There was then no issue for the tribal court to resolve. Article III of the United States Constitution requires a case or controversy for the exercise of judicial power by federal courts. International Bhd. of Boilermakers v. Kelly, 815 F.2d 912, 914 (3d Cir. 1987). This is also the rule in Washington: The action . . . must be adversary in character between real parties and upon real issues, that is, between a plaintiff and defendant having opposing interests, and the interests must be direct and substantial and involve an actual as distinguished from a possible or potential dispute, to meet the requirements of justiciability. Washington Beauty College, Inc. v. Huse, 195 Wash. 160, 164-65, 80 P.2d 403 (1938); see also Nostrand v. Little, 58 Wn.2d 111, 121-22, 361 P.2d 551 (1961) (<HOLDING>), appeal dismissed, 368 U.S. 436 (1962). While
recognizing that a justiciable controversy is a real and substantial controversy that is ripe and appropriate for judicial determination as opposed to a dispute or difference of contingent hypothetical or abstract character holding that ancillary claims are properly before threejudge district court so long as there is a nonfrivolous constitutional claim that constitutes a justiciable controversy recognizing that the district court did not reach the merits recognizing need for justiciable controversy before a court can reach a deci sion on a particular issue holding that the case presented no justiciable controversy and that a review of the matter would render an improper advisory opinion