Also known as: case and controversy · cases or controversies · case or controversy · case or controversy clause · Article III
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
The constitutional limitation restricting federal judicial power to actual disputes between adverse parties who possess concrete stakes in the outcome. This requirement bars federal courts from issuing advisory opinions on hypothetical questions or generalized grievances shared by the public at large.
ByteGlow LLC sued Apex Systems Corp in federal court alleging federal copyright infringement over stolen source code. In the same complaint ByteGlow added a state-law misappropriation claim arising from the identical episode of copying and engineer poaching. The federal court may hear the state claim because both rest on the same nucleus of operative fact.
HarborNav sued Oceanic Lines in federal court for copyright infringement over unauthorized use of voyage-planning charts. HarborNav also asserted a state unfair-competition claim based on repackaging those same charts into paid courses. The district court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claim because the two share a common nucleus of operative fact.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A group of citizens sued a federal agency alleging that it failed to follow statutory procedures in issuing permits. The plaintiffs asserted only a general interest in lawful government action shared by all members of the public. The court dismissed the suit because the plaintiffs failed to allege any concrete and particularized injury.
Point Media filed for bankruptcy and asked the Article I bankruptcy court to enter final judgment on a prepetition state-law breach-of-contract claim against a private advertising network. The claim arose from unpaid revenue-sharing fees and did not involve any public rights. The assignment of this traditional private dispute to a non-Article III tribunal violates the case-or-controversy requirement.
A plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment that a state criminal statute was unconstitutional. The statute had never been enforced against the plaintiff or anyone else, and no realistic threat of enforcement existed. The federal court dismissed the action because the dispute remained hypothetical and presented no live case or controversy.
A consumer sued a company alleging a procedural violation of a federal privacy statute. The complaint contained no allegation of any actual or threatened concrete injury beyond the statutory breach itself. The court held that the plaintiff lacked standing because a bare procedural violation does not satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement.
A federal court with original jurisdiction over the federal claim may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the related state claim because both form part of the same constitutional case or controversy.
Supporting sources
No. Article III requires a concrete and particularized injury. An interest shared equally by all citizens does not satisfy the case-or-controversy requirement.
Supporting sources
No. Assigning state-law contract claims between private parties wholesale to non-Article III tribunals violates the constitutional limitation to cases and controversies.
Supporting sources
A challenge is nonjusticiable when the statute has never been enforced, no realistic threat of enforcement exists, and the dispute remains purely hypothetical.
Supporting sources
No. A plaintiff must show a concrete and particularized injury. A purely procedural violation without actual or threatened harm does not satisfy Article III.
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…