the political question doctrine.
The "Case or Controversy" Requirement
Federal courts may only decide cases that present an actual, ongoing dispute between parties with adverse legal interests. This is known as the "case or controversy" requirement.
Key Term: Case or Controversy A constitutional requirement that federal courts only decide real, live disputes, not hypothetical or abstract questions.
The Doctrines of Justiciability
Federal courts apply several doctrines to determine whether a case is justiciable:
Standing
A plaintiff must have standing to sue. This requires (1) an injury in fact, (2) causation, and (3) redressability.
Key Term: Standing The requirement that a plaintiff have a concrete, personal stake in the outcome of a case.
Ripeness
A case must be ripe for review. Courts will not decide cases based on speculative future harm; the plaintiff must show a present or imminent injury.
Key Term: Ripeness The requirement that a case involve a real, immediate dispute, not a hypothetical or premature claim.
Mootness
A case is moot if events after filing eliminate the plaintiff’s personal stake in the outcome. Exceptions exist for issues "capable of repetition, yet evading review" (e.g., pregnancy).
Key Term: Mootness The doctrine that a court will not decide a case if the original dispute has been resolved or is no longer live.
Advisory Opinions
Federal courts cannot issue advisory opinions. There must be an actual dispute and a likelihood that the court’s decision will affect the parties’ rights.
Key Term: Advisory Opinion A statement by a court on a legal issue when there is no actual dispute between parties; prohibited in federal courts.
Political Question Doctrine
Some constitutional questions are "political questions" that federal courts will not decide. These are issues constitutionally committed to another branch or lacking judicially manageable standards.
Key Term: Political Question An issue that the Constitution assigns to another branch of government or that is not suitable for judicial resolution.
Key Term: Adequate and Independent State Grounds A doctrine under which the Supreme Court will not review a state court judgment if it rests on state law grounds sufficient to support the result, regardless of federal law.
Application of the Political Question Doctrine
Federal courts will decline to decide cases presenting political questions. Classic examples include:
- Challenges to the impeachment process (committed to the Senate).
- Claims under the Guarantee Clause (guaranteeing a "republican form of government").
- Partisan gerrymandering (no judicially manageable standards).
- Foreign affairs decisions (e.g., recognition of foreign governments).
Worked Example 1.1
A group of citizens sues Congress, claiming that a federal statute violates the Guarantee Clause by failing to provide a republican form of government. Should the federal court hear the case?
Answer: No. Claims under the Guarantee Clause are classic political questions and are nonjusticiable. The Constitution assigns this issue to Congress, and there are no judicially manageable standards for deciding what constitutes a "republican form of government."
Worked Example 1.2
A senator is impeached and removed from office. She sues in federal court, arguing that the Senate’s procedures violated due process. Is this claim justiciable?
Answer: No. The Constitution gives the Senate the "sole power to try all impeachments." The Supreme Court has held that impeachment procedures are political questions not subject to judicial review.
Worked Example 1.3
A state court strikes down a state law on both state and federal constitutional grounds. The losing party seeks review in the U.S. Supreme Court. The state law ground is sufficient to support the judgment. Will the Supreme Court hear the case?
Answer: No. If the state court’s decision rests on an adequate and independent state ground, the Supreme Court will not review the case, even if a federal issue is present.
Exam Warning
The MBE often tests your ability to spot political questions. If the Constitution assigns the issue to another branch or there are no judicial standards, the court will dismiss the case as a political question.
Revision Tip
If a question asks whether a federal court can decide a case, always check for standing, ripeness, mootness, advisory opinion, and political question issues before analyzing the merits.
Key Point Checklist
This article has covered the following key knowledge points:
- Federal courts are limited to deciding actual "cases or controversies."
- Justiciability doctrines include standing, ripeness, mootness, and the prohibition on advisory opinions.
- The political question doctrine bars courts from deciding issues assigned to other branches or lacking judicial standards.
- The Supreme Court will not review state court judgments resting on adequate and independent state grounds.
- Common political questions include impeachment, Guarantee Clause claims, and partisan gerrymandering.
Key Terms and Concepts
- Justiciability
- Case or Controversy
- Standing
- Ripeness
- Mootness
- Advisory Opinion
- Political Question
- Adequate and Independent State Grounds
