Kucinich v. Bush

District Court, District of Columbia
236 F.Supp.2d 1, 2002 WL 31889966, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24691 (2002)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Individual members of Congress lack Article III standing to sue the President for unilateral treaty termination because the alleged dilution of legislative power is an institutional injury rather than a personal one, and such challenges present nonjusticiable political questions.

Facts:

In 1972, the United States and the Soviet Union entered into the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty to limit nuclear defense systems.
The Treaty included a termination clause allowing a party to withdraw with six months' notice if extraordinary events jeopardized its supreme interests.
Decades later, President George W. Bush determined that the global security climate had changed following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the events of September 11, 2001.
On December 13, 2001, President Bush provided formal notice to Russia of the United States' intention to withdraw from the ABM Treaty.
President Bush did not submit the decision to terminate the treaty to the Senate or House of Representatives for consent.
Representative Kucinich and others introduced a resolution in the House opposing the unilateral withdrawal, but the resolution was tabled and effectively defeated.
The withdrawal from the treaty was set to become effective six months after the President's notice.

Procedural Posture:

Thirty-two members of the House of Representatives filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment against the President and Cabinet officials.
The defendants (Executive Branch officials) filed a cross-motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Do individual members of the House of Representatives have standing to challenge the President's unilateral withdrawal from a treaty without congressional approval, and does such a challenge present a justiciable controversy?

Opinions:

Majority - Judge Bates

No, the court held that the plaintiffs lack standing and that the dispute is a nonjusticiable political question. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Raines v. Byrd, the court reasoned that the legislators alleged an 'institutional injury'—the dilution of their voting power and constitutional role—rather than a personal, particularized injury. This type of abstract injury, which affects all members of Congress equally, does not satisfy Article III standing requirements. Furthermore, the court applied the political question doctrine from Baker v. Carr and Goldwater v. Carter. It determined that foreign relations are committed to the political branches, the Constitution is silent on the mechanism for treaty termination (as opposed to ratification), and the judiciary must speak with a single voice in foreign affairs to avoid international embarrassment. Consequently, the court found it improper to intervene in a dispute where Congress possesses ample political tools (appropriations, legislation, impeachment) to protect its own interests.

Analysis:

This decision reinforces the high barrier established by Raines v. Byrd for legislator standing, extending it explicitly to the realm of foreign affairs and treaty termination. By dismissing the suit on both standing and political question grounds, the court signaled a strong judicial retreat from inter-branch conflicts regarding foreign policy. The ruling suggests that unless Congress acts as a unified body (creating a true constitutional impasse) or an individual legislator suffers a specific personal loss (like losing a seat), federal courts will not adjudicate claims of diminished legislative authority. This effectively leaves the Executive Branch with broad, unchecked discretion in treaty termination unless Congress can muster the political will to enact legislative countermeasures.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Kucinich v. Bush (2002)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"