Inter-governmental
litigation can take many forms: horizontal disputes between federal government institutions,
horizontal disputes between state governmental institutions, and vertical
disputes between federal and state institutions. Possible justiciability
constraints on such litigation include limitations on standing, a possible
requirement of institutional ripeness, and the political question doctrine.
Such constraints have become matters of particular interest in light of both
recent Supreme Court decisions (such as United
States v. Windsor, in which a group representing the House of
Representatives sought to defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act; and the
Arizona Independent Redistricting decision, which held that the Arizona
legislature had standing to challenge a state initiative concerning
gerrymandering), as well as pending litigation (including United States v. Texas, which involves a challenge by the state of
Texas to the Obama administration’s deferred action program for immigration
enforcement; and House of Representatives
v. Burwell, in which the federal district court in Washington, D.C. held
that the House of Representatives had standing to challenge the Obama
administration’s expenditure of unappropriated funds in support of the
Affordable Care Act). This panel will consider both specific questions
concerning how these justiciability limitations should operate in practice as
well as broader methodological questions.