In The Political Question Doctrine you met the idea that some constitutional questions belong to the political branches, not the courts. Standing asks whether this plaintiff may sue; the political question doctrine asks whether this issue is one a court can decide at all. Three cases show how it works.
Why it works
| Baker's markers (in summary) | In plain words |
|---|---|
| A textual commitment of the issue to another branch | The Constitution gives this decision to Congress or the President. |
| No judicially discoverable and manageable standards | There is no legal test a court could apply. |
| A policy decision of a kind not for courts | Deciding would require a non-judicial policy choice. |
| Lack of respect due other branches; need to adhere to a political decision; risk of embarrassment from conflicting pronouncements | Prudential concerns about the Court's place among the branches. |
Key idea
Worked example: Textual commitment: Nixon v. United States (1993)
- Article I, Section 3 gives the Senate "the sole Power to try all Impeachments."
- The word "sole" commits the matter to the Senate alone, and "try" is too broad to supply a precise judicial standard.
- Judicial review would also undercut the impeachment check on the judiciary itself.
Answer: No. The Court held the claim nonjusticiable; how to conduct the trial is for the Senate.
Worked example: No manageable standard: Rucho v. Common Cause (2019)
- Chief Justice Roberts for the majority: the Constitution supplies no standard for "fair" partisan shares; courts would be making political judgments.
- He noted other routes: state constitutions and courts, independent commissions and Congress under the Elections Clause.
- Justice Kagan, for four dissenters, argued that lower courts had developed workable tests and that the harm to voters is serious.
Answer: The claims are political questions beyond the reach of federal courts (5 to 4).
Common mistake
The doctrine echoes Federalist No. 78's picture of courts with "neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment": they act through legal judgment, and where there is no law to apply, they step back.