Also known as: case or controversy · case-or-controversy requirement · Article III case or controversy · justiciability
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A constitutional limitation requiring federal courts to adjudicate only concrete disputes between adverse parties with actual stakes in the outcome. The requirement bars advisory opinions on hypothetical questions and ensures that any ruling will affect the rights of the litigants.
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 misappropriation claim based on the identical code theft and engineer poaching. The court exercised jurisdiction over the state claim because it shared the same factual core as the federal claim.
HarborNav sued Oceanic Lines in federal court on a federal copyright claim for unauthorized use of voyage charts. HarborNav also pleaded a state unfair-competition claim arising from the same charts being repackaged into training courses. The district court could hear the state claim because it formed part of the same constitutional dispute.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Red Community petitioned for a declaratory judgment striking down a municipal ban on evening door-to-door solicitations. The city had never enforced the ordinance and routinely approved evening fundraising walks. The federal court dismissed the action because no realistic threat of enforcement existed.
Taxpayers sued federal officials alleging that expenditures for religious schools violated the Establishment Clause. The plaintiffs claimed a direct injury from the use of their tax dollars. The court permitted the suit to proceed because the challenge satisfied the case-or-controversy requirement.
Multiple plaintiffs joined a diversity suit against a single defendant even though some individual claims fell below the amount-in-controversy threshold. One plaintiff satisfied the jurisdictional amount. The court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims because they formed part of the same dispute.
Same-sex couples sued state officials seeking recognition of their marriages. State law still barred recognition at the time of filing. The Supreme Court resolved the dispute because an actual controversy existed between the parties over enforceable rights.
It prevents federal courts from issuing advisory opinions on hypothetical or abstract questions. Courts may act only when a concrete dispute between adverse parties with actual stakes exists.
Supporting sources
When a federal claim supplies original jurisdiction, related state claims that share a common nucleus of operative fact form part of the same constitutional dispute. The statute therefore permits the federal court to hear those additional claims.
Supporting sources
A challenge is nonjusticiable when the statute has never been enforced and no realistic threat of enforcement exists. The dispute then amounts to a request for an advisory opinion on a dormant law.
Supporting sources
No. A plaintiff must still show a concrete and particularized injury in fact that is traceable to the defendant and redressable by the court. Statutory authorization alone does not eliminate these Article III minima.
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…