Please cite to the original publication
The standing, ripeness, and mootness doctrines are frequently criticized by those who seek greater access to federal courts. In this Article, Professor Brilmayer examines the theoretical underpinnings of the "case or controversy" requirement of article III and concludes that these justiciability rules are appropriate. They serve three interrelated policies: the smooth allocation of power among courts over time; the proper representation of individuals who will be affected by an adverse judgment; and the interest in self-determination. Professor Brilmayer proposes that courts explicitly rely on these policies in deciding justiciability questions.
Date of Authorship for this Version