Other justiciability doctrines: ripeness, mootness, and advisory opinions - Next Generation Bar Exam

1. Under Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, what two factors determine whether a claim is ripe?

   The fitness of the issues for judicial decision and the hardship to the parties of withholding review. Purely legal questions and immediate compliance burdens favor ripeness.

2. A student challenges a high school's dress code in an individual suit but graduates before the court decides the case. What is the likely ruling?

   The case is dismissed as moot. The student no longer faces the policy, and the case is not a certified class action.

3. Under Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, what supports a pre-enforcement challenge to a statute?

   An intention to engage in arguably protected conduct the statute proscribes and a credible threat of enforcement. A plaintiff need not first violate the law and risk prosecution.

4. Why do collateral consequences keep a criminal defendant's challenge alive after the sentence is served?

   The conviction's continuing legal consequences preserve a live controversy. Courts presume collateral consequences from a criminal conviction.

5. What does the mootness doctrine require?

   A live controversy at every stage of the litigation, including on appeal. If events eliminate the dispute, the case must be dismissed.

6. Under Rucho v. Common Cause, what is the justiciability of partisan gerrymandering claims in federal court?

   They present nonjusticiable political questions. The Court found no judicially manageable standard for deciding how much partisanship is too much.

7. When does a defendant's voluntary cessation of challenged conduct moot a case?

   Only when it is absolutely clear that the conduct cannot reasonably be expected to recur. The defendant bears a heavy burden to show mootness.

8. What is the effect on a certified class action when the named plaintiff's own claim becomes moot?

   The class action continues. The certified class has a legal status separate from the named plaintiff.

9. Under Nixon v. United States (1993), what is the justiciability of a challenge to the Senate's impeachment trial procedures?

   It is a nonjusticiable political question. The Constitution commits the trial of impeachments to the Senate.

10. Why may federal courts not issue advisory opinions?

    Article III limits the judicial power to actual cases and controversies. Federal courts decide concrete disputes between adverse parties, not abstract legal questions.

11. What are the requirements of the exception for disputes capable of repetition yet evading review?

    The action is too short to be fully litigated, and the same complaining party reasonably expects to face it again. Challenges to pregnancy-related laws and short election rules commonly fit the exception.

12. Under Baker v. Carr, what are the leading markers of a nonjusticiable political question?

    A textual commitment of the issue to another branch, or a lack of judicially manageable standards. Other factors include the need for policy determinations and respect for coordinate branches.

Study these flashcards