Political Question Doctrine: Where's The Constitutional Basis?

The political question doctrine is a legal term that refers to the limits of federal courts' abilities to hear and decide on constitutional questions. The doctrine is rooted in case law and is not explicitly mentioned in the US Constitution. The Supreme Court's ruling in Marbury v. Madison (1803) established the power of judicial review and hinted at the limits of this power, suggesting that some issues are exclusively for other government branches to decide. The leading case on the political question doctrine is Baker v. Carr (1962), in which the Supreme Court outlined six characteristics to determine when courts should refrain from deciding cases. The doctrine holds that some questions are fundamentally political and not legal, and if a question is deemed political, the court will refuse to hear the case, claiming a lack of jurisdiction.

Explore related products

Political Question Doctrine in the Impeachnent of Governors in Kenya

$45

Endgames: Questions in Late Modern Political Thought

$26

Political Questions: Political Philosophy from Plato to Pinker, Fourth Edition

$64.95 $64.95

Le Socialisme Sans Doctrines: La Question Agraire Et La Question Ouvrière En Australie: Et Nouvelle-Zélande (Sciences Sociales) (French Edition)

$36.27

Following Jesus in a Politically Divided World: An Interactive Guide to 21 Questions on Christianity and Politics

$12.99

On the Political (Thinking in Action)

$18.91 $36.99

The landmark ruling in Marbury v. Madison (1803)

The political question doctrine in the United States Constitution holds that a constitutional dispute requiring knowledge of a non-legal character, techniques not suitable for a court, or matters explicitly assigned by the Constitution to Legislative or Executive branches lies within the political realm, rather than the judiciary. The doctrine can be traced to the landmark ruling in Marbury v. Madison in 1803.

In 1801, outgoing President John Adams appointed William Marbury as a justice of the peace. However, the new Secretary of State, James Madison, refused to deliver his commission. Marbury then sued Madison at the Supreme Court, asking the court to force Madison to deliver his commission. On February 24, 1803, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous 4-0 decision against Marbury.

Chief Justice John Marshall structured the Court's opinion around a series of three questions: First, did Marbury have a right to his commission? Second, if Marbury had a right to his commission, was there a legal remedy for him to obtain it? Third, if so, what was the nature of that remedy? Marshall concluded that Marbury had a right to his commission and that a writ of mandamus was the proper remedy.

In Marbury v. Madison, Marshall established the principle of judicial review, an important addition to the system of checks and balances designed to prevent any one branch of the federal government from becoming too powerful. The ruling established the right of the courts to determine the constitutionality of the actions of the other two branches of government. Marshall distinguished between the US Secretary of State's legal work and purely discretionary political tasks, arguing that only the former involves legally identifiable standards that can be reviewed by a court of law.

The ruling in Marbury v. Madison set a precedent for the application of the political question doctrine in future cases. The Supreme Court further expounded on the doctrine in Baker v. Carr (1962), holding that federal courts should not hear cases that deal directly with issues that the Constitution makes the sole responsibility of the Executive and/or Legislative Branches. The Court outlined six characteristics that indicate a case involves a political question, including a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a political department and a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving the issue.

The political question doctrine in Oetjen v. Central Leather Co. (1918)

The political question doctrine is a legal concept in US constitutional law that holds that some questions are fundamentally political, and not legal, in nature. This means that if a question is deemed fundamentally political, it is nonjusticiable, and the court will refuse to hear the case, claiming that it does not have jurisdiction. The doctrine limits the ability of federal courts to hear constitutional questions, even when other justiciability requirements are met.

Oetjen v. Central Leather Co. (1918) is one of the earliest examples of the Supreme Court applying the political question doctrine. In this case, the Court found that the conduct of foreign relations is the sole responsibility of the Executive Branch. This case involved the recognition of the government of Carranza as the de facto government of the Republic of Mexico by the United States government. The Court held that the conduct of foreign relations is committed by the Constitution to the executive and legislative branches of the government, and that the propriety of their actions is not subject to judicial inquiry or decision.

The Oetjen case established that the determination of who is the sovereign de jure or de facto of a foreign territory is a political question. This determination conclusively binds the judges, and the recognition of a government that originates in revolution or revolt as the de jure government of a country validates all its actions and conduct from the beginning. The Court also noted that every sovereign state is bound to respect the independence of other sovereign states, and that the courts of one country cannot judge the acts of another country's government within its own territory.

The application of the political question doctrine in Oetjen v. Central Leather Co. has had a significant impact on the treatment of foreign policy matters by the courts. Lower courts have applied the doctrine to foreign policy numerous times, and the Supreme Court has applied it more frequently to cases related to the Executive Branch than to those related to the Legislative Branch. This case highlights the role of the political question doctrine in delineating the boundaries between the judiciary and the political branches of government in matters of foreign relations.

