Judicial Review – Justiciability
Fill in the blanks

Transcript

Part two, judicial review. Section two, justiciability. We've now heard some rules for how to decide the jurisdictional matters for whether a case even belongs in federal court. Jurisdiction based on the law or based on who the parties are, and some limitations to the federal courts' jurisdiction under the umbrella of sovereign immunity.

We've also discussed some special rules for Supreme Court jurisdiction, such as looking at its original and appellate jurisdiction, and when the Supreme Court will refuse to hear a case, either because the case is ongoing or because state law provides an independent grounds for its decision.

Justiciability

Justiciability turns on whether there is a sufficient "case or controversy."

Let's now turn to the question of justiciability in the federal courts, both in the lower federal courts and in the Supreme Court. Justiciability refers to the types of matters that a court can adjudicate. If a case is non-justiciable, then the court cannot hear it.

According to Article Three of the Constitution, to hear a dispute the federal courts must be presented with a “case or controversy,” meaning an actual dispute between parties over their legal rights that remains in conflict at the time that the case is presented.

Four Doctrines of Justiciability

There are four doctrines here that go into whether a case is justiciable, standing, ripeness, mootness, and the political question doctrine.

We’ll take them one by one. In general, the question they all speak to is, is this case appropriately before this court, at this time, with these parties.

Assessment Questions

Question 1

Which of the following statements about justiciability is incorrect?
a
It’s a constitutional requirement that federal courts hear only cases or controversies.
b
Justiciability is only an issue in federal district courts, not before the Courts of Appeals or the Supreme Court.
c
To be justiciable, the action must involve an actual dispute between the parties.
d
A matter is not justiciable if the parties’ conflict is resolved while the case is pending.
Explanation
Justiciability is a constitutional requirement for all Article III courts, not just district courts. On the MBE, you should consider justiciability for every case that’s brought in a federal court, regardless of the level of the court or the procedural posture.

Question 2

Which of the following is not one of the four doctrines of justiciability?
a
Ripeness
b
Mootness
c
Standing
d
Federal question
Explanation
The justiciability of a case doesn’t turn on whether there’s a federal question at stake. Raising a federal question is one way to establish that a federal court has jurisdiction over the matter under Article III. But justiciability is a distinct issue that involves ripeness, mootness, standing, and the political question doctrine.

Notes

  1. What is justiciability?
    1. Refers to matters suitable for a court to decide
    2. Article III requires a case or controversy.
      1. Still in conflict when case presented
    3. Four doctrines
      1. Standing
      2. Ripeness
      3. Mootness
      4. Political question doctrine

Lesson Note

No note. Click here to write note.

Click here to reset

Leave a Reply