Doe v. Bush
Not available (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a congressional authorization for the use of military force is not ripe for judicial review before an actual conflict between the executive and legislative branches has materialized. Furthermore, claims that Congress has unconstitutionally delegated its war-making authority to the President are generally nonjusticiable when the powers are shared and Congress has provided guiding principles for the executive's discretion.
Facts:
- Following the 1991 Persian Gulf War, Iraq repeatedly violated United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding the destruction of its weapons of mass destruction.
- Throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, the United States, with congressional awareness, engaged in ongoing military actions against Iraq, including enforcing a no-fly zone and launching missile strikes.
- In 1998, Congress passed resolutions declaring Iraq to be in 'material and unacceptable breach' of its international obligations and stating a U.S. policy of removing Saddam Hussein from power.
- In September 2002, President George W. Bush addressed the United Nations, signaling that military force might be necessary to enforce resolutions against Iraq.
- In October 2002, following negotiations between the executive and legislative branches, Congress passed the 'Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002' (the 'October Resolution').
- The October Resolution authorized the President to use the Armed Forces as he determined necessary and appropriate to defend U.S. national security against the threat posed by Iraq and to enforce all relevant UN Security Council resolutions.
- Following the passage of the resolution, the United States deployed over 200,000 troops to the region in preparation for a possible invasion of Iraq.
Procedural Posture:
- Active-duty military members, parents, and members of the U.S. House of Representatives (Plaintiffs) filed a complaint against President George W. Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (Defendants) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
- The plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the defendants from initiating a war against Iraq.
- The district court (a court of first instance) dismissed the suit.
- The plaintiffs (Appellants) appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, where the defendants were the Appellees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a lawsuit seeking to enjoin the President from initiating military action pursuant to a congressional resolution authorizing such force justiciable in federal court before military action has commenced and before a clear constitutional conflict between the political branches has arisen?
Opinions:
Majority - Lynch, Circuit Judge.
No. A lawsuit challenging the President's authority to initiate military action under a congressional resolution is not justiciable because the dispute is not yet ripe and involves the shared war powers of the political branches, which call for judicial restraint. The plaintiffs' 'collision' theory—that the President will act in violation of the October Resolution—is not ripe because the underlying facts are too speculative and fluid; diplomacy is ongoing, the UN Security Council may yet act, and no 'constitutional impasse' between the President and Congress has occurred. The plaintiffs' 'collusion' theory—that Congress unconstitutionally delegated its war-declaration power to the President—is also not fit for judicial review. Unlike other separation of powers cases, the Constitution's war powers are explicitly shared between the political branches, creating a 'zone of twilight' where courts should be hesitant to intervene. The October Resolution is not an absolute delegation of power; it provides guiding principles, and Congress has been actively involved in U.S.-Iraq policy for over a decade. Therefore, the court must exercise judicial restraint and allow the political branches to resolve the matter.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the judiciary's traditional reluctance to intervene in disputes over war powers, framing the issue through the lens of ripeness rather than the more controversial political question doctrine. It establishes that for a court to adjudicate such a case, there must be a clear, concrete, and developed conflict—a 'constitutional impasse'—between the President and Congress, not merely a potential or speculative one. The ruling reinforces the principle that challenges to the form and substance of a congressional authorization for war are largely matters for the political branches to resolve themselves, absent an extreme and unambiguous transgression of constitutional boundaries.
Unlock the full brief for Doe v. Bush