Uncontested Adjudication and the Modern Case-or-Controversy Rule

Abstract

This chapter explains how the nineteenth-century history of uncontested litigation undercuts the modern case-or-controversy rule as developed and applied in the twentieth century. That the antebellum federal courts were empowered to hear petitions for naturalized citizenship and other uncontested claims as cases under Article III undermines three key elements of the modern case-or-controversy rule: its suggestion that all plaintiffs invoking the judicial power must establish standing by identifying an injury in fact; its requirement that only claims that name an adverse party can be brought in federal court; and its linkage of cases and controversies, two distinct ideas, in an all-purpose case-or-controversy requirement.