Goldwater Et Al. v. Carter, President of the United States, Et Al.
444 U.S. 996 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A dispute between members of Congress and the President regarding the President's authority to unilaterally terminate a treaty presents a non-justiciable political question.
Facts:
- The United States maintained a Mutual Defense Treaty with the Republic of China (Taiwan).
- In 1978, President Jimmy Carter announced that the United States would formally recognize the People's Republic of China (mainland China) as the sole legitimate government of China.
- As a necessary component of this new diplomatic recognition, President Carter also announced his intent to unilaterally terminate the defense treaty with Taiwan.
- The President gave notice of termination, which was to become effective on January 1, 1980.
- Senator Barry Goldwater and several other members of Congress believed the President's unilateral action was unconstitutional, arguing that treaty termination required the consent of the Senate or the full Congress.
Procedural Posture:
- Senator Barry Goldwater and other members of Congress sued President Carter in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
- The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that the President's unilateral action to terminate the treaty was unconstitutional.
- The District Court, a court of first instance, held that the President's action was unconstitutional and required Senate approval.
- President Carter appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court, finding that the President did have the constitutional authority to terminate the treaty as part of his foreign affairs power.
- Senator Goldwater and the other members of Congress (petitioners) then petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.
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 the question of whether the President has the constitutional authority to unilaterally terminate a mutual defense treaty without Senate or Congressional approval a non-justiciable political question?
Opinions:
Concurrence - Justice Rehnquist
Yes, the issue of the President's authority to terminate a treaty is a non-justiciable political question. The Constitution is silent on the process for abrogating a treaty, unlike its explicit provision for ratification. This dispute involves the foreign relations authority of the President and Congress, which are co-equal political branches of government, and it should be resolved through the political process, not by the judiciary. The case is analogous to Coleman v. Miller, where the Court found that the process of ratifying a constitutional amendment was a political question for Congress to decide.
Concurrence - Justice Powell
Yes, this particular case should be dismissed as non-justiciable, but because it is not yet ripe for judicial review. A dispute between the political branches is not ready for the judiciary until Congress has taken formal action to assert its constitutional authority and the branches have reached a 'constitutional impasse.' Since Congress had not taken any official action, such as passing a resolution challenging the President's authority, the Court should not intervene and should dismiss the case on prudential ripeness grounds rather than labeling the entire subject a political question.
Dissent - Justice Brennan
No, the issue is justiciable and should be decided by the Court. The political question doctrine does not apply to the antecedent question of which branch has been constitutionally assigned the power to act. The judiciary is competent to resolve such constitutional allocation of power issues. On the merits, the President’s power to terminate this treaty is a necessary incident of his exclusive constitutional power to recognize and withdraw recognition from foreign governments, a power firmly established in precedent.
Dissent - Justice Blackmun
The Court should not decide the issue without full consideration. The questions of justiciability, standing, and ripeness are substantial and should not be decided summarily. The case deserves to be set for oral argument and given plenary consideration rather than being dismissed outright.
Analysis:
This fractured decision is significant for leaving the constitutional question of treaty termination authority unresolved. The plurality's reliance on the political question doctrine demonstrates the Court's deep reluctance to adjudicate separation-of-powers disputes between the President and Congress, particularly in the realm of foreign affairs. By declining to rule, the Court effectively allows the balance of power on this issue to be determined by political struggle rather than constitutional law. The case leaves a major gap in foreign relations law, ensuring that future conflicts over treaty termination will be political battles rather than legal ones.
Unlock the full brief for Goldwater Et Al. v. Carter, President of the United States, Et Al.