Penn Undergraduate Law Journal
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
    • Pre-Law Corner
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Apply
    • FAQs
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
    • Pre-Law Corner
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Apply
    • FAQs

The Roundtable


Welcome to the Roundtable, a forum for incisive commentary and analysis
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.


An Examination of the Political Question Doctrine

11/30/2019

0 Comments

 
Picture
By Nicholas Williams
Nicholas Williams is a freshman in the College of Arts and Sciences planning on majoring in Political Science.


In Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton declared the judicial branch to be the weakest of the three branches of government [1]. He also wrote that the judiciary must remain “truly distinct” from the legislative and executive branches so as to not encroach upon the general liberty of the people. The Supreme Court has thus historically stayed clear of any issues that fall under the purview of the legislative and executive branches; more generally, the Court will not hear cases which it determines present political questions. It will also refuse to hear cases that do not present a clear judicially-manageable, non-political standard of deciding the case on its merits. These two instances wherein the Court refuses to hear a case are collectively known as the political question doctrine. What constitutes a political question is not always clear, and the doctrine has led to some contentious cases. However, the doctrine also has significant implications for the current legal and political climate.

One of the first cases involving the political question doctrine was Luther v. Borden (1849). The case involved whether Rhode Island truly had a republican form of government, a requirement for all states under the Constitution [2]. Several groups opposed Rhode Island’s government, as it had been created under a royal charter in 1663 and had antidemocratic features, including very narrow suffrage. These groups asked the Court to declare Rhode Island’s government void because it was not sufficiently republican, and instead recognize a government created by these dissident groups. The Supreme Court ruled that whether a state government was constitutional was a political question that the federal courts could not answer. Only Congress and the president, the Court held, could determine whether the structure of a state government is constitutional. These branches did not act, though, thus keeping in place Rhode Island’s original government.

In 2019, the Supreme Court once again employed the political question doctrine, this time in Rucho v. Common Cause. In that case, a group of North Carolina voters challenged the state’s congressional maps, claiming that they had been gerrymandered so much that they were unconstitutional [3]. The Court, in a narrow 5-4 decision, held that gerrymandering was a political question that federal courts could not solve. Specifically, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the Constitution empowered state legislatures to draw their own legislative maps and that Congress has the sole authority to oversee this process.

Two previous Court cases involving the political question doctrine could have implications for today’s politics. In Nixon v. United States (1993), a federal judge, Walter Nixon, was impeached by the House of Representatives [4]. The Senate appointed a committee to hear the House’s evidence against Nixon, and the Senate subsequently voted to remove Nixon from office. Nixon challenged the actions of the committee, saying it violated the Constitution’s requirement that the Senate has “the sole power to try all impeachments,” because the full Senate did not hear the evidence. The Supreme Court ruled that the courts have no say in the impeachment process, thus denying Nixon’s claim.

This could have implications for the current impeachment process. President Donald Trump has said that, if the House of Representatives were to impeach him, he would ask the Supreme Court to intervene [5]. As the Supreme Court has ruled that impeachment is an inherently political question that the Court cannot review, Trump would probably receive no relief from the Supreme Court if he were to be impeached.

Furthermore, the case of Coleman v. Miller (1939) could have implications on the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment. In that case, a group of Kansas legislators challenged whether the state’s ratification of an amendment banning child labor was legitimate [6]. The Supreme Court ruled that ratification of constitutional amendments is a political question and that Congress has full authority over the ratification process, thus denying the Kansas legislators’ challenge.

The Equal Rights Amendment initially failed to reach the 38 states required to ratify an amendment [7]. The original amendment included a seven-year window for ratification, and even though this window was extended by three years, the amendment was never ratified. The amendment is now one state away from receiving the required 38 states, but it is unclear what would happen if a 38th state were to ratify. Congress may simply be able to extend the deadline, thus guaranteeing the amendment’s ratification. Whatever happens, though, under current Supreme Court precedent, the federal courts will not be able to rule on any disputes.

It is easy to assume that the Supreme Court will be able to solve the various disputes that have arisen from the current politically-charged times in which we are living. However, people must remember that many of the Founders thought that the judiciary should not infringe upon the political powers of the other two branches. Even though our government is very divided, it is up to the political branches of government, Congress and the president, to resolve political questions. 

The opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions of the designated authors and do not reflect the opinions or views of the Penn Undergraduate Law Journal, our staff, or our clients.

Citations:


[1] “The Federalist Papers : No. 78.” The Avalon Project, Yale Law School. Accessed November 17, 2019. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed78.asp

[2] "Luther v. Borden." Oyez. Accessed November 17, 2019. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/48us1.

[3] "Rucho v. Common Cause." Oyez. Accessed November 17, 2019. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/18-422.

