10.3 Constitutional and Prudential Limitations on Judicial Power
5 min read•july 30, 2024
The judicial branch's power is constrained by constitutional and prudential limitations. These rules ensure courts only hear actual cases, maintain , and avoid overstepping their role in the government.
, , and the are key concepts. They determine which cases courts can hear, who can bring lawsuits, and what issues are best left to other branches, preserving the judiciary's legitimacy and authority.
Justiciability and Judicial Power
The Concept of Justiciability
Top images from around the web for The Concept of Justiciability
U. S. Courts: How do courts interpret contracts and laws? | United States Government View original
Is this image relevant?
SafeLibraries®: Violating Constitutional Separation of Powers is American Library Association's ... View original
Is this image relevant?
U. S. Courts: How do courts interpret contracts and laws? | United States Government View original
Is this image relevant?
SafeLibraries®: Violating Constitutional Separation of Powers is American Library Association's ... View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 2
Top images from around the web for The Concept of Justiciability
U. S. Courts: How do courts interpret contracts and laws? | United States Government View original
Is this image relevant?
SafeLibraries®: Violating Constitutional Separation of Powers is American Library Association's ... View original
Is this image relevant?
U. S. Courts: How do courts interpret contracts and laws? | United States Government View original
Is this image relevant?
SafeLibraries®: Violating Constitutional Separation of Powers is American Library Association's ... View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 2
Justiciability determines whether a case is suitable for judicial review and resolution by the courts
Derived from of the U.S. Constitution, which limits to actual "cases" or "controversies"
Acts as a threshold requirement that must be satisfied before a court can hear and decide a case on its merits
Plays a crucial role in maintaining the separation of powers and preventing on legislative and executive roles
Ensures courts only address and refrain from issuing or deciding hypothetical or abstract questions (e.g., a court cannot issue an opinion on the constitutionality of a proposed law before it is enacted)
The Importance of Justiciability in the Separation of Powers
Justiciability limitations help maintain the proper balance between the three branches of government (legislative, executive, and judicial)
Prevents the judiciary from overstepping its constitutional role and interfering with the functions of the other branches
Ensures that courts focus on resolving actual legal disputes rather than engaging in policymaking or political decision-making
Preserves the legitimacy and authority of the judicial branch by limiting its involvement in matters better suited for the political process
Encourages the resolution of certain issues through the democratic process and the actions of elected officials accountable to the public
Constitutional Limits on Judicial Power
The Case or Controversy Requirement
Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution limits federal court jurisdiction to "cases" and "controversies"
Mandates the existence of a between adverse parties before a court can exercise its
Prevents federal courts from issuing advisory opinions, which are non-binding statements on legal issues not presented in an actual case (e.g., a court cannot provide an opinion on the constitutionality of a proposed legislation at the request of a legislator)
Prohibits courts from deciding moot cases, where the legal dispute has been resolved or no longer has any (e.g., a case challenging the constitutionality of a law that has been repealed)
Ripeness and the Prohibition on Speculative Decision-Making
The requirement bars courts from hearing cases that are not ripe for adjudication
A case is not ripe when the legal dispute has not yet matured or become sufficiently concrete
Courts must avoid engaging in speculative or hypothetical decision-making based on potential future events or consequences
ensures that courts have a clear factual record and a fully developed legal dispute before rendering a decision
Prevents courts from issuing premature judgments that may have unintended or far-reaching implications (e.g., a court cannot decide on the constitutionality of a regulation before it has been finalized and implemented)
Prudential Limits on Judicial Power
The Standing Doctrine
Standing is a prudential limitation that requires a plaintiff to demonstrate a caused by the defendant's conduct, which can be redressed by a favorable court decision
Ensures that only parties with a direct stake in the outcome of a case can bring a lawsuit
Prevents courts from deciding cases based on or abstract interests (e.g., a taxpayer cannot challenge a government spending program simply because they disagree with it)
Plaintiffs must show that they have suffered or will imminently suffer an , not merely a hypothetical or speculative one
The injury must be fairly traceable to the defendant's actions and likely to be redressed by a favorable
Mootness and the Avoidance of Advisory Opinions
is a prudential limitation that bars courts from deciding cases where the legal dispute has been resolved or no longer has any practical significance
Prevents courts from issuing advisory opinions or deciding cases that will not have any real-world impact on the parties involved
A case becomes moot when the issues presented are no longer "live" or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome (e.g., a case challenging the constitutionality of a law becomes moot if the law is repealed during the litigation)
Exceptions to mootness include cases capable of repetition yet evading review (e.g., challenges to short-term government policies that expire before a case can be fully litigated) and voluntary cessation (e.g., a defendant voluntarily stops the challenged conduct but is likely to resume it in the future)
Political Question Doctrine
Defining the Political Question Doctrine
The doctrine is a justiciability limitation that restricts federal courts from hearing cases that involve issues best left to the (legislative and executive) for resolution
Rooted in the separation of powers principle and the belief that certain matters are more appropriately addressed by the political branches rather than the courts
When a court determines that a case presents a political question, it will decline to hear the case, leaving the matter to be resolved by the political branches
The doctrine helps maintain the balance of power between the branches of government and prevents the judiciary from overstepping its role by deciding inherently political issues
Factors Indicating the Presence of a Political Question
The Supreme Court has identified several factors that indicate the presence of a political question:
Textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department (e.g., the power to declare war is explicitly granted to Congress)
Lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving the issue (e.g., the court lacks clear legal standards to determine the validity of a foreign policy decision)
The impossibility of deciding the issue without an initial of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion (e.g., the court cannot decide the case without making a policy judgment that is better left to the political branches)
The impossibility of a court's undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of respect due to coordinate branches of government (e.g., the court's decision would imply a lack of respect for the decisions made by the legislative or executive branches)
An unusual need for to a political decision already made (e.g., the court's decision would undermine the finality of a political decision, such as the ratification of a constitutional amendment)
The potentiality of embarrassment from by various departments on one question (e.g., the court's decision could lead to conflicting statements or actions by different branches of government)
Examples of issues that have been considered political questions include foreign policy decisions (e.g., the recognition of foreign governments), the impeachment process (e.g., the House's decision to impeach a federal official), and the ratification of constitutional amendments (e.g., the validity of a state's ratification of an amendment)