Yousuf v. Samantar

Three inter-related judicial doctrines-standing, mootness, and ripeness-ensure that federal courts assert jurisdiction only over "Cases" and "Controversies." U.S. Const. art. III, § 2. In a rare justiciability hat trick, this case implicates all three. At issue is a white male employees challenge to a government agencys affirmative action policy that allegedly deprives him of the opportunity to compete for job openings on an even playing field. The employee makes two claims, but we have jurisdiction over neither. The first relates to a written affirmative employment plan, the expiration of which has mooted his claim. The second involves a generalized challenge to unspecified agency "policies and practices"-a challenge that the employee lacks standing to bring and that, in any event, is unripe.