The Supreme Court Political Question Doctrine

Every lawsuit begins with a plaintiff seeking justice. Sometimes, plaintiffs bring forth issues that may challenge the boundaries of judicial authority. Courts can't hear all types of cases. The concept of justiciability concerns the type of case or controversy that a court can decide.

A few of the factors a court must consider in determining if it can hear a case include:

• Standing
• Mootness
• Ripeness

The political question doctrine prevents courts from making decisions on political questions. Under the U.S. Constitution, such questions are meant for Congress or the president. There are non-judicial questions courts are not suited to answer. In some cases, the judiciary may lack objective standards to resolve the matter. A court ruling on an issue could disrupt the separation of powers.

The political question doctrine prevents federal courts from making decisions they shouldn't make. Decisions are better suited for Congress or the President to handle, such as how to run elections or handle foreign policy.

The political question doctrine helps maintain the separation of powers. Powers are separated between:

• The legislative branch (the House of Representatives and the Senate)
• The executive branch (led by the President)
• And the judicial branch (the Supreme Court and lower courts)

Preserving this separation is a matter of national security. The political question doctrine recognizes that there are some questions that judges aren’t qualified to answer.

How the Political Question Doctrine Works

The Supreme Court must decide whether there are any cases they cannot decide under the political question doctrine. To identify a political question, the Court looks for factors originating in Baker v. Carr (1962.)

The factors aim to protect the separation of powers and ensure the competency of courts. The Court uses the following factors to assess whether it can decide an issue:

1. There is a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment to the issue: Does the Constitution explicitly grant another branch of government (a coordinated political department) the power to answer this question?

2. A lack of manageable standards: Is there a reliable standard for resolving the issue?

3. The impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination: Would resolving the issue require a policy decision that is not judicial in nature?

4. The impossibility of a court resolving the question without upsetting the separation of powers: Would resolving the issue disrespect the roles and powers of the executive or legislative branches?

5. An "unusual need" to adhere to a political decision already made: Is there a need to adhere to a previous political decision?

6. The "potentiality of embarrassment" from conflicting answers to one question: Could there be conflicting statements by different branches of government on the issue?

The Political Question Doctrine’s Historical Origins and Constitutional Basis

The political question doctrine is rooted in case law. Two pivotal Supreme Court decisions empowered the Court to invalidate laws conflicting with the Constitution and recognized the judiciary's limitations due to coordinate branches of government.

Marbury v. Madison (1803) and Judicial Review

Marbury v. Madison (1803) is the Supreme Court case that established the principle of judicial review. Judicial Review allows the courts to decide whether a law is constitutional.

In 1803, William Marbury was appointed justice of the peace. Trouble followed when his commission wasn't delivered, so Marbury asked the Supreme Court to force the delivery of his commission.

A law allowed Marbury to bring his case directly to the Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Marshall wrote an opinion holding that the law was unconstitutional.

This decision marked the first time the Supreme Court declared a law unconstitutional. It clarified the Court's judicial power to interpret the Constitution and check the other branches of government.

Marbury v. Madison (1803) established the power of judicial review but also hinted at limits to this power. It suggested that some issues are exclusively for other government branches to decide. This laid the groundwork for the political question doctrine, the key principle of which is that federal courts should not decide issues better suited for other political branches.

Baker v. Carr (1962) Shapes Political Question Doctrine

Baker v. Carr (1962) shaped the doctrine by providing clear criteria for what constitutes a political question. The Supreme Court identified the six factors used to determine when courts should refrain from deciding cases.

While Marbury v. Madison introduced the concept of judicial review, Baker v. Carr refined the political question doctrine. It clarified when the judiciary should defer to other branches.

The Supreme Court and Partisan Gerrymandering

Partisan gerrymandering occurs when people draw voting district lines to help a political party win elections. This can compromise the fairness of elections because it may not accurately reflect the majority's preferences. The Supreme Court usually doesn't want to get involved because it sees it as a political problem, not just a legal one.

The debate over the nonjusticiability of cases regarding partisan gerrymandering is ongoing. The following is a glance at arguments for and against the Court taking an active role in combating it.

Arguments for the Supreme Court's active role in eliminating partisan gerrymandering:

• Ensure fair representation: The Court could help prevent the manipulation of electoral boundaries. This would promote fair elections.
• Protect democracy: By addressing gerrymandering, the Court would safeguard democratic principles. It could ensure that electoral power is not unfairly concentrated.
• Enforce equal protection: The Court could guard the equal protection clause against gerrymandering. This would promote equal treatment under the law.

Arguments against the Supreme Court's active role in eliminating partisan gerrymandering:

• Not a judicial issue: Some believe gerrymandering is a political issue not meant for the judiciary.
• No clear standards: There is a concern about the absence of clear, manageable standards regarding gerrymandering, which could lead to inconsistent rulings.
• Encroaches on state sovereignty: Some view the Court's involvement as an encroachment on states' rights, contending that states are capable of administering their own electoral processes.

Supreme Court Rulings on Gerrymandering

The Supreme Court has tackled the complex issue of gerrymandering more than once. These cases show the Court is stepping back, saying these are political issues, not for judges to fix. This means that while gerrymandering might not seem fair, the Court won't stop it, leaving it to politicians or new laws to make changes.

Vieth v. Jubelirer (2004)

In Vieth v. Jubelirer (2004), the Supreme Court addressed the issue of partisan gerrymandering. The plurality opinion held that claims of partisan gerrymandering were nonjusticiable. It reasoned that there were no manageable standards for judging such cases.

The Court could not decide on a test for when political considerations in districting are unconstitutional. It deemed the matter a nonjusticiable political question. The decision meant the Supreme Court would not involve itself in questions of partisan gerrymandering. It left such issues to the political process.

Rucho v. Common Cause (2019)

In Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), the Supreme Court ruled that partisan gerrymandering claims do not belong in federal court. It reasoned that they present a "political question" beyond the reach of federal judges. The Court found no clear legal standard to determine when the political influence on redistricting is excessive.

The Supreme Court acknowledged that partisan gerrymandering isn't consistent with democratic principles. It concluded that it is not the federal judiciary's role to solve this problem. The Court suggested that the issue could be addressed through state constitutions or by Congress. This ruling closed the door on federal courts challenging partisan gerrymandering. It left it up to the political branches of government and the states to find solutions.

Nixon v. United States (1993)

Nixon v. United States (1993) examined impeachment trial issues. Walter Nixon, an impeached judge, argued the Senate didn't follow proper trial procedures. However, the Court determined that it's not their job to decide how the Senate conducts an impeachment. The concurring and dissenting opinions in this case delved into the nature of the impeachment trial process. They considered the judicial branch's role in interpreting the Constitution's impeachment language. The Court ruled that the Constitution gives the Senate the power to handle impeachment trials.

The political question doctrine limits judicial review in cases involving state legislatures and congressional apportionment. This leaves redistricting and representation issues to the discretion of political branches.

The Supreme Court's restraint in some matters respects the separation of powers and state sovereignty. It also leaves open questions about the protection of democratic principles. The future of the doctrine will shape the landscape of American politics. It is crucial to the fairness of electoral processes and the accountability of governmental actions.