Also known as: case-or-controversy requirement · Article III case or controversy · cases and controversies · justiciability requirement · Article III standing
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A constitutional limit on federal judicial power that confines federal courts to actual disputes between adverse parties rather than hypothetical or abstract questions. The requirement demands a concrete and particularized injury in fact that is traceable to the defendant and redressable by a favorable judicial decision. Generalized grievances shared equally by all citizens fail to satisfy the limit even when Congress authorizes suit by statute.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Corinne Cho, a taxpayer in State A, sued federal officials alleging that a new statute authorizing expenditures violated the Appropriations Clause. She claimed only that the government had failed to follow the law and that all citizens shared her interest in lawful spending. The court dismissed the action because the asserted injury was not particularized to Cho.
Cody Callahan sued his employer in federal court under a federal wage statute for unpaid overtime on a single bridge project. The employer then asserted state-law counterclaims for defective workmanship against Callahan and a new engineering firm that had inspected the same project. The district court exercised authority over the state claims because they arose from the identical construction sequence and operative facts.
Cade Carpenter downloaded a mobile app that displayed more digits of his frequent-flyer number than permitted by federal privacy rules. He sued the app developer alleging only the statutory breach and identified no account access, identity theft, or financial loss. The court dismissed the complaint for lack of a concrete injury in fact.
Christopher Collins, a citizen of State A, filed a diversity action against a State B corporation seeking $90,000 in lost profits from a terminated supply contract. Two additional suppliers domiciled in State C asserted smaller state-law claims arising from the same termination decision under the identical prime contract. The district court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the additional claims once the anchor plaintiff satisfied the amount-in-controversy requirement and complete diversity existed.
Chloe Chen sued a manufacturer for alleged environmental violations under a citizen-suit provision and obtained a favorable district-court judgment. While the appeal was pending the manufacturer ceased the challenged conduct and entered a consent decree with the government. The appellate court dismissed the case because the plaintiff no longer satisfied the redressability element of the case-or-controversy requirement.
Claire Campbell, the attorney general of State A, sued a federal agency for failing to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions from new motor vehicles. The state alleged that rising sea levels threatened its coastal property and that the agency’s inaction caused that injury. The court held that the state satisfied the injury, causation, and redressability elements of the case-or-controversy requirement.
Article III demands an injury in fact that is both particularized and concrete. A bare statutory violation without any actual or threatened harm to the plaintiff is insufficient. Generalized grievances shared equally by all citizens likewise fail to confer standing.
Once a district court has original jurisdiction over one claim, it may hear additional claims that form part of the same case or controversy under Article III. The additional claims must share a common nucleus of operative fact with the anchor claim, and the exercise of jurisdiction must not violate statutory limitations such as those in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b).
…adequate safeguards against abuse), vacated, Lee v. Oregon , 107 F. 3d 1382 (CA9 1997) (concluding that plaintiffs lacked Article III standing). Lee , of course, is not before us, any more than it was before the Court of Appeals below, and we offer no opinion as to the validity of the Lee courts' reasoning. In Vacco v.…
…No. 45, p. 292 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (J. Madison). The judicial authority to determine the constitutionality of laws, in cases and controversies, is based on the premise that the "powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written." Marbury v.…
…all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III
…of the Constitution limits the "judicial power" to the resolution of "cases" and "controversies
…paint with a much broader brush than may this Court, which must confine itself to the judicial function of deciding individual
No. Congress may create statutory rights whose violation can satisfy the injury requirement, but it cannot eliminate the constitutional need for a concrete and particularized injury, causation, and redressability. A plaintiff must still demonstrate an actual injury even when a citizen-suit provision exists.
Yes. The case-or-controversy requirement applies at every stage, including appeal. If intervening events remove the plaintiff’s concrete stake, the action becomes nonjusticiable even if standing existed when the complaint was filed.