A woman is worries that her boss will fire her. She files a suit seeking an injunction to prevent the firing. The boss never fires her.

A neighbor seeks an injunction to prevent a power plant from emitting smoke. The power plant later goes bankrupt and shuts down.

A man seeks an injunction for the government to open the swimming pool in the spring. By the time the case is heard, it's already winter again.

Jimmy often steals Johnny's lunch. When Jimmy steals Johnny's next lunch, Johnny files suit. Jimmy quickly returns the lunch.

Whether Georgia could sue a citizen of another state in federal court.

Whether a citizen of another state could sue Georgia in federal court.

Whether Georgia could sue a citizen of another state in state court.

Whether a citizen of another state could sue Georgia in state court.

The "case or controversy" requirement.

The jurisdictional provisions (like the diversity jurisdiction rules).

The Jury Clause.

The Due Process Clause.

Only Congress, not the president, may seize private assets.

The president may seize private assets, but only based on a valid law.

The President may seize private assets, but only when war is formally declared.

The United States

Chisholm

Georgia

Whether a Senate vote on a politically contentious issue complies with the Senate's own rules.

Whether the political conditions in a foreign country justify a President's formal recognition of that country.

Whether -- for the purposes of non-delegation doctrine -- a law regulation political issues (e.g., elections) articulates an "intelligible principle."

Truman's decision to inform didn't matter.

Truman's decision to inform allowed him to win.

Truman's failure to inform didn't matter.

Truman's failure to inform undercut his case.

Yes.

No,becauseAandB.

(A) No, because the Defendant did not “cause” Dog’s death.

(B) No, because the Court cannot “redress” Dog’s death in the way requested.

Yes as to the damages claim, but no as to the claim for injunctive relief.

Yes as to both claims.

No, because the Defendant did not “cause” Dog’s death.

Congress had already legislated on the issue of labor disputes and rejected this type of seizure.

Congress was actively considering legislation on the issue of labor-related seizures.

Congress had not even considered legislation on the issue of labor-related seizures.

Precedent

Practice

Historical context

Policy

No, the Plaintiff lacks standing because he has not suffered an “injury in fact.”

Yes, the Plaintiff has standing because he suffered an “injury in fact,” there is “causation,” and there is “redressability.”

No, the Plaintiff lacks standing because federal law does not allow him to file an amended tax return more than a year after the original return filing, and therefore the Court cannot “redress” his injury.

No, the Plaintiff lacks standing because he caused his own injury.

The employees lack standing.

The President acted unlawfully, because the statute bars compelled acts.

The case raises a political question.

The President acted lawfully, because order is only temporary.

Yes, the Plaintiff has standing because he suffered an “injury in fact,” there is “causation,” and there is “redressability.”

No, the Plaintiff lacks standing because he has not suffered an “injury in fact.”

No, the Plaintiff lacks standing because federal law does not allow the judge to order any relief in this case.

No,the Plaintiff lacks standing because he caused his own injury.

No, because the law lacks an intelligible principle.

Yes, because Congress may limit executive power unless the Constitution grants sole authority to the Executive Branch.

Yes, because the Congress, pursuant to the Naturalization Clause, may decide who may be lawfully admitted to or deported from the United States.

No, because Congress has given itself a role in the execution of the law.