What two factors traditionally determine ripeness of a federal case?

• A. Standing and finality.
• B. Fitness of the issues and hardship to the parties.
• C. Mootness and admissibility.
• D. Jurisdiction and finality.

Answer: (B)

Ripeness asks whether a federal case is ready for judicial review. The two factors that traditionally govern this are the fitness of the issues and the hardship to the parties.

Fitness of the issues means the dispute is primarily a legal question and can be decided on the present record without waiting for more factual development. If waiting wouldn’t change the legal questions or the record is already sufficient to decide them, the case is fit for review. If the situation depends on uncertain future events or needs extensive factual development, it isn’t yet fit.

Hardship to the parties looks at the concrete consequences of delaying review. If withholding decision would cause ongoing harm, enforcement actions, or other real burdens on the parties, there’s enough hardship to justify immediate consideration.

The other options mix concepts that relate to different limits on federal courts: standing concerns who has the right to sue; finality concerns when agency action is ripe for review; mootness concerns whether the controversy has ended; admissibility isn’t about ripeness; jurisdiction is about the court’s power and finality about when review is appropriate. Together, fitness of the issues and hardship to the parties best capture what makes a case ripe for federal adjudication.