[4] "Nixon v. United States." Oyez. Accessed November 17, 2019. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1992/91-740.

[5] Trump, Donald (@realDonaldTrump). “If the partisan Dems ever tried to Impeach, I would first head to the U.S. Supreme Court.” Twitter, Tweet, April 24, 2019, 8:10 AM. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1121023509029892096

[6] "Coleman v. Miller." Oyez. Accessed November 17, 2019. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/307us433.

[7] Woodward-Burns, Robinson. “The Equal Rights Amendment is one state from ratification. Now what?” Washington Post. June 20, 2018. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/06/20/the-equal-rights-amendment-is-one-state-from-ratification-now-what/
0 Comments

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.


    Categories

    All
    Aaron Tsui
    Akshita Tiwary
    Alana Bess
    Alana Mattei
    Albert Manfredi
    Alexander Saeedy
    Alexandra Aaron
    Alexandra Kanan
    Alexandra Kerrigan
    Alice Giannini
    Alicia Augustin
    Alicia Kysar
    Ally Kalishman
    Ally Margolis
    Alya Abbassian
    Amanda Damayanti
    Anika Prakash
    Anna Schwartz
    Arshiya Pant
    Ashley Kim
    Astha Pandey
    Audrey Pan
    Benjamin Ng'aru
    Brónach Rafferty
    Bryce Klehm
    Cary Holley
    Catherine Tang
    Christina Gunzenhauser
    Christine Mitchell
    Christopher Brown
    Clarissa Alvarez
    Cole Borlee
    Connor Gallagher
    Dan Spinelli
    Dan Zhang
    David Katz
    Davis Berlind
    Derek Willie
    Dhilan Lavu
    Edgar Palomino
    Edna Simbi
    Ella Jewell
    Ella Sohn
    Emma Davies
    Esther Lee
    Evelyn Bond
    Filzah Belal
    Frank Geng
    Gabrielle Cohen
    Gabriel Maliha
    Georgia Ray
    Graham Reynolds
    Habib Olapade
    Hailie Goldsmith
    Haley Son
    Hannah Steinberg
    Harshit Rai
    Hennessis Umacta
    Henry Lininger
    Hetal Doshi
    Ingrid Holmquist
    Iris Zhang
    Irtaza Ali
    Isabela Baghdady
    Ishita Chakrabarty
    Jack Burgess
    Jessica "Lulu" Lipman
    Joe Anderson
    Jonathan Lahdo
    Jonathan Stahl
    Joseph Squillaro
    Justin Yang
    Kaitlyn Rentala
    Kanishka Bhukya
    Katie Kaufman
    Kelly Liang
    Keshav Sharma
    Ketaki Gujar
    Khlood Awan
    Lauren Pak
    Lavi Ben Dor
    Libby Rozbruch
    Lindsey Li
    Luis Bravo
    Lyan Casamalhuapa
    Lyndsey Reeve
    Madeline Decker
    Maja Cvjetanovic
    Maliha Farrooz
    Marco DiLeonardo
    Margaret Lu
    Matthew Caulfield
    Michael Keshmiri
    Michael Merolla
    Mina Nur Basmaci
    Muskan Mumtaz
    Natalie Peelish
    Natasha Darlington
    Natasha Kang
    Nathan Liu
    Nayeon Kim
    Nicholas Parsons
    Nicholas Williams
    Nicole Greenstein
    Nicole Patel
    Nihal Sahu
    Omar Khoury
    Owen Voutsinas Klose
    Owen Voutsinas-Klose
    Paula Vekker
    Pheby Liu
    Pragat Patel
    Rachel Bina
    Rachel Gu
    Rachel Pomerantz
    Rebecca Heilweil
    Regina Salmons
    Sajan Srivastava
    Samantha Graines
    Sandeep Suresh
    Sanjay Dureseti
    Sarah Simon
    Saranya Das Sharma
    Saranya Sharma
    Sasha Bryski
    Saxon Bryant
    Sean Foley
    Sebastian Bates
    Serena Camici
    Shahana Banerjee
    Shannon Alvino
    Shiven Sharma
    Siddarth Sethi
    Sneha Parthasarathy
    Sneha Sharma
    Sophie Lovering
    Steven Jacobson
    Suaida Firoze
    Suprateek Neogi
    Takane Shoji
    Tanner Bowen
    Taryn MacKinney
    Thomas Cribbins
    Todd Costa
    Tyler Larkworthy
    Tyler Ringhofer
    Vatsal Patel
    Vikram Balasubramanian
    Vishwajeet Deshmukh
    Wajeeha Ahmad
    Yeonhwa Lee

    Archives

    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    September 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    May 2023
    March 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    September 2022
    June 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    November 2014
    October 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.