Ripeness

In United States law, ripeness refers to the readiness of a case for litigation; "a claim is not ripe for adjudication if it rests upon contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all."[1] For example, if a law of ambiguous quality has been enacted but never applied, a case challenging that law lacks the ripeness necessary for a decision.

The goal is to prevent premature adjudication; if a dispute is insufficiently developed, any potential injury or stake is too speculative to warrant judicial action. Ripeness issues most usually arise when a plaintiff seeks anticipatory relief, such as an injunction.

Originally stated in Liverpool, New York & Philadelphia Steamship Co. v. Commissioners of Emigration (1885),[2] ripeness is one the seven rules of the constitutional avoidance doctrine established in Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority (1936) that requires that the Supreme Court of the United States to "not 'anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it.'"[3][4] The Court fashioned a two-part test for assessing ripeness challenges to federal regulations. The case is often applied to constitutional challenges to federal and state statutes as well. The Court said in Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (1967):

> Without undertaking to survey the intricacies of the ripeness doctrine it is fair to say that its basic rationale is to prevent the courts, through avoidance of premature adjudication, from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements over administrative policies, and also to protect the agencies from judicial interference until an administrative decision has been formalized and its effects felt in a concrete way by the challenging parties. The problem is best seen in a twofold aspect, requiring us to evaluate both the fitness of the issues for judicial decision and the hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration.[5]

In both Abbott Laboratories and its first companion case, Toilet Goods Association v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 158 (1967), the Court upheld pre-enforcement review of an administrative regulation. However, the Court denied such review in the second companion case because any harm from noncompliance with the FDA regulation at issue was too speculative in the Court's opinion to justify judicial review. Justice Harlan wrote for the Court in all three cases.

The ripeness doctrine should not be confused with the advisory opinion doctrine, another justiciability concept in American law.

## Contents

* 1 Comparison with other jurisdictions
* 1.1 United Kingdom
* 1.2 Germany
* 2 See also
* 3 References

## Comparison with other jurisdictions

### United Kingdom

In English law there is no formal or fully developed doctrine of ripeness or prematurity as a strict jurisdictional bar. Courts nevertheless frequently address the issue by refusing permission for judicial review or declining relief on the ground that the claim is premature \- that is, where the challenged administrative action or measure has not yet produced a concrete legal impact on the claimant or where a final decision has not been taken.[6]

### Germany

In German law, the functional equivalent to aspects of the U.S. ripeness doctrine is the requirement of a “legal need for judicial protection” (Rechtsschutzbedürfnis). This admissibility condition requires that the dispute has sufficiently crystallized and that the claimant has a legitimate interest in obtaining judicial relief. It is distinct from the doctrine of mootness, which addresses cases that have lost their practical relevance during proceedings.[7]

## See also

## References

1. ↑ Texas v. United States, 523 U.S. 296 (1998), p. 300, (internal quotation marks omitted), quoting Thomas v. Union Carbide Agricultural Products Co., 473 U.S. 568 (1985), p. 581 (quoting 13A C. Wright, A. Miller, & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure §3532, p. 112 (1984)).
2. ↑ Liverpool, New York & Philadelphia Steamship Co. v. Commissioners of Emigration, 113 U.S. 33, 39 (1885)
3. ↑ Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 346–347 (1936)
4. ↑ Nolan, Andrew (September 2, 2014). ﻿The Doctrine of Constitutional Avoidance: A Legal Overview﻿ (Report). Congressional Research Service. p. 9. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43706. Retrieved December 27, 2023.
5. ↑ Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (1967), pp. 148-49.
6. ↑ Beatson, Jack (1998-02-19), "Prematurity and Ripeness for Review", The Golden Metwand and the Crooked CordEssays in Honour of Sir William Wade QC (Oxford University Press): pp. 221–252, https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198264699.003.0011, retrieved 2026-04-02
7. ↑ Soliman, Mohamad. "Verfassungsbeschwerde" (in de-DE). https://www.uni-potsdam.de/de/rechtskunde-online/rechtsgebiete/oeffentliches-recht/verfassungsbeschwerde.

* v
* t
* e

Law

Core subjects|

* Administrative law
* Civil law
* Constitutional law
* Contract
* Criminal law
* Deed
* Equity
* Evidence
* International law
* Law of obligations
* Procedure
* Civil
* Criminal
* Property law
* Public law
* Restitution
* Statutory law
* Tort

Note: This topic belongs to "Law" portal

Other subjects|

* Agricultural law
* Aviation law
* Banking law
* Bankruptcy
* Commercial law
* Competition law
* Conflict of laws
* Construction law
* Consumer protection
* Corporate law
* Cyberlaw
* Election law
* Energy law
* Entertainment law
* Environmental law
* Family law
* Financial law
* Financial regulation
* Health law
* History of the legal profession
* History of the American legal profession
* Immigration law
* Intellectual property
* International criminal law
* International human rights
* International slavery laws
* Jurimetrics
* {{{sp}}}|us||u}}r
* Law of war
* Legal archaeology
* Legal fiction
* Maritime law
* Media law
* Military law
* Probate
* Estate
* Will and testament
* Product liability
* Public international law
* Space law
* Sports law
* Tax law
* Transport law
* Trust law
* Women in law

Sources of law|

* Charter
* Code
* Constitution
* Custom
* Divine right
* Divine law
* Human rights
* Natural law
* Natural and legal rights
* Case law
* Precedent

Law making|

* Ballot measure
* Codification
* Decree
* Edict
* Executive order
* Proclamation
* Legislation
* Delegated legislation
* General executory decree
* Regulation
* Rulemaking
* Promulgation
* Repeal
* Treaty
* Concordat
* Statutory law
* Statute
* Act of Parliament
* Act of Congress (US)

Legal systems|

* Civil law
* Common law
* Chinese law
* Legal pluralism
* Religious law
* Canon law
* Hindu law
* Jain law
* Jewish law
* Sharia
* Roman law
* Socialist law
* Statutory law
* Xeer
* Yassa

Legal theory|

* Contract theory
* Critical legal studies
* Comparative law
* Feminist
* Fundamental theory of canon law
* Law and economics
* Legal formalism
* History
* International legal theory
* Principle of legality
* Rule of law
* Sociology

Jurisprudence|

* Adjudication
* Administration of justice
* Criminal justice
* Court-martial
* Dispute resolution
* Fiqh
* Lawsuit/Litigation
* Legal opinion
* Legal remedy
* Judge
* Justice of the peace
* Magistrate
* Judgment
* Judicial review
* Jurisdiction
* Jury
* Justice
* Practice of law
* Attorney
* Barrister
* Counsel
* Lawyer
* Legal representation
* Prosecutor
* Solicitor
* Question of fact
* Question of law
* Trial
* Trial advocacy
* Trier of fact
* Verdict

Legal institutions|

* Bureaucracy
* The bar
* The bench
* Civil society
* Court
* Election commission
* Executive
* Judiciary
* Law enforcement
* Legal education
* Law school
* Legislature
* Military
* Police
* Political party
* Tribunal

* Category
* Index
* Outline

Template:USArticleIII

0.00

(0 votes)

Original source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripeness. Read more

|

Retrieved from "https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=Social:Ripeness&oldid=4423747"
*[v]: View this template
*[t]: Discuss this template
*[e]: Edit this template