This is the second part of an on going series in which I will cover the lawsuit initiated by the House of Representatives again President Obama.
Click here for Part I, Part II
I think it is important to start the deeper analysis by focusing on the question of whether or not an Article III Court can even hear a possible lawsuit by the House of Representatives against the President.
But what of the
alternative of suing the president? First, someone with a definite legal
grievance against the president, who can show that the president’s actions have
actually caused that person (or that organization) some injury, must be
available to file the lawsuit. Second,
the courts must be willing to allow themselves to be drawn into the middle of a
dispute between the other two branches of the federal government, and must have
the power to actually resolve that dispute in a specific constitutional way.
Suing a president – that is, the mere fact of filing a lawsuit – is much easier
than getting articles of impeachment approved by the House. But succeeding in such a lawsuit is another
matter.
Mr. Denniston [1] rightfully points out that in civil litigation one must always point to some form of injury. I cannot stress this enough. Injury is the foundation of law. Without injury, there is no need for adjudication. The first question that the court needs to be answered is if the elements of a lawsuit have been satisfied.
The problem insofar as analyzing this avenue is that as of this moment the House of Representatives has not put forward a Cause of Action. So we do not know what precisely the House is suing over, which makes it difficult to say with certainty if the elements have been met.
The second point of the article is referring to the Political Question Doctrine, which I find to be just as interesting as the first issue. It is also the area that I want to examine further in depth.
Federal courts will
refuse to hear a case if they find it presents a political question. This phrase is construed narrowly, and it
does not stop courts from hearing cases about controversial issues like
abortion, or politically important topics like campaign finance. Rather, the Supreme Court has held that
federal courts should not hear cases which deal directly with issues that
Constitution makes the sole responsibility of the other branches of government. Baker v Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962). Therefore,
the Court has held that the conduct of foreign relations is the sole
responsibility of the executive branch, and cases challenging the way the
executive is using that power present political questions. Oetjen v. Central
Leather Co., 246 U.S. 297 (1918). Similarly, the Court has held that lawsuits
challenging congress' procedure for impeachment proceedings present political
questions. Nixon v. United States, 506
U.S. 224 (1993).
So essentially if the Constitution makes a subject the sole responsibility of one branch of the government, they cannot be sued by the other in an Article III Court. (A bit of topic, but this is one of the reasons the Constitution establishes impeachment proceedings.And as in Nixon v. United States, Article III Courts cannot hear questions to impeachment proceedings.)
While we still run into the same issues as before, in that the House Representatives has not put forward a Cause of Action, the H. Res. 676 does provide enough guidance to discuss the basics of subject matter jurisdiction.
As anticipated before I read the article by Mr. Denniston, in the next article I will be covering Baker v Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962).
Liam '14
Click here for Part I, Part II
Footnotes:
[1] Here is the biography of Lyle Denniston as provided by SCOTUSblog, "Lyle Denniston has been covering the Supreme Court for fifty-six years. In that time, he has covered one-quarter of all of the Justices ever to sit, and he has reported on the entire careers on the bench of ten of the Justices. He has been a journalist of the law for sixty-six years, beginning that career at the Otoe County Courthouse in Nebraska City, Nebraska, in the fall of 1948. He is not an attorney."
As anticipated before I read the article by Mr. Denniston, in the next article I will be covering Baker v Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962).
Liam '14
Click here for Part I, Part II
Footnotes:
[1] Here is the biography of Lyle Denniston as provided by SCOTUSblog, "Lyle Denniston has been covering the Supreme Court for fifty-six years. In that time, he has covered one-quarter of all of the Justices ever to sit, and he has reported on the entire careers on the bench of ten of the Justices. He has been a journalist of the law for sixty-six years, beginning that career at the Otoe County Courthouse in Nebraska City, Nebraska, in the fall of 1948. He is not an attorney."
