Opinion ID: 2978524
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Justiciability Principles

Text: In its most recent term, the Supreme Court stressed the need for federal courts to be “keenly mindful of [their] institutional role” under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. Nw. Austin Mun. Util. Dist. No. One v. Holder, 129 S. Ct. 2504, 2513 No. 05-2708 School District of the City of Pontiac, et al. v. Secretary Page 69 of the United States Dep’t of Educ. (2009). A court should not make a broad, sweeping ruling when a narrower, more limited one will dispose of the case. See id. This court has been mindful of its institutional role in recent cases. See, e.g., Connection Distrib. Co. v. Holder, 557 F.3d 321 (6th Cir. 2009) (en banc); Warshak v. United States, 532 F.3d 521 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc). One doctrine used by courts to protect their institutional role is justiciability. In Baker v. Carr, the Supreme Court defined justiciability as the “[a]ppropriateness of the subject matter for judicial consideration.” 369 U.S. 186, 198 (1962). The concept is distinct from jurisdiction, which calls into question whether the cause of action is a case or controversy under Article III or is otherwise “described by any jurisdictional statute.” Id. With justiciability, “consideration of the cause is not wholly and immediately foreclosed; rather, the Court’s inquiry necessarily proceeds to the point of deciding whether the duty asserted can be judicially identified and its breach judicially determined, and whether protection for the right asserted can be judicially molded.” Id. Justiciability covers a number of related, but distinct, “constitutional limitations and prudential considerations,” including exhaustion, ripeness, and standing. Assiniboine & Sioux Tribes of Fort Peck Indian Reservation v. Bd. of Oil & Gas Conservation, 792 F.2d 782, 787 (9th Cir. 1986) (discussing Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 97 (1968)). Whether a party is required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 or is otherwise crucial for a full and just adjudication of the case also falls under the justiciability umbrella. Wymbs v. Republican State Executive Comm., 719 F.2d 1072, 1076, 1085-86 & n.34 (11th Cir. 1983). No. 05-2708 School District of the City of Pontiac, et al. v. Secretary Page 70 of the United States Dep’t of Educ. In accordance with its institutional role, after oral argument the en banc court asked the parties to submit supplemental briefs addressing several questions, including the following: Are these claims justiciable—specifically, are they ripe for review, see Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (1967), have plaintiffs exhausted all administrative remedies, see Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich, 510 U.S. 200 (1994), and can the court properly resolve this case without the presence of the relevant States (Michigan, Texas, and Vermont) as parties or at least without knowing the views of the States on the issues presented? Glancy v. Taubman Ctrs., Inc., 373 F.3d 656, 676 (6th Cir. 2004) (explaining that a court can raise justiciability issues on its own motion). As explored below, exhaustion and the absence of the States are particularly important considerations in this appeal.