The Supreme Court has traditionally maintained that Article III of the Constitution restricts the federal courts to deciding cases. On this view, the role of the federal courts is not to interpret and enforce the Constitution or to require governments to behave lawfully. The courts do these things, but only as an incident of their case-deciding function. The Supreme Court maintains that this principle prevents ideologically motivated meddlers from bringing cases that determine everyone’s rights. It also supposedly limits the federal courts to their “proper—and properly limited—role in a democratic society.” This Essay, however, suggests that the “case” limitation is a mask that hides a different reality. In reality, it does little to limit the role of the federal courts. Ideologically motivated groups and individuals constantly obtain federal court rulings that determine rights for the whole nation and that require governments to behave lawfully. This Essay reviews recent cases that expose the reality behind the Article III mask. This Essay suggests that the Supreme Court should recognize Article III reality and adjust its doctrines accordingly, particularly by recognizing that (1) the courts will play their proper role in our democratic society so long as they rule only on the legality, and not the wisdom, of government actions, and (2) the justiciability requirements should be discretionary, rather than mandatory, limitations on judicial power.
