The framers of the Constitution provided, in Article III, section 2, that federal courts were to have jurisdiction only of “Cases” and “Controversies.” These two words are the origin of a body of law that imposes important restraints on the power of the federal judiciary. Federal courts may consider only issues that are presented in an adversary context. They may not answer merely hypothetical or abstract questions: their power is limited by law to questions that arise out of an actual dispute. The most widely cited reason for that requirement is to ensure full development of cases. When parties contend in a real dispute, each side is permitted to be zealously represented and the court may consider the legal issues against the backdrop of real facts.
A second aspect of the cases or controversies requirement relates not to the power of courts but to their willingness to decide certain kinds of cases. The framers constructed a government comprising three distinct branches—legislative, executive, and judicial—and made each branch dominant in its own sphere. Federal courts therefore approach cases that involve conflicts within or between branches cautiously. A refusal by the legislative or executive branch to comply with a court decision would be a blow to public confidence in the court system. Federal courts therefore have usually declined to become involved in so‐called political question cases, citing the cases or controversies limitation to justify abstention. Since Baker v. Carr (1962), however, the political questions doctrine has ceased to inhibit federal courts in cases involving questions of federalism, such as reapportionment or the reach of the Tenth Amendment.
.
See also Collusive Suits; Judicial Power and Jurisdiction; Judicial Review; Separation of Powers
— James B. Stoneking
