Chapter §16.3 JUSTICIABILITY

• Jurisdiction: Oregon

§16.3 JUSTICIABILITY

Before a court will address any state constitutional law issue, the court must be satisfied that the issue "is one that is appropriate for judicial disposition." Yancy v. Shatzer, 337 Or 345, 349, 97 P3d 1161 (2004). Generally, that requires the court to determine whether a "justiciable controversy" exists. Yancy, 337 Or at 349. Justiciability "may not be conferred by stipulation or consent of the parties in the absence of an actual justiciable controversy." Barcik v. Kubiaczyk, 321 Or 174, 186, 895 P2d 765 (1995). The Oregon Supreme Court has indicated that "a controversy is justiciable, as opposed to abstract, where there is an actual and substantial controversy between parties having adverse legal interests." Yancy, 337 Or at 349 (quoting Brown v. Oregon State Bar, 293 Or 446, 449, 648 P2d 1289 (1982)). Justiciability generally "contemplates 'that the court's decision in the matter will have some practical effect on the rights of the parties to the controversy.'" Yancy, 337 Or at 349 (quoting Brumnett v. Psychiatric Sec. Review Bd., 315 Or 402, 405, 848 P2d 1194 (1993)). "Encompassed within the broad question of justiciability are a constellation of related issues, including standing, ripeness, and mootness." Yancy, 337 Or at 349. These are discussed in more detail in §§ 16.3-1 to 16.3-3.

§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. Dep't of Corr., 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 Dept. of Envtl. Quality, 323 Or 559, 566, 919 P2d 1168 (1996)).

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). To be ripe, "'the controversy must involve present facts as opposed to a dispute which is based on future events of a hypothetical issue.'" McIntire, 322 Or at 434 (quoting Brown v. Oregon State Bar, 293 Or 446, 449, 648 P2d 1289 (1982)). Under ORS 28.020, persons whose rights "are affected" may seek declaratory relief on a constitutional claim. The Oregon Supreme Court has indicated that the...