Justiciability Standards

Question 1

Justiciability

Answer 1

Under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, Justiciability provides that “The Judicial power shall extend to all cases … [and] Controversies…” This provision refers to a set of doctrines that govern whether a case is appropriate for judicial resolution. These doctrines ensure that courts only exercise judicial power to hear cases that they are equipped to resolve in the legal process. The Justiciability standards include but are not limited to: (1) Standing, (2) Mootness (3) Ripeness (4) Political Question Doctrine.

Question 2

(1) Standing

Answer 2

1. Injury in Fact: The plaintiff must show a concrete and particularized injury, which can be actual or imminent. This injury cannot be not merely conjectural or hypothetical across the public.
2. Causation: The injury must be directly traceable to the defendant’s conduct. If the harm is caused by the actions of a third party or external factors, standing may not be established.
3. Redressability: The injury must be capable of being remedied by a favorable court decision.

Question 3

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (most important) EDIT

Standing
Redress
Injury

Answer 3

In Lujan where, the Endangered Species Act sought to protect endangered animals by promulgate by regulation a list of endangered species. The courts held that the plaintiffs’ generalized interest in protecting endangered species was insufficient to confer standing.

Question 4

Allen v. Wright (Plain Standing)

You have to actually get harmed.

Answer 4

In Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (1984), the Court ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the IRS’s policies on tax exemptions for racially discriminatory schools, as the plaintiffs could not show a direct injury from the IRS’s actions. While the court
recognizes that this
harm is an injury in fact,
they believe that “the
line of causation
between that conduct
and desegregation of
respondents’ schools is
attenuated at best.”

Question 5

Ripeness

Answer 5

Ripeness denotes a situation where the relationship between the parties has not been fully developed and remains in a state of flux; the facts haven’t been fully laid out.
A decision on the court would be premature and will be based on speculation. If the matters of the case are not established, it would be hard for the court to make a
concrete determination.
A case is ripe if: (1) the issues involved are suitable for judicial resolution, and (2) withholding judicial review will cause the plaintiff undue hardship. Conversely, a case
is not ripe if the relationship between parties has not fully developed and remains in a state of flux. The court will be reluctant to render a decision because doing so
would be premature and based on speculation.

Question 6

Mootness

Answer 6

Mootness occurs when a case, once ripe, no longer presents a live controversy because the underlying issue has been resolved or the parties are no longer affected by it. A case becomes moot if events occur that eliminate the legal interests of the parties, and the court’s decision will have no practical effect. This doctrine ensures that courts only hear cases with ongoing relevance and do not issue advisory opinions.

Question 7

Poltical Question Doctrine

Answer 7

Under Article III of the Constitution, the Political Question Doctrine limits federal courts ability to adjudicate issues that are constitutional matters of the government branches or issues that are political in nature. The doctrine ensures that federal courts (1) avoid overstepping their role and (2) respect the constitutional separation of powers.

Question 8

Baker v. Carr

Answer 8

The plaintiff filed suit to
change the old Tennessee
apportionment system
because it
unconstitutionally
diluted votes. The rural
votes counted for more
than the urban votes and
thus denied voting
citizens equal protection
of the laws.

R: A case presents a
political question when:
(1) there is a textually
demonstrable
constitutional
commitment of that
issue to another political
branch; (2) there is a lack
of judicial standards for
resolving the issue; or (3)
when a decision by the
Court would show a lack
of respect to a
coordinate branch and
(4) cause grave
embarrassment for the
U.S. from a foreign

Question 9

Nixon

Answer 9

In Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993), the Court ruled that the impeachment process is a non-justiciable political question because the Constitution grants the Senate “the sole power to try all impeachments.” The Court declined to review the Senate’s procedures for conducting impeachment trials, holding that such matters are entrusted to the political process.

Question 10

Goldwater

Answer 10

In Goldwater the Court dismissed a challenge to President Carter’s decision to unilaterally terminate a treaty with Taiwan, ruling that the issue involved foreign relations and was therefore a political question best left to the executive and legislative branches.

Question 11

Vieth v. Jubelirer

Answer 11

In the case a Court has grappled with whether claims of partisan gerrymandering present political questions. In Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267 (2004), the Court ruled that challenges to partisan gerrymandering were non-justiciable because the Court lacked clear standards to determine when political considerations in redistricting became unconstitutional. This decision illustrated the difficulty courts face in finding manageable standards for inherently political disputes