Massachusetts v. Laird, Secretary of Defense

Background

The State of Massachusetts sought permission to file a lawsuit against the Secretary of Defense asking the Court to declare U.S. participation in the Indochina (Vietnam) war unconstitutional because Congress never declared it. Massachusetts asked for orders to stop any increase in troop levels and to prevent Massachusetts residents from being sent to Indochina. The Court’s order granted one amicus brief from the Constitutional Lawyers’ Committee, denied another amicus motion, and denied leave to file the bill of complaint.

Reasoning

The procedural dispute centered on standing (whether the State could sue on behalf of its citizens) and justiciability (whether the courts should decide the issue rather than Congress or the President). The published order denies leave to file; the attached dissent by Justice Douglas argues that Massachusetts does have standing and that the issue is justiciable. He reasons that earlier cases limiting state lawsuits do not control here, that the Constitution’s assignment of the power “To declare War” creates a specific claim, and that prior opinions (including Flast, Baker, and the Steel Seizure and Prize Cases) show courts can and have decided major wartime powers questions.

Real world impact

As a practical matter, the denial prevents Massachusetts from obtaining a judicial declaration or injunction about troop deployments and draft obligations. The order is procedural, not a final decision on whether the war is constitutional, and dissenters urged full briefing and oral argument so the merits could be reached. The immediate effect is to leave troop movements and the legal status of the conflict undisturbed while the constitutional question remains unresolved.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Douglas wrote a detailed dissent urging the Court to hear and decide the merits; Justices Harlan and Stewart would have scheduled argument on standing and justiciability.