....Standing, mootness and ripeness are foundational principles of jurisprudence. For any case to be justiciable:
1. The challenger must have standing;
2. The case must be ripe for decision; and
3. The case cannot be moot.
I could go into more detail, and I will if you or others reading this would like.
If you don't mind it would be appreciated.....
Very well. I'm a little short on time today, but I'll give you a quick overview. We have to start with Article III:
Founding Fathers said:
Section 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. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section 2. 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, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.....
U.S. Const. art. III (edited by Spats for brevity)
Standing:
The legally protectible stake or interest that an individual has in a dispute that entitles him to bring the controversy before the court to obtain judicial relief.
Note that I've underlined a couple of things in my constitutional quote, and I want to boil this down to some shorthand. Let's say "The judicial power of federal courts shall extend to cases and controversies, as follows: . . . . " That leads us to a couple of conclusions:
(1) that federal courts decide
cases and controversies, period. Someone has to have a legally cognizable interest at stake, and someone else has to be trying to take that away, or at least threatening to. Money, freedom, property, those kinds of things. Someone has to have actual skin in the game.
(2) That, because of #1 above, our courts do not offer advisory opinions. (This is one of the reasons our legislatures do not and cannot just ship their bills over to their respective supreme courts to determine constitutionality prior to enactment.)
Personally, I love a good standing argument. If you win, it cuts the other side off at the knees. Game over. To put it in legalese:
SCOTUS said:
Over the years, our cases have established that the irreducible constitutional minimum of standing contains three elements. First, the plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in fact”—an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, .... and (b) “actual or imminent, not ‘conjectural’ or ‘hypothetical,’ ” . . . . Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of—the injury has to be “fairly ... trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant, and not ... th[e] result [of] the independent action of some third party not before the court.” .... Third, it must be “likely,” as opposed to merely “speculative,” that the injury will be “redressed by a favorable decision.” Id., at 38, 43, 96 S.Ct., at 1924, 1926.....
Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 2136, 119 L. Ed. 2d 351 (1992)(edited by Spats for brevity)
So, to summarize: (a) the plaintiff has to have a concrete injury, either actual or imminent; (b) caused by the defendant; and (c) which can be cured by a successful court challenge. If one of those elements is missing, BOOT -- out of court, case dismissed.
Mootness: A case can't be "moot." In other words, if conditions have changed such that the controversy can't be resolved through litigation, or perhaps conditions have changed such that the case has effectively resolved itself, the case has resolved itself, then the case is "moot." All of the questions involved essentially become theoretical or academic questions. As an example, let's say that the State of AR refused to issue me a CHCL. I meet all of the requirements and have paid all of the fees. I file suit and the State then issues me a CHCL. The case is moot and can be dismissed. Other examples that should be familiar to all of us in the gun community are those in which the various State defendants change their law a little, then argue that the case is moot and should be dismissed. (
I'm looking at you, Chicago and New York!)
Ripeness: A case has to be "ripe" for judicial decision before it can go forward. To put it as best I can, the case or controversy has to have "solidified" so that the issues can be decided. For example, let's say that someone seeking their Arkansas CHCL doesn't get theirs in the first 20 days after application. Well, there's a good chance that their background check hasn't been run, and that no decision has been made by the Arkansas State Police. Even if they are denied, they can appeal to the Arkansas Circuit Courts, on up to the Arkansas appellate courts. So filing suit on that 21st day .... the case isn't ripe at that juncture. It's been a long time since I argued ripeness in a court, so I'm a little rusty on this one.
Hope this is of some help.
