III, Section 2, Clause 1) as embodying two distinct limitations on exercise of judicial review: a bar on the issuance of advisory opinions, and a requirement that parties must have standing.
In Roe v. Wade, for instance, the Court applied the mootness exception for cases "capable of repetition, yet evading review."
Justice Harry Blackmun wrote that due to the natural limitation of the human gestation period, issues concerning pregnancy will always come to term before the appellate process is complete.
The U.S. Supreme Court observed in DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno (2006): "No principle is more fundamental to the judiciary's proper role in our system of government than the constitutional limitation of federal-court jurisdiction to actual cases or controversies.
[6] Article III standing requires an injury that is "concrete, particularized and actual or imminent; fairly traceable to the challenged action and redressable by a favorable ruling.
Relevant cases: The clause does not forbid individual States from granting standing to such parties; it only mandates that federal courts may not do so:[14]