Also known as: case or controversy · cases and controversies · cases or controversies · case-or-controversy requirement · Article III case or controversy
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
2 senses
An Article III limitation that confines federal judicial power to actual disputes between adverse parties possessing concrete stakes in the outcome. Federal courts may not issue advisory opinions on hypothetical questions or unenforced statutes lacking any realistic threat of enforcement.
An Article III limitation that confines federal judicial power to actual disputes between adverse parties possessing concrete stakes in the outcome. Federal courts may not issue advisory opinions on hypothetical questions or unenforced statutes lacking any realistic threat of enforcement.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
The constitutional standard under which a federal court possessing original jurisdiction over one claim may hear additional claims that share a common nucleus of operative fact with the anchor claim and therefore form part of the same dispute.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
The constitutional standard under which a federal court possessing original jurisdiction over one claim may hear additional claims that share a common nucleus of operative fact with the anchor claim and therefore form part of the same dispute.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
The Cleveland Museum of Art sought a declaratory judgment invalidating a 1923 ordinance banning certain explicit displays. The ordinance had never been enforced in a century, city attorneys confirmed it would not be applied, and comparable exhibitions had received grants without incident. The district court lacks jurisdiction because the dispute presents no realistic threat of enforcement.
Taxpayers challenged federal expenditures for religious schools under a statute authorizing the spending. The plaintiffs alleged only that their tax dollars were being used unlawfully and asserted no personal injury distinct from that shared by all taxpayers. The court must determine whether the claimed injury satisfies the case or controversy requirement for standing.
A pregnant woman challenged a state criminal abortion statute that threatened prosecution of physicians who performed the procedure. She alleged that the statute directly constrained her ability to obtain an abortion and created an imminent injury. The court must decide whether her personal stake establishes a live case or controversy.
A political party challenged provisions of a federal campaign finance statute limiting certain expenditures. The party alleged that the restrictions chilled its planned speech and fundraising activities. The court must assess whether the claimed injury is sufficiently concrete and imminent to satisfy the case or controversy requirement.
A challenge fails when the statute has never been enforced, no realistic threat of enforcement exists, and the dispute remains hypothetical. Federal courts refuse to issue advisory opinions on dormant laws under these circumstances.
Supporting sources
No. A plaintiff must show an injury in fact that is concrete and particularized. A procedural violation alone, unaccompanied by actual or threatened harm, does not meet the case or controversy requirement.
Supporting sources
ByteGlow LLC sued Apex Systems Corp in federal court alleging federal copyright infringement from unauthorized copying of source code. In the same complaint ByteGlow added a state misappropriation claim arising from the identical episode of code theft and engineer poaching. The court may hear the state claim because both rest on the same factual nucleus.
SwiftHaul Logistics sued the Midstate Transportation Authority in federal court under a federal statute governing tollway freight access. SwiftHaul also asserted state claims for interference with contracts and unfair competition based on the authority steering customers to a rival. The federal court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims because they share the same course of conduct.
The state claim must share a common nucleus of operative fact with the federal anchor claim so that both form part of the same constitutional case or controversy. Claims arising from the same alleged conduct satisfy this standard.
Supporting sources
…failure, possible future pregnancy, and possible future unpreparedness for parenthood is too speculative to present an actual case or controversy. Pp. 127-129. (c) The physician-appellant Hallford, who is under two pending prosecutions for violating the Texas abortion laws, has standing to challenge the facial validity of those…