In a case or controversy, there must be an injured plaintiff. The injured plaintiff requirement to prove that there is an existing injury or damage is a key requirement of the standing doctrine of the court. The reason why issues that were not raised by both parties should be resolved is that standing doctrine is necessary to establish the jurisdiction of the court. The law requires that a plaintiff must prove the injury-in-fact, that the injury under controversy is justifiably traceable to the challenged action of the defendant, and that the injury or damage could be decided by a favorable decision.
A caveat is that if a decision of a state court follows on the independent and adequate state grounds, the result of the case would remain unchanged even if the federal court decided otherwise. Justiceability means the capability of a text to take effect as a legitimate rule or to make legal effects. In many jurisdictions, justifiability of a case depends on the way a plaintiff proves an existing injury or damage.
If the injury or damage cannot be proved by the plaintiff and there is no showing that there is injury-in-fact, then justifiability of an action is not accepted. Advisory opinions are also released by the court but do not have the effect of deciding a particular court case or controversy, but purely advises on the constitutionality or interpretation of a legitimate rule. Advisory opinions have no bearing in a given lawsuit as it only explains a particular issue of such case.
The law of the United States substantially provides that if a matter in question is a political question it means that there is a need of coordination with a branch of the federal government as committed by the constitution, the standard is not adequate for the court of law to apply and that it is not prudent for the court to encroach judgments. A lawsuit is not considered ripe for litigation if it rests upon contingent future events that may not happen as expected or in truth may not occur at all. Ripeness then is defined as a readiness of a lawsuit for trial or hearing.
The United States law provides that a lawsuit is considered moot or academic if future lawful processes with respect to the same can have no effect, or events have placed it beyond the reach of the law. Hence, any matter that is considered moot has been deprived of significance in any setting. Standing is otherwise known as locus standi which means the capability of a party to prove to the courts of justice adequate link to and harm from the law or suit challenged to maintain that party’s participation in the case.
A person can only question the constitutionality of a law if he can prove that he could be affected of the law being questioned. Congressional Power over Federal Court Jurisdiction was designed to strike a proper balance between the need for an independent federal judiciary to enforce supreme federal law and the competing need to ensure political control over the judiciary. Supreme Court Jurisdiction
The jurisdiction of the highest judicial body is stated in Article III of the Constitution which states as “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects” (Cornell Education, 2008, p. 1). Jurisdiction is a power of the court to hear or decide a case. Subject matter jurisdiction basically provides that whether a federal court can rule on the subject matter of a case. An example of this principle is a probate of will case wherein it can only be decided by the court a quo.
A federal question jurisdiction means that federal courts will process trial of cases that involve questions pointing on the constitution or other federal rules or laws. Diversity jurisdiction means that federal law also authorizes federal courts to try and decide lawsuits wherein the opposing parties belong to different states. Pendent and Ancillary Jurisdiction Pendent jurisdiction is a joint cause of action arises out of the common nucleus of operative facts as a cause of action with an independent source of federal jurisdiction while ancillary jurisdiction means that it is a joint cause of action which arises out of the common nucleus of operative facts as a cause of action with an independent source of federal jurisdiction.