Also known as: nonjusticiability · nonjusticiable · non-justiciability doctrine · justiciability doctrine
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A doctrine under which federal courts decline to adjudicate disputes that present political questions or otherwise lack the concrete adverseness required by Article III. The doctrine encompasses claims textually committed to another branch, those lacking judicially manageable standards, and controversies rendered hypothetical by mootness or the absence of any realistic threat of enforcement.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Nikhil Narayan and other voters sued state officials after the latest census produced a new legislative map that allegedly diluted their votes in urban districts. The complaint asserted that the districts violated equal protection because population deviations exceeded acceptable limits. The district court denied the state's motion to dismiss on political-question grounds and proceeded to trial on the merits.
Nicholas Nunez, a law student, challenged the school's affirmative-action policy in federal court. Before the case reached final judgment, Nunez completed all degree requirements and received his diploma. The court dismissed the action because no live controversy remained between the parties.
Nalini Narula, a removed federal officer, sued to invalidate the Senate's decision to delegate evidence-taking to a committee during her impeachment trial. The complaint alleged that the remote-hearing format violated the constitutional requirement of a Senate trial. The court dismissed the suit because the Constitution commits the sole power to try impeachments to the Senate.
Nathaniel Newman and other citizens sued their state, alleging that a new initiative process bypassing the legislature destroyed the republican form of government. The complaint invoked the Guarantee Clause of Article IV. The court dismissed the action because such structural claims present nonjusticiable political questions.
Nancy Nelson, a museum director, sought a declaratory judgment that an unenforced 1923 ordinance banning certain exhibits was unconstitutional. City attorneys had assured her in writing that the ordinance would never be applied, and no enforcement action had occurred in a century. The court dismissed the suit for lack of a justiciable case or controversy.
Naomi Norton and a group of voters challenged a congressional districting plan that allegedly favored one political party by packing their supporters into a single district. The complaint asked the federal court to redraw the lines on partisan-gerrymandering grounds. The court dismissed the action because such claims present nonjusticiable political questions.
Federal courts apply a six-factor test that includes a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment to another branch, a lack of judicially manageable standards, the need for an initial policy determination, and the risk of multifarious pronouncements by different branches. When none of these factors is present, the case is justiciable.
A case becomes moot when events remove any live controversy so that a judicial decision will have no effect on the parties' rights. Graduation of a student plaintiff or completion of the relief originally sought are classic examples that end the controversy.
…from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question." Congress apparently directs its assertion of nonjusticiability to the first of the Baker factors by asserting that Chadha's claim is "an assault on the legislative authority to enact Section 244(c)(2)." Brief for Petitioner in No. 80-2170, p. 48. But…
…is justiciable. The District Court concluded that the claim presented a nonjusticiable political question. We cannot agree. The nonjusticiability
…to create an additional judgeship if the seat had been filled in the interim? Petitioner finally contends that a holding of nonjusticiability cannot be reconciled with our opinion in Powell v. McCormack , 395 U. S. 486 (1969). The relevant issue in Powell was whether courts could review the House of Representatives' conclusion…
…that a regulation purporting to limit the range of circumstances in which a speech-burdening statute will be enforced can render nonjusticiable
…right. See Vieth v. Jubelirer , 541 U. S. 267, 306 (2004) (plurality opinion) (holding political gerrymandering claims nonjusticiable
The Constitution textually commits the sole power to try all impeachments to the Senate, so judicial review of the Senate's procedural choices would express a lack of respect due a coordinate branch and risk inconsistent pronouncements.
No. Claims that a state does not maintain a republican form of government under the Guarantee Clause present nonjusticiable political questions and are not subject to judicial enforcement.
A challenge is nonjusticiable when the statute has never been enforced, no realistic threat of enforcement exists, and the dispute is therefore hypothetical. Federal courts will not issue advisory opinions on dormant laws.
Partisan gerrymandering claims present nonjusticiable political questions because federal courts lack judicially manageable standards for determining when districting that favors one party crosses into unconstitutional territory.