Political question

United States federal civil procedure doctrines
Justiciability
Advisory opinions Standing Ripeness Mootness Political questions Constitutional avoidance
Jurisdiction
Subject-matter Federal question Diversity Amount in controversy Supplemental Removal Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 Personal In personam In rem Quasi in rem
Federalism
Erie doctrine Abstention Anti-Injunction Act Sovereign immunity Abrogation Rooker–Feldman doctrine Adequate and independent state ground
v t e

In United States constitutional law, the political question doctrine holds that a constitutional dispute requiring knowledge of a non-legal character, techniques not suitable for a court, or matters explicitly assigned by the Constitution to Legislative or Executive branches lies within the political realm, rather than the judiciary. Judges customarily refuse to address such matters as a matter of justiciability, questioning whether their courts are an appropriate forum for the case. Legal questions are deemed justiciable, while political questions are nonjusticiable.^[1] One scholar explained:

The political question doctrine holds that some questions, in their nature, are fundamentally political, and not legal, and if a question is fundamentally political ... then the court will refuse to hear that case. It will claim that it doesn't have jurisdiction. And it will leave that question to some other aspect of the political process to settle out.

— John E. Finn, professor of government, 2006^[2]

A ruling of nonjusticiability prevents a case's core issue from being resolved in a court of law. When the issue involves duties not addressed by the Constitution, courts leave it to the democratic process, rather than resolving political disputes themselves.