3. The federal district court should

Under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, federal courts shall have judicial power over all «cases and controversies» arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the U.S.

The U.S. Supreme Court will not decide a challenge to a government or private action unless the person who is challenging the action has «standing» to raise the issue. A person has standing only if she can demonstrate a concrete stake in the outcome of the controversy. A plaintiff will be able to show a sufficient stake in the controversy only if she can show an injury in fact, caused by the defendant, that will be remedied by a decision in her favor (i.e., causation and redressability).

Injury in fact requires: (i) a particularized injury — an injury that affects the plaintiff in a personal and individual way; and (ii) a concrete injury — one that exists in fact. It is not enough to show merely that a federal statute or constitutional provision has been violated (and that we all suffer when that happens). Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. ___ (2016).

To have standing, the claimant must have suffered or may presently suffer a direct impairment with his own rights. A plaintiff may, however, assert third-party rights where he himself has suffered injury and an additional factor is present, including when a third party has difficulty asserting their own rights or the plaintiff's injury adversely affects his relationship with third parties.

The Court will not decide political questions. Political questions are those issues committed by the Constitution to another branch of government; or those inherently incapable of resolution and enforcement by the judicial process (e.g., questions regarding the conduct of foreign relations or issues as to when hostilities have stopped; questions relating to which group of delegates should be seated at the Democratic National Convention; and Senate impeachment procedures).

The Eleventh Amendment is a jurisdictional bar that modifies the judicial power by prohibiting a federal court from hearing a private party's or foreign government's claims against a state government. See Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890).

C is correct. Here, the plaintiff has suffered no injury himself, as required by the law. Rather, his friend was the one shot and killed by the police. And, while the harm (the loss of his friend) was allegedly caused by the unconstitutional statute, his injury cannot be redressed by a declaration that the statute is unconstitutional. Declaratory actions are particularly prone to lack standing because they don't seek a more concrete remedy. Therefore, without proper standing, the court should dismiss the action because it does not present a case or controversy.

A is incorrect. In order to adjudicate a case that raises a substantial federal question, the plaintiff must first establish that he has standing to bring the action, which gives him a stake in the case or controversy. Without standing, the substantial federal question cannot be reached by the court because it does satisfy the case or controversy requirement under Article III of the Constitution.

B is incorrect. A nonjusticiable political question arises when it relates to issues that have been designated to another branch of government by the Constitution. This is not the case here; the statute does not raise any question that is more properly answered by another branch of government (or the political process). Rather, it presents an issue of statutory constitutionality that traditionally falls within the court's jurisdiction, but without proper standing, the plaintiff's action must be dismissed.

D is incorrect. The Eleventh Amendment is a bar to federal courts hearing a private party's claim (or a claim by a foreign government) against a state government, whereas in this case, the plaintiff is suing the city police department and the individual officers, not the state.