Glossary

Political question doctrine

The rule that courts will not decide certain issues the Constitution commits to Congress or the president, or that lack judicial standards.

Also called: political question, nonjusticiability

The political question doctrine holds that some disputes, though they raise legal issues, are not appropriate for courts to resolve because the Constitution assigns them to the elected branches or because there are no judicially manageable standards for deciding them. Such questions are called nonjusticiable.

The modern test comes from Baker v. Carr (1962), which listed factors such as a textual commitment of the issue to another branch, a lack of judicial standards, or the need for a policy determination of a kind clearly for non-judicial discretion. Courts have treated impeachment procedures, many foreign-affairs matters and the ratification of amendments as political questions. In Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), the Supreme Court held that claims of partisan gerrymandering present political questions beyond the reach of federal courts.

Supporters say the doctrine protects the separation of powers and keeps courts out of fights they cannot resolve on principle. Critics say it lets serious constitutional violations go unremedied. Like standing, it determines whether a court reaches the merits at all.

Last reviewed November 8, 2026

In the index now

Related terms

Standing The requirement that a plaintiff show a concrete injury caused by the defendant and fixable by a court before a federal case can proceed. Gerrymandering Drawing electoral district lines to give one party or group an advantage, typically by packing or cracking opposing voters. Separation of powers The constitutional division of government into legislative, executive and judicial branches, each with its own distinct powers. Judicial restraint A judicial philosophy that courts should defer to elected branches and strike down laws only when they clearly violate the Constitution.