A state legislature passes a bill that the governor believes to be unconstitutional. Before the bill takes effect, the governor files suit in a federal district court asking the court to declare the bill unconstitutional. Which of the following best explains why the court is likely to dismiss the case?
Federal courts may consider the potential future impact of the bill and therefore have jurisdiction.
The issue is not ripe because the bill has not yet been implemented.
The governor lacks standing to challenge the bill.
Federal courts are constitutionally forbidden from issuing advisory opinions and can act only when a real case or controversy exists.
Federal courts are limited by Article III to actual cases or controversies. A request to declare legislation unconstitutional before anyone is subject to or harmed by it seeks an advisory opinion rather than resolution of a concrete dispute. Because an advisory opinion is outside the court's power, the action will be dismissed. The governor's request therefore fails for lack of a live controversy, not merely because of standing or ripeness considerations.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What are advisory opinions in the context of the judiciary?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What does 'case or controversy' mean in legal terms?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
Why is standing important for a government official to challenge legislation?