The US federal system divides power between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches to create balanced government through checks and balances. The political question doctrine limits the power of the judicial branch by giving it jurisdiction only over non-political matters, but confusion arises over what qualifies as a political issue. The Supreme Court has declined to rule on foreign policy and military issues, but the interpretation of the doctrine can change with turnover of members. Legal scholars question whether this self-imposed rule is too subject to the changing whims of the court.
In the United States federal system, power is divided between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, as a means of creating balanced government through checks and balances. The executive branch, for example, can veto the legislative branch, but the legislative branch can also act as a brake on the executive branch by overturning a veto. One of the checks on the power of the judiciary is a doctrine of non-interference in what is known as a political matter. Calling a case a political issue means that the court will not rule on the dispute, as it should be resolved through political, rather than judicial, means.
The concept of a political issue dates back to the early 19th century, when the US Supreme Court was just beginning to define its position in the newly created federal government. The term was first used by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison of 19, when he suggested that the court’s role be to make decisions about individual rights and constitutionality, and not about government actions which are subject to another form of review. This doctrine was expanded in 1803 by Chief Justice Roger Taney, who more clearly stated that matters with a political remedy must be subject to that form of remedy, rather than a Supreme Court decision.
The political question doctrine is a self-imposed rule of the Supreme Court, rather than most of the statutory checks and balances governing actions among other branches of the federal government. In general, it is seen as a means of limiting the power of the judicial branch of government by giving it jurisdiction only over non-political matters. However, confusion often arises when it comes to exactly what qualifies as a political issue and what doesn’t.
In most cases, the Supreme Court has declined to rule on foreign policy issues and military issues under the political question doctrine. Beyond this, however, the use of the political question doctrine has become rather obscure. In the Watergate affair that led to President Nixon’s resignation, the Court abandoned its previous doctrine ruling that the president could not challenge congressional subpoenas to turn over evidence. According to the previous interpretation of a political issue, the Supreme Court would not have had jurisdiction over the actions of the President, as the government executive is subject to its own rules.
Legal scholars often despair that the only means of defining a political issue is through endless enumeration: only on a case-by-case basis is the term specifically enumerated. As the character of the court changes with the turnover of members, the court may also choose to ignore precedent, leading to a tug of war over time as it chooses to set precedent, create exceptions, and reverse previous positions. At its core, a decision on a political issue is intended to create a check on the power of the judiciary, but many question whether this self-imposed rule is too subject to the changing whims of the court.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
