Mora v. McNamara
389 U.S. 934, 88 S.Ct. 282, 19 L.Ed.2d 287 (1967)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Supreme Court may decline to adjudicate challenges to the constitutionality of a large-scale military conflict conducted without a formal declaration of war, treating the matter as a non-justiciable political question reserved for the political branches of government.
Facts:
- In late 1965, the petitioners were drafted into the United States Army.
- Approximately six months after being drafted, they were ordered to a replacement station on the West Coast.
- The purpose of this order was for their subsequent shipment to Vietnam to participate in the ongoing military conflict.
- At the time, the United States military involvement in Vietnam was being conducted without a formal declaration of war by the U.S. Congress.
Procedural Posture:
- The petitioners, three Army privates, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court against the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Army.
- The suit sought to prevent the Secretaries from enforcing orders to send the petitioners to Vietnam and requested a declaratory judgment that the U.S. military activity there was illegal.
- The District Court (trial court) dismissed the suit.
- The petitioners appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals, which affirmed the District Court's dismissal.
- The petitioners then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking 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:
Should the judiciary decide whether the Executive branch has the constitutional authority to order draftees to fight in a large-scale, undeclared military conflict, or is this a non-justiciable political question?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. There is no majority opinion. The Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari without comment, thereby declining to hear the case and leaving the lower court's decision in place. The unstated reasoning is the Court's avoidance of the issue, likely on the grounds that it presents a non-justiciable political question.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Stewart
Yes. The Court should grant certiorari to squarely face the profound constitutional questions presented by the case. The dissent argues that the legality of the Vietnam conflict under the Constitution is a question of great magnitude. It frames the central issues as whether the Vietnam conflict constitutes a 'war' under Article I, Section 8, and if so, whether the Executive can compel participation without a congressional declaration. Justice Stewart contends that the Court cannot 'make these problems go away simply by refusing to hear the case of three obscure Army privates' and has a duty to address these 'large and deeply troubling questions,' despite preliminary issues of justiciability.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Douglas
Yes. The petitioners are entitled to know whether their claims are beyond judicial cognizance and, if not, to have them decided on the merits. The dissent emphasizes the historical and constitutional tension between presidential authority and Congress's war-making power, citing the Prize Cases and the framers' intent. Justice Douglas argues against a reflexive application of the political question doctrine, quoting Justice Holmes that 'the objection that the subject matter of the suit is political is little more than a play upon words' when a private injury is at stake. He concludes that the Court has a duty to determine its own jurisdiction and, if it exists, to adjudicate the petitioners' fundamental claims regarding their life and liberty.
Analysis:
The Supreme Court's denial of certiorari in Mora v. McNamara is a landmark example of judicial avoidance regarding the Vietnam War. By invoking the political question doctrine, the Court sidestepped a direct ruling on the separation of war powers, effectively leaving the legality of the undeclared war to be resolved between Congress and the President. This pattern of non-intervention reinforced the power of the Executive in foreign military affairs during that era. However, the powerful dissents by Justices Stewart and Douglas articulated the fundamental constitutional questions at stake, ensuring the debate over war powers remained a critical issue in constitutional law and public discourse.
Unlock the full brief for Mora v. McNamara