Figueroa v. LeFevre

holding that Senator Goldwater’s claim that the Constitution required Senate agreement to abrogate a treaty raised a political question | holding a senator’s challenge to the president’s decision to withdraw from a treaty nonjusticiable | vacating, with instructions to dismiss, an attack on the President’s action in terminating a treaty with Taiwan | describing the Supreme Court’s analysis of legislator standing in Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811, 117 S. Ct. 2312, 138 L. Ed. 2d 849 (1997 | finding nonjusticiable a suit by members of Congress challenging the President’s power to determine how to terminate a treaty with Taiwan because the suit touched upon foreign relations | construing Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 221, 82 S.Ct. 691, 712, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962) | finding a political question on the process for ratification or recision of a treaty | four-justice plurality concluding that' a challenge to the President’s unilateral termination of a treaty presents a political question | "the political-question doctrine rests in part on prudential concerns calling for mutual respect among the three branches of Government" | court cited to Pennsylvania tort law and held that prisoner exposed to asbestos did not have injury in fact | Rehnquist, J., joined by Burger, C.J., and Stewart and Stevens, JJ., concurring in the judgment | Rehnquist, J., joined by Burger, C.J., and Stewart and Stevens, JJ., concurring in the judgment | the Congress had no way to block the President’s action terminating a treaty without Senate consent | “the political-question doctrine rests in part on prudential concerns calling for mutual respect among the three branches of Government” | four-justice plurality concluding that the termination of a mutual defense treaty with the Republic of China presents a nonjusticiable political question | “the political-question doctrine rests in part on prudential concerns calling for mutual respect among the three branches of Government” | four-justice plurality concluding that the termination of a mutual defense treaty with the Republic of China presents a nonjusticiable political question | Brennan, J., dissenting (quoting Baker v. Carr 369 U.S. 186, 217, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962)) | suit by congressional plaintiffs claiming an injury to their constitutionally mandated powers was dismissed on ripeness and political question grounds, but not on standing grounds, despite lower court opinions addressing standing issue | suit by congressional plaintiffs claiming an injury to their constitutionally mandated powers was dismissed on ripeness and political question grounds, but not on standing grounds, despite lower court opinions addressing standing issue | authority of President to abrogate treaty is nonjustíciable political question | suit by members of Congress against President | Concurring opinion of Justice Powell | plurality opinion by Justice Rehnquist