Also known as: policy determinations
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A factor used to identify nonjusticiable political questions under the political question doctrine. The factor is present when a court cannot resolve the dispute without making an initial policy choice that the Constitution reserves for nonjudicial discretion.
Pearl Porter and other urban residents sued the state apportionment commission alleging their district contained twice the population of suburban districts. The commission moved to dismiss on political question grounds. The court denied the motion after finding that equal protection supplied a manageable standard and that resolving the population disparity claim would not require an initial policy determination reserved for the legislature.
Paul Peterson challenged a congressional resolution that overrode an immigration ruling affecting his residency status. The government argued the case presented a political question. The court rejected the argument because deciding whether the resolution complied with bicameralism and presentment did not require the judiciary to make an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Pamela Phillips sued a steel company in federal court under diversity jurisdiction after an injury. The defendant argued that state service rules integral to the statute of limitations controlled. The court held that applying the federal commencement rule would not require an initial policy determination because the state rule addressed distinct procedural concerns that could coexist with federal practice.
Perry Pratt faced drug conspiracy charges and objected to admission of a recorded statement by an alleged co-conspirator. The government offered the statement under the hearsay exception. The court admitted the evidence after determining that the preliminary factual finding on conspiracy membership rested on a preponderance standard and did not involve an initial policy determination reserved for nonjudicial bodies.
Phoebe Park sued a state university alleging denial of employment because of her disability. The state defended on Eleventh Amendment grounds and argued that Congress lacked power to abrogate immunity. The court rejected the political question claim because evaluating the legislative record for a pattern of unconstitutional discrimination did not require the judiciary to make an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion.
Phoenix Technologies challenged a state tax statute that imposed higher rates on out-of-state insurers. The state argued the claim required a nonjusticiable policy determination. The court held the case justiciable because applying equal protection standards to the tax classification involved no initial policy determination reserved for the political branches.
A case requires such a determination when the court would have to choose among competing visions of fairness or policy without a constitutional or legal standard to guide the choice. The Baker factors treat this as one of six independent grounds for finding a political question. Courts have found the factor absent in malapportionment cases because equal protection supplies an objective population benchmark.
Supporting sources
Yes. Partisan gerrymandering claims require courts to decide how much partisan advantage is too much, a choice among competing visions of political fairness that lacks a judicially manageable standard. The Supreme Court has held these claims nonjusticiable on that ground.
Supporting sources
The policy determination factor focuses on whether the court must make a substantive policy choice reserved for another branch. The manageable standards factor focuses on whether any legal rule exists to decide the case at all. Both can be present in the same case but each independently supports nonjusticiability.
Supporting sources
No. Population-based vote dilution claims are resolved by comparing district populations against the one-person-one-vote standard. That comparison uses an objective numerical benchmark and does not require the court to choose among competing policy visions.
Supporting sources
…of Baker for resolving the question presented by these cases. Those standards forestall reliance by this Court on nonjudicial "policy determinations" or any showing of disrespect for a coordinate branch. Similarly, if Chadha's arguments are accepted, § 244(c)(2) cannot stand, and, since the constitutionality of that statute is for this…