The doctrine of ripeness refers to the readiness of the current facts of a specific case. If the facts of a specific case have “ripened” - the judiciary may conduct adjudication of the substantial controversy of the case. Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution states that the federal courts must only judge cases that are actual “cases and controversies.” As Article III of the Constitution explains the jurisdiction of federal courts, the Article also developed a test for justiciability. The requirement that a claim be ripe for judicial review is an issue of subject matter jurisdiction closely related to the "standing" requirement.
The question regarding the doctrine of ripeness frequently takes place when a plaintiff asserts to prevent harm that has not yet occurred but is bound to happen. The ripeness doctrine requires the courts to decide on a subject matter that has actually happened since the courts may not decide on a matter of mere possibilities. The courts generally determine that a case is ripe when further development of facts will not pose any additional legal component to the case in question or if the case concerns a purely legal issue.
During the trial, if any party of the trial believes that the particular issue at hand is unripe, then the party could challenge the issue as unripe for judicial resolution. The test for ripeness is a two-factor test:
- The issue(s) fitness for judicial decision.
- The hardship to the parties of the case is if the court withholds adjudication for later.
Most frequent ripeness challenges involve the pre-enforcement of criminal statutes and the challenges to newly implementing actions or policies of an administrative agency.
See: Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution, the standing doctrine, Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (1967), Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992), Reno v. Catholic Social Servs., 509 U.S. 43 (1993).
[Last updated in May of 2024 by the Wex Definitions Team]