The correct answer is: (D) The district court should dismiss the complaint, because the case was moot.
If a controversy has been resolved, it will be dismissed as moot. The Constitution requires that there must be an actual case or controversy at all stages of the litigation. However, a case will not be dismissed as moot if there are collateral legal consequences yet to be determined, or if the injury is capable of repetition. Here, after the presidential veto of the bill and the failure of Congress to override the veto, the case did become moot and, as such, should be dismissed.
(A) Incorrect. The district court should find the statute unconstitutional, because it violated the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unlawful searches without obtaining a warrant.
Courts do not decide constitutional questions unless it is necessary to do so. Therefore, one must establish jurisdiction before considering any constitutional question. After the presidential veto of the bill and the failure of Congress to override it, the case became moot, and its constitutionality will not be considered.
(B) Incorrect. The district court should dismiss the complaint, because the taxpayer did not have standing.
As a general rule, federal taxpayers do not have standing to challenge allegedly unconstitutional federal expenditures, because their interest in such expenditures is too remote to have any stake in the outcome. Although the Supreme Court allowed a federal taxpayer to challenge federal expenditures to aid parochial schools under the Establishment Clause, it has not extended to other areas of government spending. However, issues of standing are irrelevant here because the bill never became law and is therefore moot.
(C) Incorrect. The district court should dismiss the complaint, because the case was not ripe for adjudication.
A case or controversy is a real and substantial dispute that touches the legal relations of parties having adverse interests and that can be resolved by a judicial decree of a conclusive character. A controversy must be ripe for decision so that courts do not decide constitutional issues before it is necessary. A person asking a court to hold a statute unconstitutional must be able to show that the statute is invalid and that he has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of its enforcement. Here, on the day that the complaint was filed, the case was not yet ripe, because the President had yet to sign the bill into law. However, after the presidential veto and the failure of Congress to override the veto, the case became moot--and hence, would never become "ripe." As such, this is not the best response.
