Also known as: case or controversy requirement · case-or-controversy · case or controversy · Article III case or controversy
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
The constitutional requirement derived from Article III that a federal court may exercise jurisdiction only over an actual dispute between adverse parties with concrete stakes rather than a hypothetical or abstract question.
Cameron Cruz sued Continental Bank in federal court alleging federal copyright infringement over copied promotional materials. Cruz also asserted a state unfair competition claim arising from the same appropriation of the materials to secure sponsorships. The court exercised jurisdiction over the state claim because it shared the same operative facts as the federal claim.
Colin Chambers sued Cedar Creek Farms in federal court on a diversity claim for breach of a supply contract. Cedar Creek impleaded Crystal Dynamics for indemnity on related defects in the same project. Chambers then asserted a direct negligence claim against Crystal Dynamics. The court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over Chambers's claim against the impleaded party because it formed part of the same case or controversy.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Connor Clark sought declaratory relief against a municipal ordinance banning certain displays that the city had never enforced in a century. City attorneys assured Clark the ordinance would remain dormant and no enforcement action had ever occurred. The court dismissed the action for lack of a justiciable case or controversy.
Charles Cunningham and other plaintiffs sued Central Dynamics in federal court on diversity grounds. One plaintiff met the amount-in-controversy requirement while others fell short. The court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the additional plaintiffs' claims because they formed part of the same case or controversy.
Cecilia Cabrera, a pregnant woman, challenged a state criminal abortion statute in federal court. The court recognized her standing because she faced direct enforcement of the statute and therefore presented an actual case or controversy.
Carmen Choi and other political actors challenged provisions of federal campaign finance law. The court addressed the justiciability of their claims because the provisions imposed concrete restrictions creating an actual dispute suitable for judicial resolution.
The federal court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claim because it forms part of the same case or controversy under Article III.
A challenge is nonjusticiable when the statute has never been enforced, no realistic threat of enforcement exists, and the dispute remains hypothetical.
Congress cannot eliminate the Article III case-or-controversy requirement, though it may create statutory rights whose injury satisfies standing.
…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…