The six factors outlined in Baker v. Carr (1962)

The political question doctrine is not explicitly mentioned in the US Constitution. However, it has been developed through landmark Supreme Court rulings such as Marbury v. Madison (1803) and expounded upon in cases such as Baker v. Carr (1962).

In Baker v. Carr, the Supreme Court outlined six characteristics to determine whether a case involves a political question:

• A textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department: This refers to situations where the Constitution explicitly assigns certain duties or powers to a specific branch of government, such as the President's role in foreign affairs.
• A lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving the issue: This factor considers whether there are clear and enforceable legal standards that can be applied by a court to resolve the matter.
• The impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion: This factor recognises that some issues require policy considerations that are better suited for non-judicial decision-makers, such as the executive or legislative branches.
• The impossibility of a court's undertaking independent resolution without expressing a lack of respect due to coordinate branches of government: This factor acknowledges the need for courts to respect the decisions and authority of other branches of government and avoid interfering in their legitimate spheres of authority.
• An unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made: This factor highlights the importance of upholding previous political decisions to maintain stability and avoid judicial second-guessing.
• The potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question: This factor recognises that multiple or conflicting rulings on a single issue could create confusion and undermine the credibility of the government as a whole.

These factors provide a framework for courts to determine whether a case presents a political question and, therefore, whether it is appropriate for judicial resolution.

Explore related products

The Doctrine of God (NGIM Guide to Bible Doctrine)

$5.49

Islamic Doctrine versus the U.S. Constitution: The Dilemma for Muslim Public Officials

$9.99

Understanding the Founding: The Crucial Questions, 2nd Edition (American Political Thought)

$28.63 $37.99

The Great American Political Quiz: 1600+ Questions to Test Your Knowledge of U.S. Politics

$14.95 $14.95

Equality and Tradition: Questions of Value in Moral and Political Theory

$52 $52

The Logic of Political Survival (Mit Press)

$36.32 $50

The role of the judiciary

The political question doctrine is a legal concept that limits the ability of federal courts to hear constitutional questions, even when other justiciability requirements are met. The doctrine holds that some questions are fundamentally political, and not legal, and if a question is fundamentally political, then the court will refuse to hear the case, claiming that it does not have jurisdiction.

The doctrine is rooted in case law, with its origins traced back to the Supreme Court ruling in Marbury v. Madison (1803). In this case, Chief Justice John Marshall distinguished between the US Secretary of State's legal work and purely discretionary political tasks, arguing that courts should generally refrain from hearing cases involving political questions without implicating individual rights.

The leading case on the political question doctrine is Baker v. Carr (1962), where the Supreme Court expounded on the doctrine and outlined six characteristics of a case involving a political question. These characteristics include a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a political department, a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving the issue, and the impossibility of a court's independent resolution without expressing a lack of respect due to coordinate branches of government.

In some instances, the judiciary may choose to apply the political question doctrine to foreign policy matters, as seen in Oetjen v. Central Leather Co. (1918), where the Supreme Court found that the conduct of foreign relations is the sole responsibility of the Executive Branch. The doctrine has been applied more frequently to cases related to the Executive Branch than to the Legislative Branch.

The separation of powers

The US Constitution establishes three separate but equal branches of government: the legislative branch, the executive branch, and the judicial branch. Each branch has its distinct powers and responsibilities, which are outlined as follows:

Legislative Branch

The Legislative Branch is responsible for making laws. In the US, this power is vested in Congress, which consists of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Congress passes laws that are then presented to the President for approval. If the President disapproves, Congress can override the veto with a two-thirds majority vote in both the Senate and the House.

Executive Branch

The Executive Branch enforces the laws made by the Legislative Branch. The President of the United States is the head of the Executive Branch and is vested with executive power, including the authority to make treaties, appoint officials, and receive ambassadors. The President also serves as the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. However, the President does not personally enforce the laws; instead, subordinate officers carry out these duties.

Judicial Branch

The Judicial Branch interprets the laws and ensures that they are applied fairly and impartially. The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land, and it has the power to review the constitutionality of laws and government actions. Federal courts, such as the Supreme Court, play a crucial role in maintaining the separation of powers by hearing cases involving constitutional disputes.

While the Constitution does not explicitly mention the term "separation of powers", it divides governmental power among the three branches. This division of powers is further reinforced by various checks and balances, such as the power of Congress to pass legislation restraining executive officials and the power of the Supreme Court to declare executive actions unconstitutional.

In conclusion, the separation of powers is a crucial aspect of the US political system, designed to protect individual liberty and ensure that the government functions effectively while preventing the concentration of power in a single branch. Through the separation of powers, the Framers of the Constitution established a system of checks and balances that continues to shape American democracy today.

Frequently asked questions