JUSTICIABLE
Capable of being decided by a court.
Not all cases brought before courts are
accepted for their review. The U.S. Constitution
limits the federal courts to hearing nine classes of
cases or controversies, and, in the twentieth cen-
tury, the Supreme Court has added further
restrictions. State courts also have rules requiring
matters brought before them to be justiciable.
Before agreeing to hear a case, a court first
examines its justiciability. This preliminary
review does not address the actual merits of the
case, but instead applies a number of tests based
on judicial doctrines. At their simplest, the tests
concern (1) the plaintiff, (2) the adversity
between the parties, (3) the substance of the
issues in the case, and (4) the timing of the case.
For a case to be heard, it must survive this
review. In practice, courts have broad power to
apply their tests: they commonly emphasize
whichever factors they deem important. This
irregularity has made the analysis of justiciabil-
ity a difficult task for lawyers, scholars, and the
courts themselves.
Behind the tests for justiciability are a num-
ber of legal doctrines. The Supreme Court has
declared that the doctrines have both constitu-
tional and prudential components: some parts
are required by the Constitution, according to
the Court’s interpretation of Article III, and
some are based on what the Court considers pru-
dent JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION. This distinc-
tion has important consequences for the limits of
judicial power. Congress has the authority to
pass laws that override only the prudential limits
of JUDICIAL REVIEW; it cannot pass laws that
override constitutional limits. Thus, the Supreme
Court has insulated the federal courts from con-
gressional influence in some but not all areas of
justiciability.
Among the most complex justiciability doc-
trines is standing, which covers the plaintiff.
Standing focuses on the party, not on the issues
he wishes to have adjudicated (Flast v. Cohen,
392 U.S. 83, 88 S. Ct. 1942, 20 L. Ed. 2d 947). A
claimant said to have standing has been found
by the court to have the right to a trial. To reach
such a determination, the court uses several gen-
eral rules. These rules require that the claimant
has suffered an actual or threatened injury; that
the case alleges a sufficient connection (or
nexus) between the injury and the defendant’s
action; that the injury can be redressed by a
favorable decision; and that the plaintiff neither
brings a generalized grievance nor represents a
third party. In addition, separate rules govern
taxpayers, organizations, legislators, and govern-
ment entities.
The question of justiciability also involves
the legal relationship of the parties in the case, as
well as the substance of their dispute. To be
found justiciable, the case must involve parties
who have an adversary controversy between
them. Moreover, the issues in the controversy
must be “real and substantial,” and therefore
more than mere generalized interests common
to the public at large. A related rule forbids the
federal courts to issue ADVISORY OPINIONS.
Dating from the late eighteenth century, it holds
that they must decline to rule on merely hypo-
thetical or abstract questions. In addition, they
are restricted from taking cases that address
purely POLITICAL QUESTIONS, which are
beyond management by the judiciary. Certain
state courts do issue advisory opinions on legal
questions.
The fourth concern of tests for justiciability,
the timing of the case, is evaluated under the
concepts of RIPENESS and mootness. The
ripeness doctrine holds that a case is justiciable if
“the harm asserted has matured sufficiently to
warrant judicial intervention” (Warth v. Seldin,
422 U.S. 490, 95 S. Ct. 2197, 45 L. Ed. 2d 343
[1975]). The mootness doctrine prevents a court
from addressing issues that are hypothetical or
dead. A case may become moot because of a
change in law or in the status of the litigants.
Most commonly, it is held to be moot because
the court is presented with a fact or event that
renders the alleged wrong no longer existent. For
example, in 1952 the Supreme Court refused to
review a state court decision in a case challenging
Bible reading in the public schools. The child
behind the suit had already graduated, and the
parents and taxpayers who brought the suit
could show no financial injury (Doremus v.
Board of Education, 342 U.S. 429, 72 S. Ct. 394, 96
L. Ed. 475).However, the Court did agree to hear
the landmark ABORTION case ROE V. WADE, 410
U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147 (1973),
even though the plaintiff was no longer preg-
nant. The Court gave as its reason the length of a
woman’s gestation period (nine months), which
is too short to permit appellate review.
One reason justiciability is complex is that it
is replete with numerous arcane rules and excep-
tions.Another is that courts apply it on an ad hoc
basis, inconsistently choosing to emphasize one
element of its tests over another. This fact has led
legal scholars to despair of ever reaching a uni-
fied analysis of justiciability. Some have taken the
cynical view that courts will find a case justicia-
ble when they want to hear it, and refuse to find
