Also known as: case-or-controversy requirement · case or controversy requirement · case or controversy · Article III case or controversy · justiciability requirements
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An Article III limitation on federal judicial power that confines courts to concrete disputes between adverse parties possessing a personal stake in the outcome. The requirement bars advisory opinions on hypothetical questions and demands that any asserted injury be actual or imminent rather than conjectural.
Craig Caldwell sued Catherine Carter in federal court alleging that Carter copied his original play in violation of federal copyright law. Caldwell also asserted a state-law unfair competition claim arising from the same alleged copying and use of the play to obtain sponsorships. The district court exercised jurisdiction over both claims because they shared a common nucleus of operative facts.
Cobalt Energy sued Valley Rural in federal court for violating federal seed-labeling standards. Cobalt Energy also asserted state-law crop-damage and nuisance claims against two additional defendants whose conduct involved the identical seeds and distribution. The 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.
Charles Cunningham sought declaratory relief against a 1923 city ordinance that banned certain exhibition content. The ordinance had never been enforced in its century of existence, city attorneys confirmed in writing that it would not be applied, and comparable exhibitions had received city support without incident. The court dismissed the action for lack of a justiciable case or controversy.
Cameron Cruz, a pregnant woman, challenged a state criminal statute that prohibited her from obtaining an abortion. She alleged a direct and immediate injury from the statute's application to her own circumstances. The court held that she presented a live case or controversy sufficient to support standing.
Connor Clark and other candidates sued the Federal Election Commission to invalidate provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. They demonstrated that the provisions directly regulated their planned campaign activities and fundraising. The court found a concrete case or controversy existed because the statute imposed immediate compliance burdens on the plaintiffs.
Canyon Construction challenged an agency rule governing nuclear plant licensing procedures. The company argued that the agency had failed to follow required procedures when adopting the rule. The court reviewed the claim under the established framework for determining whether the dispute satisfied Article III requirements.
A challenge fails when the statute has never been enforced, no realistic threat of enforcement exists, and the dispute remains purely hypothetical. Federal courts will not issue advisory opinions on dormant laws that pose no actual threat to the parties.
Supporting sources
Supplemental jurisdiction exists when the state claim shares a common nucleus of operative facts with a federal claim so that both form part of the same constitutional case or controversy. The claims must arise from the same set of facts such that one would ordinarily expect them to be tried together.
Supporting sources
No. Article III requires an injury in fact that is concrete and particularized. A bare procedural violation of a statute, unaccompanied by any actual or imminent harm, does not create a justiciable case or controversy.
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…