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

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.