A state enacts a law requiring individuals under age 30 to receive five hours of counseling before obtaining a marriage license. A man challenges the law as unconstitutional. What is the clearest ground for dismissal of the action?

• A. The man’s residency is irrelevant to the challenge.
• B. A substantial federal question is presented.
• C. The issue involves a non-justiciable political question.
• D. Ripeness due to lack of a matured dispute; the parties have not yet sought a license.

Answer: (D)

The key idea here is ripeness. A federal or state court won’t issue a pre-enforcement ruling on a statute unless there is a mature, concrete dispute and real injury to the plaintiff. In this scenario, the law requires five hours of counseling before obtaining a marriage license, but the man has not sought a license and hasn’t faced enforcement or denial. Without either enforcement action or a present threat of enforcement, there’s no actual injury or imminent decision for the court to decide. Allowing a pre-enforcement challenge would amount to an advisory opinion on the constitutionality of a law that hasn’t yet affected the claimant, which courts avoid.

If the man later seeks a license and is compelled to undergo counseling or is denied a license, then the dispute becomes ripe and the constitutional challenge can proceed. The other options don’t fit because residency isn’t about whether the case is properly before the court, a facial federal-question issue isn’t the controlling barrier here, political-question doctrine isn’t implicated, and ripeness—prematurity due to no matured dispute—is the strongest basis for dismissal.