Learning Outcomes
After reading this article, you will be able to explain the constitutional "case or controversy" requirement for federal courts, identify the prohibition on advisory opinions, and apply the rules of standing, ripeness, and mootness to MBE-style questions. You will be able to distinguish justiciability doctrines and recognize how these doctrines limit federal judicial power on the MBE.
MBE Syllabus
For the MBE, you are required to understand the limits on federal judicial power imposed by Article III of the Constitution. This article covers the following syllabus points:
- The "case or controversy" requirement as a limit on federal court jurisdiction.
- The prohibition on advisory opinions.
- The requirements for standing, including injury, causation, and redressability.
- The doctrines of ripeness and mootness.
- The exceptions to mootness and standing.
- The practical application of these doctrines to MBE-style questions.
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 allege a concrete injury.
- The plaintiff must show the injury is fairly traceable to the defendant.
- The plaintiff must show the court can redress the injury.
- The plaintiff must show the issue is a political question.
-
A federal court may NOT issue a decision if:
- The plaintiff has suffered a concrete injury.
- The case is moot, with no applicable exception.
- The case is ripe for review.
- The parties have adverse legal interests.
-
Which scenario is most likely to be dismissed as an advisory opinion?
- A plaintiff sues after being denied a government benefit.
- A court is asked to rule on the constitutionality of a statute before it is enforced.
- A party seeks an injunction to stop ongoing harm.
- A class action is brought by a representative with a live claim.
Introduction
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Article III of the U.S. Constitution restricts federal judicial power to actual "cases or controversies." This means federal courts cannot issue advisory opinions or decide abstract legal questions. The doctrines of standing, ripeness, and mootness further limit the types of disputes federal courts may hear. Understanding these doctrines is essential for answering MBE questions on justiciability.
The "Case or Controversy" Requirement
Article III requires that federal courts only decide actual disputes between parties with adverse legal interests. The court must be able to grant specific relief to a party who has suffered or is imminently threatened with injury.
Key Term: Case or Controversy A real, live dispute between parties with adverse legal interests, required for federal court jurisdiction under Article III.
Prohibition on Advisory Opinions
Federal courts cannot issue advisory opinions. An advisory opinion is a decision on a hypothetical legal question or a ruling where the parties do not have adverse interests or where the court cannot grant specific relief.
Key Term: Advisory Opinion A statement by a court on a legal issue where there is no actual dispute or enforceable judgment; prohibited in federal courts.
Standing
Standing is a threshold requirement for any federal lawsuit. The plaintiff must show:
- Injury in Fact: The plaintiff has suffered or is imminently threatened with a concrete, particularized injury.
- Causation: The injury is fairly traceable to the defendant's conduct.
- Redressability: The court can provide relief that will remedy the injury.
Key Term: Standing The requirement that a plaintiff have a personal stake in the outcome, including injury, causation, and redressability.
Third-Party and Taxpayer Standing
Generally, a party cannot assert the rights of others (no third-party standing), and taxpayers lack standing to challenge government expenditures. Exceptions exist, such as when a close relationship or statutory exception is present.
Ripeness
Ripeness prevents courts from hearing cases that are premature. A claim is unripe if it is based on speculative future harm or if the law has not yet been enforced against the plaintiff.
Key Term: Ripeness The requirement that a claim be sufficiently developed and not premature for judicial review.
Mootness
A case is moot if, after filing, events occur that eliminate the plaintiff's personal stake in the outcome. Exceptions include cases "capable of repetition, yet evading review" (e.g., pregnancy), and class actions where at least one class member has a live claim.
Key Term: Mootness The doctrine that requires a case to present a live controversy at all stages; if the dispute is resolved or becomes academic, the case is dismissed.
Worked Example 1.1
A state passes a law restricting certain speech, but no one has been prosecuted or threatened with prosecution. An advocacy group files suit in federal court, seeking a declaration that the law is unconstitutional.
Answer: The court will likely dismiss the case as an advisory opinion or for lack of ripeness. There is no actual or imminent injury, and the court would be issuing a hypothetical ruling.
Worked Example 1.2
A plaintiff sues a city, claiming a permit denial violated her rights. After the lawsuit is filed, the city grants the permit and the plaintiff no longer seeks relief.
Answer: The case is now moot. There is no longer a live controversy, and the court will dismiss unless an exception applies.
Worked Example 1.3
A woman challenges a state abortion law while pregnant. By the time her case reaches the Supreme Court, she is no longer pregnant.
Answer: The case is not moot under the "capable of repetition, yet evading review" exception, because pregnancy is a short-term condition likely to recur but evade full judicial review.
Exam Warning
On the MBE, be careful not to confuse standing (injury, causation, redressability) with mootness (whether the controversy still exists) or ripeness (whether the controversy is ready for review). Each doctrine is tested separately.
Revision Tip
Always check for standing, ripeness, and mootness before analyzing the merits of a federal case. If any are missing, the court must dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Key Point Checklist
This article has covered the following key knowledge points:
- Article III restricts federal courts to actual cases or controversies.
- Federal courts cannot issue advisory opinions.
- Standing requires injury, causation, and redressability.
- Ripeness bars premature claims; mootness bars cases where the controversy has ended.
- Exceptions to mootness include cases capable of repetition yet evading review.
- Justiciability doctrines are frequently tested on the MBE.
Key Terms and Concepts
- Case or Controversy
- Advisory Opinion
- Standing
- Ripeness
- Mootness
