This one looks useful:
class.lls.edu
>>
THE JUSTICIABILITY DOCTRINES
Text Assist
"Article III, SoP, and related factors"
The justiciability doctrines limit judicial review by the federal courts. Their origin is in Article III of the constitution. In Art. III §2 the constitution
states, "the judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this constitution, the laws of the United States, and Treaties
made….to controversies to which the United States shall be a party…" The case and controversy requirement is a constitutional limitation on when a
federal court can hear a specific case. The justiciability doctrines are judicially made doctrines which have interpreted this textual limitation in Art.
III §2 by developing the following doctrines to ensure that matters resolved in federal courts are of the type that federal judges commonly decide.
Separation of Powers (SoP) concerns arise when it is not evident which branch of the government has the authority to act. For example, the
justiciability doctrines limit the possibility of usurpation, of unnecessary judicial review and conflicts with political branches. Often times when a case
is non-justiciabile, the reason is because another branch of the government has the authority to resolve the matter.
Other related factors include prudent judicial administration. Sometimes, under Art. III a matter may be justiciabile, but, the court may feel that for
policy reasons it should decline judicial review. These rules are not derived from the constitution, but were enacted as means of narrowing the
possible disputes that a federal court can decide to maintain judicial efficiency and fairness.
"Subject Matter Jurisdiction"
The subject matter of the case or controversy further limits the federal courts capabilities of review. Under Art III, §1, "The judicial power of the
United States, shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish". As
such, Congress has a say in the judicial process by prescribing courts where certain categories of case or controversies can be heard as listed in Art
III, §2 based on the nature of the case or the parties to the case.
This reflects Separation of Powers concerns because Congress has a check in the judicial process by having the power to narrow the jurisdiction of
the lower federal courts.
............................
"Political Question"
Sometimes when the constitution is violated, the judiciary is not the branch that is most able to resolve the controversy. The Supreme Court has said
that certain matters are political in nature and best resolved by the appropriate branch in the political process, either the Congress or the President.
It is justified on the grounds that disallows the federal judiciary to getting involved in controversial political issues by minimizing judicial intrusion into
other branches of the government. For instance, the executive branch has the most expertise in foreign affairs and would be most adapt to settle a
controversy in this area. Many people disagree on the effectiveness of the doctrine because they feel that the judiciary is the best place to resolve
controversial issues because it is insulated from majoritarian concerns. Some believe that if cases are otherwise justiciable, the case should be heard.
However, the fact remains that under some circumstances, certain issues of constitutionality may not be judicially enforceable and the resolution of
these issues must be referred to the appropriate political branch.
Box 8 "Judicial Restraint"
One of the two sources of the judicial rules for federal court adjudication are rules based on prudent judicial administration. Therefore, judicial
restraint is a form of policy which the court has used to justify their reluctance to review certain cases and this reluctance is termed "prudential"
because it is based on prudent policy concerns. The difference between the judicial rules based on Article III requirements is that Congress can enact
statutes to override the prudential restrictions. In other words, the court can use a particular policy based on their prudence in hearing decisions, and
if the Congress does not like it, they can enact a statute to bar that prudential standing rule. (See Warth v. Seldin)
.........................
Box 20 "Separation of powers"
When an issue places the court into conflict with another branch of government, there is a separation of power concern. The political question
doctrine allows a court to avoid controversial constitutional questions but also allocates decisions to the branches of government that have superior
expertise in resolving the issues. Therefore, separation of powers is maintained as long as the court does not interfere with resolving issues that are
allocated to other branches of the government.<< |
