Opinion · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Robert Luftig v. Robert S. McNamara Secretary of Defense
Robert Luftig v. Robert S. McNamara Sec’y of Def., 373 F.2d 664 (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 1967)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1967-02-06
- Topic
- general
How later courts describe this case
- scope of derivative sovereign immunity afforded to defense subcontractor
- “The fundamental division of authority and power established by the Constitution precludes judges from overseeing the conduct of foreign policy or the use and disposition of military power; these matters are plainly the exclusive province of Congress and the Executive.”
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Robert Luftig v. Robert S. McNamara Secretary of Defense. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Authority status
- pending
- Cited by
- 74 opinions
LUFTIG v. McNAMARA,373 F.2d 664(D.C. Cir. 1967)
Robert LUFTIG, Appellant, v. Robert S. McNAMARA, Secretary of Defense et
al., Appellees.
No. 20129.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued December 13, 1966.
Decided February 6, 1967.
Page 665
Mr. Richard S. Salzman, Atty., Dept. of Justice, with whom Asst. Atty. Gen. John W. Douglas, Messrs. David G. Bress, U.S. Atty., and Morton Hollander, Atty., Dept. of Justice, were on the brief, for appellees.
Before WILBUR K. MILLER, Senior Circuit Judge, BURGER, Circuit Judge, and COFFIN,fn*Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
The complaint is entitled in terms of a suit against individual officials of the United States government; in legal effect it is plainly a suit against the United States acting through these officials.
The District Courtsua sponteordered dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the relief sought represented a claim for judicial review of political questions beyond its jurisdiction and that it was an unconsented suit against the United States.
The District Court was, of course, eminently correct on both its primary and alternative grounds for dismissal; these propositions are so clear that no discussion or citation of authority is needed. The only purpose to be accomplished by saying this much on the subject is to make it clear to others comparably situated and similarly inclined that resort to the courts is futile, in addition to being wasteful of judicial time, for which there are urgent legitimate demands.
It is difficult to think of an area less suited for judicial action than that into which Appellant would have us intrude. The fundamental division ofPage 666authority and power established by the Constitution precludes judges from overseeing the conduct of foreign policy or the use and disposition of military power; these matters are plainly the exclusive province of Congress and the Executive. Johnson v. Eisentrager,339 U.S. 763,789,70 S.Ct. 936,94 L.Ed. 1255(1950); Chicago Southern Air Lines, Inc. v. Waterman S.S. Corp.,333 U.S. 103,111,68 S.Ct. 431,92 L.Ed. 568(1948); Eminente v. Johnson, 124 U.S. App.D.C. 56,361 F.2d 73, cert. denied,385 U.S. 929,87 S.Ct. 287,17 L.Ed.2d 211(1966); Pauling v. McNamara, 118 U.S.App.D.C. 50,331 F.2d 796(1963), cert. denied,377 U.S. 933,84 S.Ct. 1336,12 L.Ed.2d 297(1964); Pauling v. McElroy, 107 U.S.App.D.C. 372,278 F.2d 252, cert. denied,364 U.S. 835,81 S.Ct. 61,5 L.Ed.2d 60(1960).
Affirmed.