Also known as: cases or controversies · case-or-controversy · case-or-controversy requirement · Article III case or controversy
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A constitutional limitation on the judicial power of the federal courts that restricts their authority to actual disputes between adverse parties possessing concrete stakes in the outcome. The requirement bars advisory opinions on hypothetical or abstract questions and ensures that courts resolve live controversies capable of judicial redress.
Charlotte Chung sued Cypress Technologies in federal court for copyright infringement over the unauthorized use of her software code. She added a state unfair competition claim arising from the same code appropriation that allegedly diverted clients. The court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the state claim because it shared the same operative facts as the federal claim.
Cody Callahan sued Valley Rural in federal court under a federal seed-labeling statute. He joined state-law nuisance claims against two neighboring farms whose cross-pollination damaged his crops from the same seeds. The district court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims because they formed part of the same constitutional case or controversy.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Claire Campbell and other physicians sued Arkansas to invalidate a long-dormant state rule criminalizing contraception counseling. No enforcement had occurred in decades and the health department had issued no recent guidance referencing the rule. The federal court dismissed the action for lack of a justiciable case or controversy.
Cade Carpenter and other tenants sued the Village of Belle Terre after receiving eviction notices under a local zoning ordinance limiting household composition. Several tenants vacated the property before the appeal reached the Supreme Court. The Court noted that the departure raised a serious question whether a live case or controversy still existed.
Cobalt Energy sued several defendants in federal court on diversity grounds. One plaintiff failed to meet the amount-in-controversy threshold. The Supreme Court held that supplemental jurisdiction under section 1367 still permitted the court to hear the claim because it formed part of the same case or controversy as the claims that satisfied the jurisdictional minimum.
Canyon Construction challenged an NRC licensing rule in federal court after the agency denied its permit application. The court of appeals had ordered further agency proceedings under a new standard. The Supreme Court recognized that a live case or controversy existed between the company and the agency over whether the new rule must be applied to the existing license.
It prohibits federal courts from issuing advisory opinions on abstract or hypothetical questions. Courts may decide only live disputes between adverse parties who have suffered or face imminent concrete injury.
Supporting sources
Section 1367(a) authorizes supplemental jurisdiction over claims that form part of the same case or controversy under Article III. Related state claims sharing a common nucleus of operative fact with a federal claim satisfy this constitutional threshold.
Supporting sources
A challenge is nonjusticiable when the statute has never been enforced and poses no realistic threat of enforcement. The dispute then remains hypothetical and federal courts will not issue advisory opinions on dormant laws.
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…