Justiciability
← Previous lesson
Next lesson →
Constitutional Law · Lesson 01
Justiciability
這一課問的是：聯邦法院能否聽審本案？或被 standing / ripeness / mootness / political question 擋下？
Actor
Act
Object
Standard
Consequence
Visual Scene · the picture in your head
Issue. May a federal court hear this case — or does standing, ripeness, mootness, or the political-question doctrine bar review?
這一課問的是：聯邦法院能否聽審本案？或被 standing / ripeness / mootness / political question 擋下？
Core Terminology · 7 must-know
Tap a card to flip and reveal the meaning.
justiciability
Tap to see meaning
Doctrines that determine whether a federal court may hear a case.
可審理性。
standing
Tap to see meaning
Plaintiff must show injury-in-fact, causation, and redressability.
訴訟資格：事實傷害+因果+可救濟。
injury-in-fact
Tap to see meaning
Concrete, particularized, actual or imminent harm.
事實傷害。
ripeness
Tap to see meaning
Bars premature claims; issues must be sufficiently developed.
熟成度。
mootness
Tap to see meaning
Bars review when controversy no longer exists.
失去爭點。
political question
Tap to see meaning
Issues constitutionally committed to other branches.
政治問題。
capable of repetition
Tap to see meaning
Mootness exception for inherently short-duration claims.
可重複而避失爭點。
Issue · what this lesson is really about
May a federal court hear this case — or does standing, ripeness, mootness, or the political-question doctrine bar review?
這一課問的是：聯邦法院能否聽審本案？或被 standing / ripeness / mootness / political question 擋下？
Trigger words & phrases that should flag this issue:
standinginjurylikely to recurpolitical questionripemootredressability
Expression Bank · how lawyers actually say it
Six function → sentence patterns. Use these in essay applications.
| Function | English sentence | 中文 |
|---|---|---|
| Apply standing | P must show injury-in-fact, traceable to D, and redressable by the court. | P 須證 standing 三要件。 |
| Apply ripeness | The threatened harm is sufficiently concrete and imminent. | 威脅之傷害已足夠具體。 |
| Apply mootness | Where issues are capable of repetition yet evading review, mootness does not bar. | 可重複但難審查，例外不失爭點。 |
| Apply political question | Textual commitment to a coordinate branch + lack of judicially manageable standards. | 文本委諸他部門 + 缺乏可管理標準。 |
| State result | The federal court may (or may not) reach the merits. | 因此聯邦法院能（不能）審本案實體。 |
Rule Sentence · the workhorse
A federal court may hear a case only if it is justiciable — the plaintiff has standing (injury-in-fact, causation, redressability), the claim is ripe and not moot, and the matter is not a non-justiciable political question.
Sentence Anatomy · 5 roles, 5 colors
Every rule sentence breaks into five visual roles.
Actor 行為人plaintiff invoking federal jurisdiction援用聯邦管轄之原告
Act 行為asserting a claim主張權利
Object 對象federal-court adjudication聯邦法院判決
Standard 法律標準standing + ripeness + non-moot + non-PQ可審理四檢
Consequence 後果court reaches the merits, or dismisses實體審理 或 駁回
Casebook Snapshot · a real American case
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife
Holding. To establish standing, a plaintiff must show (1) injury-in-fact that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; (2) a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of; and (3) likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. Speculative "someday" intentions to revisit endangered-species habitats abroad are insufficient.
Why it matters. Lujan is the modern standing case — the three-part test is constitutional, not statutory, and not subject to legislative override.
Lujan 為現代 standing 三要件之根本判決。
Common Mistakes · what trips students
✗ 「我關心這個議題」就有 standing。
✓ Generalized grievance is not injury-in-fact.
一般化關切不構成事實傷害。
✗ 一旦案件 moot，永遠不能審。
✓ Several mootness exceptions exist (capable of repetition, voluntary cessation, etc.).
失爭點有多項例外。
✗ Political question 等於「政治話題」。
✓ Tied to Baker v. Carr factors, not subject matter.
以 Baker v. Carr 因素判定，非主題。
✗ standing 只看 injury。
✓ Causation and redressability are equally required.
因果與可救濟同樣必要。
Mini IRAC · build the Application
Issue. Does an environmental organization have standing to challenge a federal rule narrowing the Endangered Species Act, where its members allege they have visited foreign habitats in the past and intend to return "someday"?
Rule. Article III standing requires injury-in-fact that is concrete and particularized, traceable to the defendant, and redressable by the court.
Application (model). The organization's members alleged past visits to foreign endangered-species habitats and a "someday" intent to return. Because injury-in-fact must be concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent, the fact that the members offered no concrete plans, dates, or tickets to return means the alleged future harm is too speculative to qualify as imminent injury-in-fact.
Pick the right element for each blank:
g1.
g2.
g3.
Conclusion. Therefore, the organization lacks Article III standing, and the federal court cannot reach the merits.
MBE Check · multiple choice
A school board adopts a new curriculum. A taxpayer who does not have children in the schools sues, claiming the curriculum is unconstitutional. Does the taxpayer have standing?
Mini Essay · write the Application paragraph
Facts. P, a state legislator, sues a federal agency to block a rule on environmental grounds. P alleges the rule injures "the State of [X] and all its citizens generally" and creates "long-term harm to the planet." P alleges no specific injury to himself.
Call. Does P have standing to sue in federal court?
Practice Drill · tap to build the rule
Drop the chips here in correct order:
Tap chips to add → tap chips in the target to remove: