Pietsch v. Bush
1991 WL 3478, 755 F. Supp. 62, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 538 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A private citizen lacks standing to challenge the constitutionality of military action when the alleged injury is a generalized grievance, such as emotional distress or an abstract interest in constitutional governance, rather than a concrete and particularized harm.
Facts:
- In August 1990, Iraq invaded and occupied the nation of Kuwait.
- In response, the United States deployed armed forces to the Persian Gulf.
- The plaintiff, Pietsch, a private citizen, alleged the President unconstitutionally converted these forces from a defensive to an offensive posture and called up reserves for the purpose of launching a war.
- On January 12, 1991, Congress passed a resolution authorizing the President to use United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
- Pietsch contended that this congressional resolution was invalid because Congress was coerced by the President.
- Pietsch was not a member of the armed forces or reserve forces and was not subject to military service in the Persian Gulf.
Procedural Posture:
- Pietsch filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court against the President of the United States.
- Pietsch submitted a proposed Order to Show Cause, seeking a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to prevent the initiation of war against Iraq.
- The government submitted opposition papers, arguing that the plaintiff lacked standing and that the action raised a non-justiciable political question.
- The District Court heard oral argument on the plaintiff's application.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a private citizen, who is not a member of the armed forces, have standing to sue the President to prevent military action based on claims of taxpayer status, emotional distress, or a general interest in seeing the government act constitutionally?
Opinions:
Majority - Spatt, District Judge
No. A private citizen lacks standing to challenge the prospective military action because he cannot demonstrate a concrete, particularized, and palpable injury required for a federal court to hear the case. The court applied the three-part test for Article III standing: (1) injury in fact, (2) causation, and (3) redressability. The plaintiff failed the first prong because his alleged injuries—that he was being made an 'accessory to murder against his will' and was suffering emotional distress—were too abstract and not distinct to him personally. The court rejected taxpayer standing, as that doctrine is narrowly limited to challenges under the Establishment Clause concerning congressional spending, not actions related to the War Powers Clause. Finally, the plaintiff's status as a citizen interested in constitutional governance represents a generalized grievance shared by all members of the public, which is insufficient to confer standing.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the formidable barrier of the standing doctrine, particularly in matters of foreign policy and national security. By dismissing the case on standing grounds, the court avoids ruling on the sensitive and politically charged question of the constitutional division of war-making powers between the President and Congress. The decision illustrates how procedural doctrines can be used to maintain the separation of powers by keeping the judiciary out of what it considers to be political disputes best resolved by the other branches of government. It firmly establishes that a citizen's profound moral or civic opposition to a government policy, without a direct and personal injury, does not create a justiciable 'case or controversy' under Article III.
