{"id":90,"date":"2011-04-15T11:48:20","date_gmt":"2011-04-15T15:48:20","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/miblaw.com\/lawschool\/?p=90"},"modified":"2011-08-17T17:38:46","modified_gmt":"2011-08-17T21:38:46","slug":"standing","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/standing\/","title":{"rendered":"Standing and the Justiciability Doctrine"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Justiciability Doctrine<\/strong> is a concept that students must fully understand in order to analyze issues in Constitutional law classes. The purpose of the Justiciability Doctrine is to encourage the separation of powers in our branches of government. The main question under the Justiciability Doctrine is: “What can the federal court hear?” and the answer to this question is not explicitly stated in<\/em> the Constitution but has been created by the courts.<\/p>\n

Article III, Section 2 states that “the judicial Power shall extend to all Cases…[and] to controversies.” The Supreme Court has inferred from this that a federal court will only hear “a case or controversy.” Although this inference may be relatively obvious, it does help accomplish the goal of the separation of powers. For example, the federal court will not do things such as give an advisory opinion to a branch of government because it would not arise out of a case or controversy.<\/p>\n

The question of standing <\/strong>is: “Who can take a case to court?” To answer this question, the plaintiff must meet three requirements:<\/p>\n

1. An injury in fact<\/p>\n