Courts Should Be More Willing to Weigh in on “Political” Disputes


Does the Bowe Bergdahl outrage on the right have legs? Yesterday I didn’t think so. Today I’m not so sure. We’ll see.

I want to steer clear of the fever swamp stuff for now,1 but one aspect of all this prompts me to finally get around to writing something that’s been on my mind for a while. One of the questions surrounding the Bergdahl prisoner swap is whether President Obama broke the law by releasing five Taliban prisoners from Guantanamo without giving Congress its required 30-day notice. Republicans says it’s a clear violation of the law. Obama says the law is an unconstitutional infringement of his Article II authority as commander-in-chief. Who’s right?

Here’s the thing: these kinds of disputes happen all the time in various contexts. Federal and state agencies take various actions and then go to court to defend them. Sometimes they win, sometimes they lose. It’s pretty routine stuff.

And that’s what should happen here. Congressional Republicans should challenge Obama in court and get a ruling. This would be useful for a couple of reasons. First, it would be a sign of whether Republican outrage is serious. If it is, they’ll file suit. If they don’t file, then we’ll all know that it’s just partisan preening. Second, we’d get a ruling. The scope of the president’s authority would become clear. (Or at least clearer.)

But this doesn’t happen very often. Sometime problems with standing are at issue, but not usually. Congress has standing to challenge this. No, the more usual reason is that it’s hopeless. Courts traditionally treat disputes between the president and Congress as political, and decline to weigh in.

This is fine if a dispute truly is political. But this, like many other so-called political disputes, isn’t. It’s a clear question of how far the president’s commander-in-chief authority extends and what authority Congress has to limit it. If Republicans truly believe Obama violated the law, they should be willing to go to court to prove it. And courts should be willing to hand down a ruling. It’s a mistake to simply wash their hands of these kinds of things.

1Speaking of which, you should have seen my Twitter feed after yesterday’s Bergdahl post. Hoo boy.

The truth needs defenders. Be one.

This week is our Spring Membership Drive, and we need to raise 1,000 new donations to fund the critical investigations our team is hard at work on. As of today, we’re only at 200 of that 1,000-donation goal.

Our nonprofit newsroom is funded by donors from every state in the union—blue, red, and purple, all part of a community of readers who care about the future of our democracy.

We’re independent from corporations and uninfluenced by those in power. Our commitment is solely to the truth. That’s only possible because of readers like you, who believe in the importance of independent, fearless journalism.

Be the reason these stories get told. Make a donation today.

The truth needs defenders. Be one.

This week is our Spring Membership Drive, and we need to raise 1,000 new donations to fund the critical investigations our team is hard at work on. As of today, we’re only at 200 of that 1,000-donation goal.

Our nonprofit newsroom is funded by donors from every state in the union—blue, red, and purple, all part of a community of readers who care about the future of our democracy.

We’re independent from corporations and uninfluenced by those in power. Our commitment is solely to the truth. That’s only possible because of readers like you, who believe in the importance of independent, fearless journalism.

Be the reason these stories get told. Make a donation today.

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate