Political Question Doctrine PDF

Preview

Summary

Lecture Notes from con law I...

Description

← ←

Political Question Doctrine  

←

← ← ←

Sup. Ct. imposed this rule on themselves (prudential rule, rules of selfrestraint) Certain case the ct. will hold it non-justiciable, just dismiss case, b/c they believe certain cases are better resolved to solve the issue.

Baker v. Carr:  defendant argued that case should be dismissed that the case was a "guarantee clause" claim. This clause is in the const. in article 4 guarantees each state a republican govt.  Ct. based decision on previous case it heard that said they would not hear "guarantee clause" claims.  Ct. majority said that equal protection claims are justiciable, but if it was a guarantee clause cannot be heard and will be dismissed. Factors to determine if a case falls under Political Qs. Doctrine: First two listed are the most important when determining… 1. Has the issue been textually committed to another branch? i. Stated in the constitution as an issue to be dealt with by another branch of govt. ii. When the issue is one that has been textually committed to another branch of government (the constitution gives that decision to another branch of government) 2. No judicially manageable standards i. The court just doesn't have any criteria that it can use to resave the case (no expertise, no standards for hearing this case) ii. When there is a lack of judicially manageable standards, which means there simply aren’t standards, court doesn’t have the expertise, doesn’t have the ability, no satisfactory criteria 3. Special need for adhering to a decision made by another branch and the risk of embarrassment abroad. Same reason why the court would not want to go against what the President or Congress are doing. The need for the country to speak with one voice o There is an unusual need to adhere to a decision already made and aligned with that there are a number of considerations that have some overlap o Potential for embaressment abroad, the need for a country to be speaking in one voice o It wouldn’t be good for different branches to speak differently—we want to speak as one voice

List of questions that courts treats as political questions (page 79)

←

Political Gerrymandering:  re-drawing districts in order to gain republicans or democrats in districts. Courts are divided as to whether these claims challenging this practice can be heard in court. Political Question Doctrine ←

    

Sup. Ct. imposed this rule on themselves (prudential rule, rules of self-restraint) Certain case the ct. will hold it non-justisicable, just dismiss case, b/c they believe certain cases are better resolved to solve the issue. Baker v. Carr: defendant argued that case should be dismissed that the case was a "guarantee clause" claim. This clause is in the const. in article 4 guarantees each state a republican govt. Ct. based decision on previous case it heard that said they would not hear "guarantee clause" claims. Ct. majority said that equal protection claims are justiciable, but if it was a guarantee clause cannot be heard and will be dismissed.



Factors to determine if a case falls under Political Qs. Doctrine o Has the issue been textually committed to another branch?  Stated in the constitution as an issue to be dealt with by another branch of govt. o No judicially manageable standards  The court just doesn't have any criteria that it can use to resave the case (no expertise, no standards for hearing this case) o Special need for adhering to a decision made by another branch and the risk of embarrassment abroad. Some reason why the court would not want to go against what the President or Congress are doing. The need for the country to speak with one voice



List of questions that courts treats as political questions (page 79)



Political Jerrymandering: re-drawing districts in order to gain republicans or democrats in districts. Courts are divided as to whether these claims challenging this practice can be heard in court....