Chapter § 16.3

• Jurisdiction: Oregon

§ 16.3 JUSTICIABILITY

Justiciability involves limits to courts' power. It may encompass statutory, prudential, and constitutional aspects, depending on the case. Courts have an "ongoing duty to evaluate the justiciability" of cases "before deciding the merits" of cases. Johnson v. Premo, 302 Or App 578, 581, 461 P3d 985, rev den, 366 Or 569 (2020). Couey, 357 Or 460, is the Oregon primer on justiciability and judicial power. See generally chapter 11 (justiciability).

Based on "the text, historical context, and case law interpreting Article VII (Amended), section 1, there is no basis for concluding that the court lacks judicial power to hear public actions or cases that involve matters of public interest that might otherwise have been considered nonjusticiable under prior case law." Couey, 357 Or at 520. The court left "for another day" whether its analysis "means that the state constitution imposes no such justiciability limitations on the exercise of judicial power in other cases." Couey, 357 Or at 520. There "are no justiciabiity limitations on the exercise of judicial power in public actions or cases involving matters of public interest." Couey, 357 Or at 520.

The concepts of standing, ripeness, and mootness are all aspects of justiciability. See § 16.3-1 to § 16.3-3; see also chapter 11.

§ 16.3-1 Standing

Standing "is a legal term that identifies whether a party to a legal proceeding possesses a status or qualification necessary for the assertion, enforcement, or adjudication of legal rights or duties." Kellas v. Department of Corrections, 341 Or 471, 476-77, 145 P3d 139 (2006). Standing "is not a matter of common law but is, instead, conferred by the legislature." Kellas, 341 Or at 477 (quoting Local No. 290, Plumbers & Pipefitters v. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, 323 Or 559, 566, 919 P2d 1168 (1996)). "Whether a plaintiff has standing to bring a particular kind of action 'largely depends on the statute under which the plaintiff seeks relief.'" Foote v. State, 364 Or 558, 562, 437 P3d 221 (2019) (quoting MT & M Gaming, Inc. v. City of Portland, 360 Or 544, 553, 383 P3d 800 (2016)).

The requirements to establish standing are explained in detail in chapter 11.

§ 16.3-2 Ripeness

In general, a claim is not ripe for judicial resolution if it has been brought prematurely. McIntire v. Forbes, 322 Or 426, 434, 909 P2d 846 (1996), disavowed on other grounds by Kellas, 341 Or at 485. "'Ripeness' refers to an aspect of . . . justiciability...