Taxpayer standing, the Court said, reached only congressionally-funded programs, not Executive Branch initiatives such as one that helps religious charities win federal grants. In , the Court again considered the standing of an environmental organization, Earth Island Institute, which challenged a Forest Service regulation exempting small timber sales from its usual public notice and comment provisions.
Earth Island alleged the exemption was illegally applied to a timber sale in a California national forest, called the Burnt Ridge sale. After the district court granted a preliminary injunction against the sale, the parties settled the Burnt Ridge dispute, but the district court proceeded to reach the merits of the suit and found the small sale exemption from the usual procedural rules to be unlawful.
On appeal, the government successfully argued that once the Burnt Ridge dispute settled, Earth Island no longer had standing and that the district court should not have reached the merits of the case and concluded the exemption could not be applied in other timber sales in other national forests.
Justice Scalia wrote the opinion for the Court in the 5 to 4 decision. Standing became the Court's way out of making a highly controversial decision on the constitutionality of state laws banning gay marriage in the case of Hollingsworth v Perry.
By a 5 to 4 vote, the Court ruled that proponents of California's Amendment 8 overturning state legislation legalizing gay marriage lacked standing to appeal a federal district court decision invalidating the amendment after the State of California chose not to appeal. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts said the Court "had never before upheld the standing of a private party" to defend a state law, and that the plaintiffs had only a "generalized grievance" with the court's ruling.
Justice Kennedy, in dissent, warned that the decision would give enormous power to a single federal district court in cases where state officials agree with the outcome, and also noted that the initiative process that led to Amendment 8 was intended to be an end-run around state officials who might not always be responsive to the public. The dissenters argued that the Court should have given deference to California's decision that the appellants had a right to defend Amendment 8 in the appellate courts.
Four years before the Court struck down a Connecticut law banning the sale, dissemination, and use of contraceptive devices in the landmark case of Griswold v Connecticut , the Court considered a declaratory judgment action seeking to enjoin future enforcement of the law on the grounds that it violated the Constitution Poe v Ullman On a 5 to 4 vote, the Court dismissed the action for lack of a case or controversy.
The Court noted that no prosecution under the challenged law was pending, that only one prosecution had ever been brought under the law, and that contraceptives were openly sold in Connecticut drugstores. Writing for the Court, Justice Frankfurter concluded that the plaintiffs failed to show the real threat of prosecution necessary to have their case heard.
Frankfurter declared, "This Court cannot be umpire to debates concerning harmless, empty shadows. Dissenting Justice John Harlan concluded the suit was neither collusive nor too abstract for resolution, and that the threat of prosecution under the law was real.
In Epperson v Arkansas , the Court reached the merits of a declaratory judgment action brought by an Arkansas biology teacher challenging a state law authorizing prosecution of persons teaching the theory of evolution in public schools. Even though there had been no recent prosecutions under the law and the likelihood of a prosecution against Epperson seemed remote, the Court said the case--unlike Poe v Ullman --presented no "double contingency.
Here, the Court said, if Arkansas brought a prosecution under its anti-evolution law, it would be brought against someone like Epperson. Ripeness Poe v Ullman Epperson v Arkansas Entrance to Valley Forge Christian College. Jane Roe, who was no longer pregant when the Supreme Court decided her challenge to Texas's abortion law. See also: The Political Questions Doctrine. AP Photo A Prudential Standing Case "We have the constitutional power to decide it, but we won't because there is a better possible plaintiff than the one suing".
Introduction The Supreme Court first considered Article III's "case or controversy" limitation on the judicial power when President George Washington forwarded to the Court a request for guidance as to how best to maintain neutrality, during an outbreak of hostilities between England and France, consistent with international law and treaties to which the United States was a party.
Chief Justice Jay responded by informing the President that the Court was without power to help the President had said he would be "much relieved" if the Court answered his questions. Jay said that the Constitution authorized the Court to interpret the law only in the context of a real case or controversy--it had no power to render an advisory opinion about the law.
Juvenile Male , U. Cont'l Bank Corp. Doe, U. Barnes, U. Gomez , U. Symczyk , U. Sanchez-Gomez , S. Heckler, U. Barry, U. Ramirez, U. Alaska S. Because mootness is a jurisdictional limitation, a federal court can—and indeed must—dismiss a moot case even if none of the parties ask the court to do so. Paul , U. Although not raised by the parties, this issue implicates our jurisdiction. Craft, U. Although the parties have not addressed this question in their briefs, 'they may not by stipulation invoke the judicial power of the United States in litigation which does not present an actual case or controversy.
Justiciability refers to the types of matters that a court can adjudicate. If a case is "nonjusticiable," then the court cannot hear it. Typically to be justiciable, the court must not be offering an advisory opinion , the plaintiff must have standing , and the issues must be ripe but neither moot nor violative of the political question doctrine.
Typically, these issues are all up to the discretion of the court which is adjudicating the issue. This is referred to as the Case and Controversy Clause. Some state courts are allowed to issue advisory opinions under limited circumstances, however these circumstances are typically enumerated within that state's constitution. Standing refers to the capacity of a plaintiff to bring suit in court.
0コメント