Jurisdiction determines which court should properly adjudicate a case. AS such, it is the power and authority of a court to hear, try and decide a case. It is conferred by the Constitution, by federal and state statutes. It is important that a court must have jurisdiction over the parties or the property involved in the controversy.
A Federal court in order to exercise its jurisdiction must meet certain requisites. First, there must be an actual controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power. Second, the parties in the actual controversy must have legal standing to sue and be sued. Third, the case must present the dispute and issue must be ripe for adjudication and it likewise a case that the court has the power to remedy, and finally, the case cannot be moot.
It can be inferred from the foregoing discussion on jurisdiction that the instant case was not able to comply with the requisites so as to vest the Federal court the jurisdiction to hear and determine the case. With regards the requisite of actual controversy, the instant case was bereft of an actual controversy. ...
In the instant case, it should be noted that there is no law to speak of, since what was passed by Congress was still a bill and therefore, a bill not duly enacted cannot be considered as a law and correspondingly, it vests no rights.
On the issue of legal standing, herein plaintiff has no legal standing. Plaintiff has not been aggrieved or legally harmed by the defendant Border Patrol, there being only the plaintiff's fear of or detention. Additionally, the constitution limits the role of the judiciary that Federal courts may only exercise its power in the last resort and as a necessity. Aside from the foregoing, the instant case likewise fell short of the constitutional requirements for legal standing on the actual, imminent, distinct and palpable injury which must not be abstract. There is also no causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of and finally, it must not be speculative so as for the court to favorably redress the injury.
On the issue of ripeness, it can be inferred in the instant case that it is not ripe for adjudication, since the plaintiff's claim is based on a future event which may or may not happen. A claim is not ripe for adjudication if it rests upon contingent future events that may or may not occur. The Ripeness doctrine prohibits the federal courts from exercising jurisdiction over a case until an actual controversy is presented which involves a threat which is real and immediate.
A matter is moot if it is deprived of practical significance. The instant case, being deprived of practical significance should be dismissed for being moot.
A political question is one under which the US constitution has committed decision-making on the subject matter to another branch of the federal government or there are inadequate