Article III standing overview:-This is our first discussion of the judicial power since early semester-It sets the stage for our discussion of individual rights starting next class -Together, Article II’s salary and tenure protections and Article LL’s political appointments process define the judiciary’s representational relationship with the people. It is not electorally or financially dependent on any popular constituency -Article III’s “case or controversy” requirement defines the SCOPE of the power exercised by this politically insulated institution -Article III limits the federal courts to deciding cases and controversies-This means federal courts cannot issue advisory opinions; they can only decide concrete disputes means for this purpose is Article III-The only plaintiffs with “standing” to challenge government action are those who have been injured in some way that sets them apart from the genera population -The principal purpose of this requirement is to prevent courts from deciding mere ideological grievances that would give political losers a second bite at the apple -Instead, federal courts are limited to adjudicating claims of individuals who have been singled out in some special way and could thus not expect a fair hearing in democratic politics process-By contrast, only decisions that single our particular individuals for special burdens or harm may properly be second-guessed in courts -3 requirements of standing are well established:1.Injury in fact; 2.Causation/traceability;3.Redressability -But all raise difficult and controversial questions of degree Clapper v Amnesty International Section 1881a of the FISA Amend mend of 2008:AG and director of national intelligence can authorize surveillance of non-US persons reasonablybelieved to be outside the US Subject to…supervision by FISA Court Reading Q:Who may ask a federal court for an advisory opinion? no oneWhat role does Article III play in maintaining the separation of powers? It limits the courts to remedying "particularized" harms, leaving general ideological grievances to the political process.Why does the Supreme Court seldom stray too far from the views of popular majorities? Fears of political backlash, budget cuts, and increased caseloads generally cause Supreme Court justices to adhere to the views of popular majorities over the long run.Overview Activity:Which of the following best captures the question of institutional choice in this case? Whetherthe courts or the political process is best suited to deciding the extent of permissible foreign intelligence surveillance.