Environmental Law
Public Lands and Natural Resources Law
LACJR: January 31, 1996

Justiciability, Standing, Exhaustion, Ripeness, Mootness, etc.

Source: SEE Coggins, et al, 1993, Federal Public Land and Resources Law, pp. 254, 261-264.


The doctrines of justiciability, standing, ripeness and so on emanate from the "case or controversy" requirement of article III of the U.S. Constitution. (the Constitutional imperatives), and general principles of judicial administration (the Prudential principles).

Justiciability

For a case to be appropriate for judicial review it should be of a type that courts can resolve, ie.
  1. it is redressible by the court,
  2. it does not call for an advisory opinion, and;
  3. it does not involve political questions better left to the legislative branch of government,
  4. besides involving a real and substantial controversy (CONST. ART III)

Standing for individuals ("Persons")

Standing has to do with being a proper party. "Standing to sue" means that a party has sufficient stake in an otherwise justiciable controversy to assure concrete adverseness.

Constitutional Requirements

There must be:
  1. direct actual injury in fact, or imminent threat of injury in a personal or individual way;
  2. the injury must be traceable to the defendant's conduct (caused by it);
  3. the injury must be redressible by the court.

Prudential Concerns and Policies

  1. an injury/claimant must be within the zone of interests (rights) created or protected by law;
  2. no generalized grievances;
  3. no claims of third parties' rights

Standing for organizations

The action complained of must affect the organization as such and members of the club or organization must have standing in their own right to enable the organization to have standing. Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972). Today the Court seems to be restricting standing for environmental plaintiffs. See Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, 497 U.S. 871 (1990) .

Administrative Procedure Act (1946, as amended)

The Administrative Procedure Act authorizes actions against federal officers by "any person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute." 5. The agency action at issue must be "final agency action" Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, 497 U.S. 871 (1990). This legislation was aimed at breaking down Sovereign Immunity.

5 U.S.C.A.  702, 704

Absent Third Parties

If a party is necessary or indispensable to the action, ie. is needed for a complete determination of rights and responsibilities in the case, they must be made parties to the litigation.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 19.

Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

Plaintiffs must go through channels; ie, try to resolve their complaints with administrative agencies which have the power to resolve an issue, before it is appropriate to consume judicial resources. Must bring the cause of action in the administrative agency first when agency has exclusive jurisdiction over the matter; to protect comity between courts and agencies.

Primary Jurisdiction

If both courts and agency have jurisdiction, the administrative agency may have initial jurisdiction in order to clarify law/ rules before the case continues in federal court. Factual questions typically resolved by agencies; questions of law for the courts.

Foreclosure Rule

All factual and legal issues must be raised in the agency hearings by a plaintiff, otherwise he or she will be foreclosed from raising them in court. (flexible)

Laches

Is an equitable doctrine which punishes plaintiffs who delay in bringing their cases to court, ie. it is unfair to be negligent in complaining if the delay causes prejudice to the adverse party; a party seeking equity must "do "equity -- the doctrine is disfavored by courts in the public lands context because it would punish the public for the sins of private individuals.

Ripeness/ Mootness

The timing must be right to bring the issue before the court; ie. the case is at a mature stage and it is appropriate to hear it. On the other had a case cannot be moot (where a decision would be too late to make a difference). Federal courts require an actual, present controversy, and therefore will not act when the issue is only hypothetical (no advisory opinion rule) or the existence of a controversy is merely speculative.

The basic rationale of the ripeness doctrine, arising out of the courts' reluctance to apply declaratory judgment and injunctive remedies unless administrative determinations arise in the context of a controversy ripe for judicial resolution, is to prevent courts, through avoidance of premature adjudication, from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements over administrative policies, and also to protect the agencies from judicial interference until an administrative decision has been formalized and its effects felt in a concrete way by the challenging parties, and court is required to evaluate both fitness of issues for judicial decision and hardship to parties of withholding court consideration. Abbott Laboratories v. Garner, 387 U.S. 136, 87 S.Ct. 1507, 1515, 18 L.Ed.2d 681.

Source: Again, SEE Coggins, et al, 1993, Federal Public Land and Resources Law, pp. 254, 260-4.
Envtl Law page Public Lands page Lorn's home page