Also known as: case-or-controversy requirement · case or controversy requirement · cases and controversies requirement · case or controversy · Article III case or controversy
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A constitutional limitation on federal judicial power that restricts courts to deciding actual disputes between adverse parties possessing concrete stakes in the outcome. The requirement bars advisory opinions on hypothetical questions and demands that claims share a common nucleus of operative fact when supplemental jurisdiction is asserted over related state-law theories.
Colin Chambers sued Crystal Dynamics in federal court alleging federal copyright infringement after the company copied his unpublished manuscript. He also asserted a state-law unfair-competition claim arising from the identical acts of copying and distribution. The court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the state claim because both theories rested on the same set of facts.
Continental Bank sued Cascade Manufacturing in federal court on a diversity claim for breach of a supply contract. Cascade then impleaded Cedar Creek Farms for contribution on the same transaction. The court could hear the related state-law claims together because they formed part of the same case or controversy under Article III.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Craig Caldwell sought a declaratory judgment that a 1923 municipal ordinance banning certain artistic displays was unconstitutional. The city had never enforced the ordinance in a century and had assured the plaintiff in writing that it would not be applied. The court dismissed the action for lack of a justiciable case or controversy.
Christopher Collins and three other customers sued a retailer in federal court under diversity jurisdiction for overcharges on purchases. One plaintiff met the amount-in-controversy requirement while the others did not. The court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the smaller claims because they arose from the same transactions.
Cecilia Cabrera, a pregnant woman, challenged a state abortion statute in federal court. Two other plaintiffs alleged only possible future injury from contraceptive failure. The court held that only Cabrera presented a live case or controversy sufficient for standing.
Charles Cunningham and other asbestos claimants sought approval of a global class settlement in federal court. The proposed class included future claimants who had not yet manifested injury. The court refused approval because the absent class members did not present a ripe case or controversy.
A federal court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction when the state claim forms part of the same case or controversy as a claim within the court's original jurisdiction. This occurs when the claims share a common nucleus of operative fact so that a plaintiff would ordinarily expect to try them together.
A challenge to an unenforced statute is nonjusticiable when there is no realistic threat of enforcement and the dispute remains hypothetical. Federal courts will not issue advisory opinions on dormant laws that pose no actual risk to the parties.
Yes. Even when original jurisdiction rests on diversity, the state claims must still form part of the same Article III case or controversy. Section 1367(b) may additionally bar supplemental jurisdiction over certain claims by plaintiffs against nondiverse parties joined under Rules 14, 19, 20, or 24.
…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…