PQ Doctrine (ALSO JUSTICIABILITY) [DONE] Flashcards
Baker v. Carr [Case on Point]
Facts: Tennessee voters seek a reapportionment of state assembly districts; the districts have not been reapportioned since 1901.
Rule: The Guaranty Clause may not be used as a source of a constitutional standard for invalidating state action, but an equal protection claim may be so used where it does not implicate a political question.
Judges divide on malapportionment of the state assembly districts as a political question. Majority believes it was a political question.
Prudential Reasons: Mostly won’t take these cases. Won’t hear cases involving:
rights of 3rd parties
Generalized grievances widely shared [Exceptions: threat(s) to democracy Baker v. Carr]
Baker v. Carr generalized grievance, but SCOTUS took it? Why?
The case has to be taken or otherwise the people are unable to fix the corruption created by the legislature. Although it’s a major grievance the issue is controlled by the legislature and there’s nothing the people can do to change the situation without SCOTUS help.
Carolene Products, Footnote 4
Stone wrote that the Court would exercise a stricter standard of review when a law appears on its face to violate a provision of the United States Constitution,
restricts the political process in a way that could impede the repeal of an undesirable law,
or discriminates against “discrete and insular” minorities.
Footnote Four would influence later Supreme Court decisions, and the higher standard of review is now known as “strict scrutiny”.
Powell
Facts: Challenge to the refusal to seat the proposed house of representative in 1967 Adam Clayton Powell Jr., House Committee found that he had wrongfully diverted House funds for the use of others and himself. McCormack argued in response that Art. 1 §5 cl. 1 “each House shall be the Judge of [the] Qualifications of its own Members”
Rule: SCOTUS found Powell’s claim of a wrongful basis for exclusion justiciable [subject to trial in a court of law]. Did not decide whether member held the qualifications.
Goldwater v. Carter [PQ Foreign Affairs Precedent]
Facts: Constitution sets forth procedures for the Senate to participate in treaty ratification but is silent as to any Senate role in treaty abrogation.
Does the President have the authority to terminate a treaty unilaterally?
Rule: Case presented a nonjusticiable political question because “it involves the authority of the President and the conduct of our country’s foreign relations” and
this was “a dispute between coequal branches of our government, each of which has resources available to protect and assert its interests, resources not available to private litigants outside the judicial forum.”
Recognition of Taiwan in 1970’s where government in Beijing as the Government of China. President Carter decided not to continue abiding by a defense treaty with the Taiwan Govmt.
Most judges either said it was a political question or they said this was a power the president gets to do [unilaterally abrogating treaties]. Could be in the zone where congress disagrees with treaty, but president still has power.
Nixon
Facts: Nixon (D) challenges a subpoena served on him as a third party requiring the production of tapes and documents for use in a criminal prosecution.
Rule: Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, an absolute, unqualifies presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances does not exist.
Luther v. Borden
Rule: PQ - it was up to Congress, not the judiciary, to decide which government was the established one in a state
Facts: RI has 2 governments each claiming to be legit
often cited as the first case to discuss in detail the application of the political question doctrine
PQ Doctrine serves to
prevent federal courts from intruding unduly on certain policy choices and value determinations that are constitutionally committed to Congress or the executive branch
