Ripeness

[AS. rīpness.]
The state or quality of being ripe; maturity;; completeness; perfection; as, the ripeness of grain; ripeness of manhood; ripeness of judgment.

Time, which made them their fame outlive,
To Cowley scarce did ripeness give.

The mandate contained in Article III of the Constitution that requires an appellate court to consider whether a case has matured into a controversy worthy of adjudication before it can hear the case.

An actual, current controversy worthy of adjudication must exist before a federal court may hear a case. The court determines if a controversy between parties with adverse legal interests is of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant judicial intervention (Lake Carriers' Ass'n v. MacMullan, 406 U.S. 498, 92 S. Ct. 1749, 32 L. Ed. 2d 257 [1972]).

The rationale behind the ripeness limitation is to prevent the courts from entering a controversy before it has solidified or before other available remedies have been exhausted. In disputes involving regulations or decisions promulgated by administrative agencies, a controversy is not considered ripe until the agency's decision has been formalized and the challenging parties have felt its effects. Similarly, if a state court remedy is available, a controversy is not ripe for federal court review until all state court remedies have been exhausted.

The courts generally apply a two-part test to determine if a controversy is ripe for judicial intervention. The first criterion is whether the controversy is fit for judicial decision, that is, whether it presents a question of law rather than a question of fact. Secondly, the courts determine the impact on the parties of withholding judicial consideration. In Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 87 S. Ct. 1507, 18 L. Ed. 2d 681 (1967), the Supreme Court examined whether a regulation that required drug manufacturers to use labels showing both the generic and the proprietary drug names was ripe for review before it was actually enforced. The Court held that the controversy was ripe because the regulation had an immediate and expensive impact on the plaintiffs' day-to-day operations and the plaintiffs risked a substantial sanction if they did not comply with the regulation.

Ripeness is a major consideration when parties seek injunctive or declarative relief before a statute or regulation has been applied. Courts are reluctant to enter an abstract disagreement over administrative policies (Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto, 467 U.S. 986, 104 S. Ct. 2862, 81 L. Ed. 2d 815 [1984]). However, in some cases, the courts will hear a request for an injunction or declaratory judgment if the question presented is entirely or substantially legal and if postponing a decision until after a statute or regulation is applied would work a substantial hardship on the challenging party (Pacific Gas and Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation & Development Commission, 461 U.S. 190, 103 S. Ct. 1713, 75 L. Ed. 2d 752 [1983]).

See: case or controversy.

The noun has one meaning:

Meaning #1: the state of being ripe
  Antonym: greenness (meaning #2)

For the fruit process, see Ripening.

United States Federal civil procedure doctrines
Justiciability
Advisory opinions
Standing  · Ripeness  · Mootness
Political questions
Jurisdiction
Subject-matter jurisdiction:
Federal question jurisdiction
Diversity jurisdiction
Supplemental jurisdiction
Removal jurisdiction
Amount in controversy
Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
Personal jurisdiction:
Jurisdiction in rem
Minimum contacts
Federalism
Erie doctrine  · Abstention
Sovereign immunity  · Abrogation
· Rooker-Feldman doctrine  ·
Adequate and independent state ground
edit this template

In United States law, ripeness refers to the readiness of a case for litigation; "a claim is not ripe for adjudication if it rests upon contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all."^[1] For example, if a law of ambiguous quality has been enacted but never applied, a case challenging that law lacks the ripeness necessary for a decision.

Ripeness represents the other side of the coin of standing, and deals with whether the defendant in a case has gone so far in his/her abusive behavior that the court has a right to hear the case. The goal is to prevent premature adjudication; if a dispute is insufficiently developed, any potential injury or stake is too speculative to warrant judicial action. Ripeness issues most usually arise when a plaintiff seeks anticipatory relief, such as an injunction. See U.S. Public Workers v. Mitchell (1947); Laird v. Tatum (1972); Poe v. Ullman (1961). When drafting his complaint, a plaintiff may be able to avoid dismissal on ripeness grounds by requesting alternative relief in the form of a declaratory judgment, which in many jurisdictions allows a court to declare the rights of parties under the facts as proven without actually ordering that anything be done.

The leading case on ripeness is Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner (1967), which fashioned a two-part test for assessing ripeness challenges to federal regulations. The case is often applied to constitutional challenges to statutes as well. The Court said in Abbott Laboratories:

Without undertaking to survey the intricacies of the ripeness doctrine it is fair to say that its basic rationale is to prevent the courts, through avoidance of premature adjudication, from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements over administrative policies, and also to protect the agencies from judicial interference until an administrative decision has been formalized and its effects felt in a concrete way by the challenging parties. The problem is best seen in a twofold aspect, requiring us to evaluate both the fitness of the issues for judicial decision and the hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration.^[2]

In both Abbott Laboratories and its first companion case, Gardner v. Toilet Goods Ass'n, 387 U.S. 167 (1967), the Court upheld pre-enforcement review of an administrative regulation. However, the Court denied such review in the second companion case, Toilet Goods Association v. Gardner (1967), because any harm from noncompliance with the FDA regulation at issue was too speculative in the Court's opinion to justify judicial review. Justice Harlan wrote for the Court in all three cases.

The Ripeness Doctrine should not be confused with the Advisory opinion Doctrine, another justiciability concept in U.S. law.

References

1. ^ Texas v. United States, 523 U.S. 296, 300 (1998) (internal quotation marks omitted), quoting Thomas v. Union Carbide Agricultural Products Co., 473 U.S. 568, 581 (1985) (quoting 13A C. Wright, A. Miller, & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure §3532, p. 112 (1984)).
2. ^ Abbott Laboratories, 387 U.S. at 148-49.

v • d • e Law Core subjects Administrative law · Constitutional law · Contract · Criminal law · Property law · Public international law · Public law · Tort · Trust law Other subjects Admiralty law · Aviation law · Banking law · Bankruptcy · Commercial law · Competition law · Conflict of laws · Consumer protection · Corporate law · Environmental law · Evidence · Family law · Human rights · Immigration law · Intellectual property · International criminal law · Labour law · Media law · Military law · Procedure (Civil · Criminal) · Product liability · Restitution · Space law · Tax law · Unjust enrichment · Wills Legal systems Canon law · Civil law · Common law · Comparative law · Halakha · Sharia · Xeer · Roman law · Socialist law Legal theory Economic analysis · History · Philosophy · Sociology Legal institutions Bureaucracy · Civil society · Executive · Judiciary · Legal profession · Legislature · Military · Police Category · Portal

This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)