Opinion ID: 107969
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: General Considerations.

Text: In deciding generally whether a claim is justiciable, a court must determine whether the duty asserted can be judicially identified and its breach judicially determined, and whether protection for the right asserted can be judicially molded. Baker v. Carr, supra, at 198. Respondents do not seriously contend that the duty asserted and its alleged breach cannot be judicially determined. If petitioners are correct, the House had a duty to seat Powell once it determined he met the standing requirements set forth in the Constitution. It is undisputed that he met those requirements and that he was nevertheless excluded. Respondents do maintain, however, that this case is not justiciable because, they assert, it is impossible for a federal court to mold effective relief for resolving this case. Respondents emphasize that petitioners asked for coercive relief against the officers of the House, and, they contend, federal courts cannot issue mandamus or injunctions compelling officers or employees of the House to perform specific official acts. Respondents rely primarily on the Speech or Debate Clause to support this contention. We need express no opinion about the appropriateness of coercive relief in this case, for petitioners sought a declaratory judgment, a form of relief the District Court could have issued. The Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U. S. C.  2201, provides that a district court may declare the rights . . . of any interested party . . . whether or not further relief is or could be sought. The availability of declaratory relief depends on whether there is a live dispute between the parties, Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U. S. 103 (1969), and a request for declaratory relief may be considered independently of whether other forms of relief are appropriate. See United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U. S. 75, 93 (1947); 6A J. Moore, Federal Practice Â 57.08 [3] (2d ed. 1966); cf. United States v. California, 332 U. S. 19, 25-26 (1947). We thus conclude that in terms of the general criteria of justiciability, this case is justiciable.