Justiciability in the United States

Justiciability Principles

United States Supreme Court Cases

In the United States v. Windsor, the Supreme Court held that it was constitutional error for Congress to enact section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (1 U.S.C. § 7) depriving the states and the people of authority to define when “two become one.” Yet understanding how the equal protection clause protects all of us against the arbitrary denial of a government benefit merely follows the Court’s precedent in Romer v. Evans (517 U.S. 620 (1996)). The opinion in Windsor breaks no new ground, and appropriately restated the principles announced in Romer; indeed, Justice Anthony Kennedy authored the majority opinion in both cases. The Court did not establish same-sex marriage in Windsor or a constitutional right to same, for to do so would assert knowledge the justices do not possess and displace the democratic means historically exercised by every state over matters of marriage and family law.

The decision overturning the Ninth Circuit in the Proposition 8 case (Hollingsworth v. Perry, 133 S.Ct. 2652 (2013)) was a similarly narrow, yet powerful, restatement of the Court’s adherence to justiciability principles, especially the requirement of tangible, personalized standing. After the trial court (per District Judge Vaughn R. Walker) had enjoined Prop. 8, which limited marriage to a man and a woman, the governor and attorney general of California declined to appeal. Although California law allows the proponents of a ballot initiative to step up when officials decline the law’s defense (see Perry v. Brown, 52 Cal. 4th 1116 (2011)), Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for a majority that spanned the Court’s full ideological spectrum (including Justices Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Antonin Scalia) resolved that the California practice failed to satisfy the personal stake and adversity demanded by Article III.

Many substantive temptations were laid before the justices in the Perry case. The opposing briefs debated the procreative purposes of marriage and other claims for the institution that are of unquestioned importance to the larger culture and the proper manifestation of human love. These questions have many implications, and many are in turn deeply rooted in differing faith traditions. The Court astutely said next to nothing about how reconciliation might be achieved among such disparate views. That is not the Court’s job, as umpire Roberts has repeatedly made plain. Indeed, as John G. Roberts Jr. sees it, the Chief’s duty is to keep the Court from opining about difficult and controversial policy questions, and like Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist before him, Roberts deploys the separation of powers – and most notably standing – to stay inside the foul lines. Again, very little is new here, although the Court issued a polite reminder that however noble a principled declination to defend a law perceived to be hurtful to the body politic may be, such refusals by the California and federal executive “complicate” and strain the constitutional balance. The federal executive has the express responsibility to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” (U.S. Const., Art. II, § 3, cl. 5), so indulging selective enforcement too readily will weaken respect for the law in general and obviously invite a greater likelihood of unequal treatment.

United States Constitution

According to the Encyclopedia of the American Constitution, about its article titled JUSTICIABILITY Federal judges do not establish legal norms at will or on demand, but only when deciding cases that are justiciable, that is, appropriate for federal court decision. What makes a case justiciable is thus itself an important threshold question, because it determines whether a federal
(read more about Constitutional law entries here).

Some Constitutional Law Popular Entries

Justiciability (Civil Procedure)

This section introduces, discusses and describes the basics of justiciability. Then, cross references and a brief overview about Civil Procedurein relation to justiciability is provided. Note that a list of bibliography resources and other aids appears at the end of this entry.

Justiciability