Political question doctrine
What is the Political Question Doctrine?
The Political Question Doctrine is a principle in constitutional law that holds certain issues as inappropriate for judicial review because they involve questions more properly resolved by the executive or legislative branches of government. When a court deems a matter to be a political question, it declines to adjudicate the case on the grounds that the issue falls outside the court’s constitutional authority.
This doctrine is rooted in the separation of powers and the idea that courts should not interfere with decisions that are inherently political or constitutionally committed to another branch of government.
Key Elements of Political Question Doctrine
The U.S. Supreme Court, in Baker v. Carr (1962), laid down the widely accepted framework to identify political questions. The Court listed six factors indicating a political question:
A textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department;
A lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it;
The impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion;
The impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government;
An unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made;
The potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question.
Case Law on Political Question Doctrine
1. Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Although this case did not formally establish the political question doctrine, it set the foundation for judicial review—the power of courts to invalidate unconstitutional acts. Marbury clarified the role of courts in constitutional interpretation, implicitly acknowledging limits on judicial power and foreshadowing the later political question doctrine.
2. Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Although this case did not formally establish the political question doctrine, it set the foundation for judicial review—the power of courts to invalidate unconstitutional acts. Marbury clarified the role of courts in constitutional interpretation, implicitly acknowledging limits on judicial power and foreshadowing the later political question doctrine.
3. Baker v. Carr (1962)
This landmark case is the foundation for the modern political question doctrine. The issue was whether federal courts could adjudicate redistricting challenges under the Equal Protection Clause.
Holding: The Court held that reapportionment challenges are justiciable and not political questions.
Significance: The Court provided the six-part test for political questions, narrowing the scope of the doctrine and allowing courts to decide many constitutional claims that previously might have been dismissed as political questions.
Why political question not applied: Although redistricting is political, the Court found judicially manageable standards to adjudicate claims of equal protection violations.
4. Nixon v. United States (1993)
Here, the issue was whether the federal courts could review the Senate's procedures for trying an impeachment of a federal judge.
Holding: The Supreme Court held that the issue was a political question and non-justiciable because the Constitution commits the “sole Power to try all Impeachments” to the Senate.
Significance: This reinforced the doctrine’s application to impeachment, showing that some constitutional matters are exclusively committed to the political branches.
Key takeaway: Textual commitment to the political branches makes the issue non-justiciable.
5. Goldwater v. Carter (1979)
The case involved whether the President can unilaterally terminate a treaty without Senate approval.
Holding: The Court dismissed the case on political question grounds without a full opinion.
Significance: It suggested that the Court viewed foreign affairs and treaty termination as a political question, best left to the political branches.
Key point: Foreign policy and treaty termination are politically committed and lack judicially manageable standards.
6. Coleman v. Miller (1939)
This case concerned whether the Kansas legislature had acted timely in ratifying a constitutional amendment.
Holding: The Court held this issue was a political question, refusing to interfere.
Significance: It recognized legislative processes and political decisions involving constitutional amendments as political questions.
Lesson: Timing and procedural disputes in legislative processes can be non-justiciable.
7. Pacific States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Oregon (1912)
The question was whether courts could review the validity of an initiative and referendum process enacted by the people.
Holding: The Court held the issue was a political question and declined review.
Significance: Political questions can include decisions made directly by the people or political processes.
Point: The Court respects political decisions made through direct democracy.
8. Powell v. McCormack (1969)
The issue was whether the House of Representatives could exclude a duly elected member who met all constitutional requirements.
Holding: The Court ruled that this was not a political question and could be adjudicated by courts.
Significance: The political question doctrine does not apply when there are judicially manageable standards (in this case, the explicit qualifications for membership).
Lesson: Not all political branch decisions are immune from judicial review.
Summary and Insights
The political question doctrine acts as a gatekeeper, limiting judicial intervention in certain constitutional issues that are better resolved by political branches. It is often invoked in cases involving:
Impeachment procedures (Nixon v. United States),
Foreign policy and treaties (Goldwater v. Carter),
Internal legislative or political processes (Coleman v. Miller),
Redistricting and electoral disputes (Baker v. Carr - but here the Court limited the doctrine).
RELATED Blog
0 comments