Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.
Political question doctrine
| Administrative State |
|---|
|
| Five Pillars of the Administrative State |
| •Agency control • Executive control • Judicial control •Legislative control • Public Control |
| Click here for more coverage of the administrative state on Ballotpedia.
|
| Click here to access Ballotpedia's administrative state legislation tracker. |
The political question doctrine refers to disputes that courts determine are best resolved by the politically accountable branches of government: the president and Congress. The traditional expression of the doctrine refers to cases that courts will not resolve because they involve questions about the judgment of actors in the executive or legislative branches and not the authority of those actors. For example, cases involving foreign policy or impeachment often raise political question concerns. Drawing lines between regular cases and political questions has been difficult over the course of American history because of differing opinions about the separation of powers among the branches of the federal government.[1][2]
Theory and practice
According to Jared P. Cole, writing for the Congressional Research Service, the foundation of the political question doctrine is disputed. One theory argues that the Constitution of the United States sets the bounds of the doctrine when it gives responsibility to resolve certain questions to Congress or the president. Another theory states that prudential reasons allow courts to decline to adjudicate certain questions. Cole says that the U.S. Supreme Court has relied on both constitutional and prudential factors in various cases that touch on the political question doctrine.[1]
A note from the Harvard Law Review says that the political question doctrine combined with early notions of judicial review to solidify the place of the courts in the American constitutional system:[3]
|
Origin of the doctrine
Marbury v. Madison
One of the earliest expressions of the political question doctrine is the 1803 U.S. Supreme Court case Marbury et al. v. Madison. In that case, Chief Justice John Marshall argued that the courts could not review decisions made by the president in areas where the United States Constitution granted discretion to the executive branch and where individual rights were not implicated.[5][1][3]
|
According to legislative attorney Jared P. Cole, the political question doctrine expanded after Marbury. In the 1849 case Luther v. Borden, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Congress, not the courts, must decide which entity was the lawful state government of Rhode Island. That ruling meant that discretion left either to the executive or to the legislative branch could be a political question that courts would not decide. The Harvard Law Review suggests that Luther established a prudential form of the political question doctrine based on the U.S. Supreme Court's inability to carry out constitutional duties committed to the United States.[1][3]
Baker v. Carr
In 1962, the U.S. Supreme Court articulated six factors that could trigger the political question doctrine in the case of Baker v. Carr.[1][6]
|
The Baker Court also held that issues related to foreign policy could raise political questions. A note from the Harvard Law Review states that Baker was the first attempt to create a comprehensive rule governing the political question doctrine even though the doctrine had posed problems since the very early republic.[1][6][3]
In the context of administrative law
A note from the Harvard Law Review connects the political question doctrine with common law notions of sovereign immunity, which is the idea that governments can choose whether to submit to prosecutions or other legal actions. That connection attempts to show how the political question doctrine extended into the administrative state starting with the case Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co. in 1856. In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that there were some cases related to public rights that Congress could keep courts from considering:[3][7]
|
The Harvard Law Review note argues that the creation of the public rights doctrine in Murray's Lessee applied the political question doctrine to the administrative state because the case involved the ramifications of the federal government dealing with an embezzling customs agent. The note claims that the political question doctrine is a kind of limiting principle for judicial review:[3]
|
See also
- Ballotpedia's administrative state coverage
- Separation of powers
- Judicial review
- Search Google News for this topic
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 Congressional Research Service, "The Political Question Doctrine: Justiciability and the Separation of Powers," December 23, 2014
- ↑ American University Law Review, "The Political Question Doctrines," Vol. 67, 2017, accessed October 25, 2018
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 Harvard Law Review, "Political Questions, Public Rights, and Sovereign Immunity," December 9, 2016
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 JUSTIA, "Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)," accessed October 25, 2018
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 JUSTIA, "Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962)," accessed October 26, 2018
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 JUSTIA, "Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co., 59 U.S. 272 (1856)," accessed October 26, 2018
