Ripeness

For the fruit process, see Ripening.

United States Federal civil procedure doctrines

Justiciability
Advisory opinions
Standing · Ripeness · Mootness
Political questions
Jurisdiction
* Subject-matter jurisdiction:
Federal question jurisdiction
Diversity jurisdiction
Removal jurisdiction
Amount in controversy
* Personal jurisdiction:
Jurisdiction in rem
Minimum contacts
Federalism
Erie doctrine · Abstention
Sovereign immunity · Abrogation
Rooker-Feldman doctrine
Adequate and independent state ground
[edit this template]

In United States law, ripeness refers to the readiness of a case for litigation; for example, if a law of ambiguous quality has been enacted but never applied, a case challenging that law lacks the ripeness necessary for a decision. Ripeness represents the other side of the coin of standing, and deals with whether the defendant in a case has gone so far in his/her abusive behavior that the court has a right to hear the case. The goal is to prevent premature adjudication; if a dispute is insufficiently developed, any potential injury or stake is too speculative to warrant judicial action. Ripeness issues most usually arise when a plaintiff seeks anticipatory relief, such as an injunction. See U.S. Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75 (1947); Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1 (1972), and Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497 (1961). When drafting his complaint, a plaintiff may be able to avoid dismissal on ripeness grounds by requesting alternative relief in the form of a declaratory judgment, which in many jurisdictions allows a court to declare the rights of parties under the facts as proven without actually ordering that anything be done.

A leading case on the Ripeness Doctrine is International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union Local 37 v. Boyd, 347 U.S. 222 (1954) (hereinafter Boyd). There, the United States Supreme Court stated that:

:[the a]pellants in effect asked the District Court to rule that a statute[,] the sanctions of which had not been set in motion against individuals on whose behalf relief was sought[,]...would not be applied to them if in the future such a contingency should arise. That is not a lawsuit to enforce a right; it is an endeavor to obtain a court's assurance that a statute does not govern hypothetical situations that may or may not make the challenged statute applicable. Determination of the scope and constitutionality of legislation in advance of its immediate adverse effect...involves too remote and abstract an inquiry for the proper exercise of the judicial function.

Boyd, 347 U.S. at 223-24 (citations omitted).

The Supreme Court in Boyd ruled that the District Court was required to dismiss the proceeding for lack of a justiciable controversy.

The Ripeness Doctrine should not be confused with the Advisory Opinion Doctrine, another "justiciability" concept in U.S. law. The Advisory Opinion Doctrine basically says that “Article III courts” (such as the U.S. district courts, appeals courts, and Supreme Court) will not render opinions on "abstract, hypothetical or contingent questions." L. Tribe, American Constitutional Law sec. 3-10, page 56 (1978).

From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Original article here. Support Wikipedia by contributing or donating.
All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License See Wikipedia Copyrights for details.