Minimal Justiciability

Federal courts adjudicate only justiciable disputes. But justiciable as to whom? The Supreme Court has hinted at an answer, holding that at least one plaintiff must show standing for each remedy sought in a federal case. But it has never explained this “one-plaintiff rule,” and recently some scholars have criticized it, arguing that Article III instead requires each plaintiff to show standing in every federal case. This Article offers the missing explanation. Justiciability limits judicial power, it contends, and judicial relief is the constitutionally relevant expression of that power. Thus, Article III requires only one plaintiff with standing and a live, ripe claim for each remedy sought. But, like many of Article III’s other limits on federal jurisdiction, this rule is a constitutional floor that Congress can adjust. So the one-plaintiff rule is like the requirement of minimal diversity for federal diversity jurisdiction: Congress cannot require less than one justiciable dispute per remedy, but it can require more. The Article terms its interpretation “minimal justiciability.” By laying the theoretical groundwork for the one-plaintiff rule, it defends a longstanding practice that saves courts hundreds of justiciability analyses each year—and that enables well-resourced institutions to join with injured individuals in challenges to government action and other important cases. The theory also reveals Congress’s power over the one-plaintiff rule, paving the way for potential legislative solutions to problems like the rule’s abuse by states in suits against the federal government. Finally, the theory 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 answers an important justiciability objection to nationwide injunctions and other forms of universal relief.