The Political Question Doctrine: Congressional Governance and Impeachment as Political Questions (Part 5)

"This Legal Sidebar is the fifth in a six-part series that discusses the Supreme Court’s political question doctrine, which instructs that federal courts should forbear from resolving questions when doing so would require the judiciary to make policy decisions, exercise discretion beyond its competency, or encroach on powers the Constitution vests in the legislative or executive branches. By limiting the range of cases federal courts can consider, the political question doctrine is intended to maintain the separation of powers and recognize the roles of the legislative and executive branches in interpreting the Constitution. Understanding the political question doctrine may assist Members of Congress in recognizing when actions of Congress or the executive branch would not be subject to judicial review. For additional background on this topic and citations to relevant sources, please see the Constitution of the UnitedStates, Analysis and Interpretation.

The Supreme Court has applied the political question doctrine to cases involving the internal governance of Congress, though recent decisions have construed the doctrine narrowly in this context. In the preBaker case Marshall Field & Co. v. Clark, plaintiffs challenging a tariff law contended that the law was invalid because a section of the bill passed by Congress was omitted from the final version of the law signed by the President. The Court concluded that it could not adjudicate this issue. Because of the “respect due to a co-ordinate branch of the government,” the Court had to take as “conclusive” the fact that the act was attested by the signatures of the presiding officers of the houses of Congress and approved by the President. Baker explained that Clark signified the need for “respect” to coequal branches and for “finality and certainty” about statutes. A few cases since Baker have added color to the concept of “respect” in this context.

For example, in Powell v. McCormack, an individual elected to the House of Representatives challenged a House resolution excluding him from his seat in Congress. Although the Member-elect met the age and citizenship requirements in Article I, Section 2, the House found that he had misrepresented travel expenses and made illegal salary payments to his wife. The defendants—Members and officers of the House—argued that the text of the Constitution, specifically Article I, Section 5, gave Congress exclusive authority to judge the qualifications of its own Members, so Congress could determine that the Member was unqualified. The Supreme Court held that the case could go forward and that the Member-elect was entitled to relief. On the question of justiciability, the Court explained that, despite the text the defendants cited from Article I, Section 5, there was no “textually demonstrable” commitment of this constitutional question to another branch. At most, the Constitution gave Congress the power to judge the “qualifications expressly set forth in the Constitution,” not the power to set new qualifications. Nor did the Court conclude that “the respect due co-ordinate branches” barred hearing the case, even though it was interpreting the Constitution “in a manner at variance with the construction given the document by another branch.” In the view of the Powell Court, constitutional conflicts with other branches were inevitable under the constitutional system and were no excuse for avoiding a case where there existed “judicially manageable standards” sufficient to judge the question..."
Supreme Court Political Doctrine (part 5)