Article III 
Constitution of the United States
 http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleiii.html

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--

Ajudication of Rights

[The] case and controversy limitation, …[is an ]…American institution of judicial review……for the preservation of individual rights. Rescue Army v. Municipal Court 331 U.S. 549 , 572 (1947).

 ''The province of the court is, solely, to decide on the rights of individuals, …...'' Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 170 (1803).

Article III of the Constitution limits the "judicial power" of the United States to the resolution of "cases" and "controversies." The constitutional power of federal courts,…[is].. the necessity "to adjudge the legal rights of litigants in actual controversies." Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United, 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982). >143 U.S. 339, 345 (1982)

No federal court, whether this Court or a district court, has "jurisdiction to pronounce any statute, either of a State or of the United States, void, ………..except as it is called upon to adjudge the legal rights of litigants in actual controversies." Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U.S. 103, 110 (1969) > United States v. Raines, 362 U.S. 17, 21 (1960) > 113 U.S. 33,39 (1885).

The jurisdiction of federal courts is defined and limited by Article III of the Constitution. ….the judicial power of federal courts is constitutionally restricted to "cases" and "controversies." Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 94 (1968) > Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, >300 U.S. 227 , 239, 240(1937); 2 Dall. 419, 431, 432; >Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346, 356 , 357 (1911)

The controversy must be definite and concrete, touching the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests…... It must be a real and substantial controversy admitting of specific relief through a decree of a conclusive character, …….Where there is such a concrete case admitting of an immediate and definitive determination of the legal rights of the parties in an adversary proceeding upon the facts alleged, the judicial function may be appropriately exercised. Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 240-41 (1937)

"Until there is some invasion ……of private rights secured by the Constitution of the United States, the action of the states in this respect is beyond question in the courts of the nation. L’Hote v. City of New Orleans,177 U.S. 587, 596 (1900)

Judicial Power

State courts also have the solemn responsibility " to guard, enforce, and protect every right granted or secured by the Constitution of the United States . . .," . "We yet like to believe that wherever the Federal courts sit, human rights under the Federal Constitution are always a proper subject for adjudication, and that we have not the right to decline the exercise of that jurisdiction ….." Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U.S. 241, 248 (1967).

[422 U.S. 490, 499] The Art. III judicial power exists only to redress or otherwise to protect against injury to the complaining party, even though the court's judgment may benefit others collaterally. Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499 (1975)

This court neither approves nor condemns any legislative policy. Its delicate and difficult office is to ascertain and declare whether the legislation is in accordance with, or in contravention of, the provisions of the Constitution; and, having done that, its duty ends. The only power it has, …is the power of judgment. U.S. v. BUTLER, 297 U.S. 1, 63 (1936).

The power to declare the rights of individuals and to measure the authority of governments, …"is legitimate only in the last resort, and as a necessity in the determination of real, earnest and vital controversy." Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United, 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982) >Chicago & Grand Trunk R. Co. v. Wellman, 143 U.S. 339, 345 (1892).

''It is only where rights, ….are being, or about to be, affected prejudicially by the application or enforcement of a statute that its validity may be called in question by a suitor and determined by an exertion of the judicial power. State of Texas v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 258 U.S. 158 162 1922)

The very foundation of the power of the federal courts to declare Acts of Congress unconstitutional lies in the power and duty of those courts to decide cases and controversies properly before them United States v. Raines, 362 U.S. 17, 20 (1960).

The exercise of judicial power, which can so profoundly affect the lives, liberty, and property of those to whom it extends, is therefore restricted to litigants who can show "injury in fact" resulting from the action which they seek to have the court adjudicate. The exercise of the judicial power also affects relationships between the coequal arms of the National Government. The effect is …most vivid when a federal court declares unconstitutional an act of the Legislative or Executive Branch. While the exercise of that "ultimate and supreme function," ….. is a formidable means of vindicating individual rights. …… the propriety of such action by a federal court has been ………recognized as a tool of last resort on the part of the federal judiciary throughout its nearly 200 years of existence: Forge Christian College v. Americans United, 454 U.S. 464, 473-4 (1982)

Thus, this Court has "refrain[ed] from passing upon the constitutionality of an act [of the representative branches] unless obliged to do so in the proper performance of our judicial function, when the question is raised by a party whose interests entitle him to raise it." Forge Christian College v. Americans United, 454 U.S. 464, 474 (1982)> [250 U.S. 273, 279 ]

If the Legislature ….transgress the boundaries of that authority….their acts are invalid. …[because] …they violate a fundamental law, which must be our guide, whenever we are called upon as judges to determine the validity of a legislative act. Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386, 399 (1798).

The courts have no power to consider in isolation and annul an act of Congress on the ground that it is unconstitutional; but may consider that question 'only when the justification for some direct injury suffered or threatened. presenting a justiciable issue, is made to rest upon such an act.' Alabama Power Co. v. Ickes, 302 U.S. 464, 479 (1938) > Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447, 488, (1923)