The U.S. Supreme Court has held that federal courts may deal only with cases or questions that are justiciable, that is, questions “appropriate for judicial determination” (Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Haworth, 1937). In the Aetna case Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes discussed the differences between justiciable questions or issues and those not justiciable. He emphasized that justiciable questions involve a “real and substantial controversy” that can be resolved by a conclusive decision of a court of law.
The U.S. Supreme Court does not provide advisory opinions because they do not pertain to justiciable questions: real cases that are appropriate for a judicial decision. The Court also does not accept cases that require decisions on political questions because they cannot, in the Court's opinion, be resolved on legal or constitutional grounds. Rather, political questions are those appropriate for resolution by the legislative and executive branches of government. For instance, the President, not the Court, decides whether the United States should recognize and maintain diplomatic relations with foreign governments. The Congress, not the Court, decides political questions such as how much federal money should be appropriated to maintain the U.S. armed forces.
See also Advisory opinions; Jurisdiction; Political questions
