Opinion ID: 388061
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Limits on Judicial Power

Text: 14 We approach our interpretation of the False Claims Act mindful of long-established principles governing the scope of judicial power in our constitutional scheme. We maintain, too, a candid recognition of functional limitations on the ability of the judiciary to deal with certain types of problems. Constitutionally speaking, federal courts may decide only cases and controversies, 35 and while neither of these terms has proven susceptible to precise definition, 36 the courts traditionally have refused to undertake decisions on questions that are ill-suited to judicial resolution. 37 This concept of justiciability appears in many GUISES, 38 AND TRACES ITS ORIGINS BOTH to inherENT LIMItations on the capabilities of judicial tribunals as well as to the separation-of-powers concerns central in our system of government. 39 15 So it is that so-called political questions are denied judicial scrutiny, not only because they invite courts to intrude into the province of coordinate branches of government, 40 but also because courts are fundamentally underequipped to formulate national policies or develop standards of conduct for matters not legal in nature. 41 A challenge to the interworkings of a Senator and his staff member raises at the outset the specter that such a question lurks, 42 and it is to an investigation of that possibility that we first turn. 16