Minimal Justiciability

Abstract

Federal courts adjudicate only justiciable disputes. But justiciable as to whom? The Supreme Court has given only a partial answer to this question, holding that at least one plaintiff must show Article III standing for each remedy sought in a federal case. And recently scholars have criticized this “one-plaintiff rule,” arguing that Article III instead requires each plaintiff to show standing to participate in litigation.

This Article offers a model of justiciability in multiparty cases that explains the one-plaintiff rule. It contends that, as a matter of constitutional interpretation, Article III requires only one justiciable dispute for each remedy sought. But, like Article III’s other limits on federal-court jurisdiction, this requirement is a constitutional floor that Congress can raise by statute or procedural rule. So the one-plaintiff rule is like the requirement of minimal diversity for federal subject-matter jurisdiction: Congress cannot require less than one justiciable dispute per remedy, but it can require more.

The Article terms its framework minimal justiciability. Most straightforwardly, the framework explains why a group of plaintiffs can sue together for the same relief when only one of them has standing and a live, ripe claim. In so doing, the framework justifies a longstanding judicial practice that saves hundreds of justiciability analyses each year—and that often enables institutions to join injured individuals in challenges to government action. It also reveals Congress’s power over the one-plaintiff rule, enabling legislative solutions to problems like the rule’s abuse by states in suits against the federal government. Finally, the framework explains why one plaintiff can show standing for relief that also benefits others, like an injunction that forbids an official to enforce an invalid law. In so doing, it clarifies the connection between standing and remedies and defeats an important justiciability objection to universal relief.