E.g. Flast 3. Connection to Standing : The private v. public model factors into standing doctrine because it determines how broad or narrow the claim needs to be.
II. JUSTICIABILITY: CONSTITUTIONAL & PRUDENTIAL LIMITS ON FEDERAL JUDICIAL POWER A. Justiciability Rules Generally : Article III courts are only authorized to hear judicially cognizable disputes. In addition to the “case and controversy” limits set forth in Article III, the federal courts have developed a set of sub- constitutional factors – based on prudence – that dictate whether a dispute should be heard and/or decided. 1. Reasoning : Justiciability rules are based on separation of powers concerns and define what the court may hear and what the court must defer to other branches of the government. They also conserve judicial resources allowing the federal courts to focus their attention on the matters most deserving of review. Finally, they improve judicial decision-making by providing the federal courts with concrete controversies which will be zealously litigated for judicial resolution. B. Advisory Opinions : Federal courts will not issue advisory opinions . 1. Reasoning : (1) Separation of powers is maintained by keeping the courts out of the legislative process. The judicial role is limited to deciding actual disputes; it does not include giving advice to Congress or the President; (2) Judicial resources are conserved because advisory opinions might be requested in many instances in which the law ultimately would not pass the legislature; (3) Helps ensure that cases will be presented to the Court in terns of specific disputes , not as hypothetical legal questions . 2. TEST : In order for a case to be justiciable and not be an advisory opinion, two criteria must be met… (1) First, there must be an ACTUAL DISPUTE between adverse litigants AND (2) There must be a SUBSTANTIAL LIKELIHOOD that a federal court DECISION in favor of a claimant will bring about some CHANGE or have SOME EFFECT . 3. Declaratory Judgments : Congress adopted the Declaratory Judgment Act of 1934 , authorizing a federal court to issue a declaratory judgment in a “case or controversy within its jurisdiction.” Accordingly, declaratory judgments are justiciable so long as they meet the requirement for judicial review. Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Haworth (1937): The court upheld the constitutionality of the DJA. The Court stated that “where thee is such a concrete case admitting of an immediate and definitive determination of the legal rights of the parties in an adversary proceeding upon the facts alleged, the judicial function may be appropriately exercised although the adjudication of the rights of the litigants may not require the award of process or the payment of damages.” 4. Distinguish from State Courts : State courts are authorized to provide opinions about the constitutionality of pending legislation or on constitutional questions referred to them by other branches of government. This is
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 83 pages?