Alan B. Morrison
92 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. Arguendo 1
Article III of the Constitution limits the power of the federal courts to adjudicating cases and controversies. Embedded in that concept are the separate and sometimes overlapping doctrines of standing, ripeness, political question, mootness, and the overall responsibility of the courts to assure both that they are deciding legal issues only where there are real parties with an actual dispute between them and that a court is the proper institution to resolve it. That proposition is not in dispute, but, as Biden v. Nebraska demonstrates, its application to particular cases is very much a source of disagreement.
Traditionally, the Supreme Court has been quite strict on standing, in my view more so than is necessary or appropriate in some cases. But under the Roberts Court, these barriers have come down, at least in those cases where the conservative majority wishes to reach the merits. That change has not been across the board, and its selectivity is one of its problems. From the perspective of this observer, under the Roberts Court, the requirements of Article III are relaxed when the majority is eager to decide a case that enables the conservative majority to do what it did in Nebraska: issue a decision that is consistent with its policy preferences.
