No, Congress can't create a fake case just to get a court's opinion. The Constitution says courts are only supposed to handle real 'cases' and 'controversies.' A real case is like an actual fight where two sides are arguing over something important, like money or property. This lawsuit isn't a real fight. The U.S. government isn't a true opponent; it's just participating so the court can give advice. The court's job isn't to give advice to Congress; it's to settle actual disputes between people.

No, the 1907 law letting the Cherokee people sue doesn't count as a real case the courts can decide under the Constitution. Courts can only make decisions when there's a real argument between people on opposite sides, and the decision matters for their actual rights. Here, the whole point of the law is just to get the courts' opinion on whether the other laws are okay under the Constitution, not to solve a real argument. The court's decision wouldn't actually settle any rights between real people. Giving opinions like that isn't something the Constitution lets courts do, so the 1907 law goes too far in what it's asking the courts to do.

No, the 1907 law letting the Cherokee people sue doesn't count as a real case we can decide under the Constitution. We can only make decisions when there's a real argument between people on opposite sides, and the decision matters for their actual rights. Here, the whole point of the law is just to get our opinion on whether the other laws are okay under the Constitution, not to solve a real argument. Our decision wouldn't actually settle any rights between real people. Giving opinions like that isn't something the Constitution lets us do, so the 1907 law goes too far in what it's asking us to do.

"T [he] judicial power... is the right to determine actual controversies arising between adverse litigants, duly instituted in courts of proper jurisdiction."

Although Congress may by statute define the jurisdiction of the federal courts, our jurisdiction can never extend beyond the outer limits set by Article III. "[B] y the express terms of the Constitution, the exercise of the judicial power is limited to `cases' and `controversies.'Beyond this it does not extend, and unless it is asserted in a case or controversy within the meaning of …

V, § 1. "Judicial power... is the power of a court to decide and pronounce a judgment and carry it into effect between persons and parties who bring a case before it for decision."

Federal constitutional courts act only on cases and controversies and do not give advisory opinions.

According to express provision of Article III, the judicial power of the United States is limited to "Cases" and "Controversies."

A case or controversy's hallmark has long been "the existence of present or possible adverse parties, whose contentions are submitted to the court for adjudication."

Federal courts must "carefully abstain from exercising any power that is not strictly judicial in its character, and which is not clearly confided to [them] by the Constitution."

The United States Supreme Court requires strict compliance with this jurisdictional-standing requirement.

Thus, the Court's additional discussion of the question whether a case for equitable relief was stated amounts to an advisory opinion that we are powerless to render.

Defendant's lack of enforcement authority is fatal to Plaintiffs' standing to bring this action, for it is a "long-standing rule that a plaintiff may not sue a [n]... official who is without any power to enforce the complained-of statute."

No, an act of Congress that authorizes such a suit does not fall within the judicial power granted by Article III. The power of federal courts is constitutionally restricted to adjudicating actual 'cases' and 'controversies,' which require a genuine dispute between adverse litigants. The 1907 act did not create a real controversy but rather sought an advisory opinion on the constitutionality of legislation. The United States, as the named defendant, had no interest adverse to the claimants; its role was merely to facilitate a judicial review. The lawsuit's sole purpose was to test a law's validity, not to resolve a tangible dispute over property rights, and a judgment would not be enforceable in a traditional sense. Citing Marbury v. Madison, the court reiterated that the power of judicial review arises only as a necessity in deciding a legitimate case between opposing parties, not as a general supervisory power over Congress.

No, the act of Congress authorizing the suits does not present a justiciable case or controversy within the meaning of Article III of the Constitution. The judicial power extends only to actual cases and controversies between adverse litigants, where the court's decision is necessary to determine real and substantial rights. Here, the whole purpose of the law is to obtain a judicial declaration on the constitutional validity of legislation in a proceeding against the government in its sovereign capacity, not in a case asserting rights against the government or seeking compensation. The judgment would not bind private parties or conclude their rights, and amounts to no more than an advisory opinion on the validity of the acts in question. Giving such opinions is not a function conferred upon the judiciary by the Constitution, and exercising jurisdiction in this case would exceed the limits of judicial power. Therefore, the act of Congress conferring jurisdiction is invalid.

Muskrat v. United States

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot