Goldwater Et Al. v. Carter, President of the United States, Et Al.

1979-12-13

Headline: A lawsuit challenging the President’s termination of a defense treaty with Taiwan is sent back and dismissed, blocking judicial review and leaving treaty-ending disputes to Congress and the President to resolve.

Holding:

Real World Impact:

Dismisses this lawsuit challenging treaty termination, leaving the presidential action in place for now.
Shifts resolution of treaty-ending disputes to Congress and the President, not the courts.
Leaves the constitutional question about treaty termination legally unresolved.

Topics: treaty termination, foreign policy, separation of powers, court access

Summary

Background

A few Members of Congress sued after the President gave notice terminating a mutual defense treaty with Taiwan. The plaintiffs claimed the President’s action deprived Congress of its constitutional role in changing the nation’s fundamental law. Congress had taken no final, formal action—Senate resolutions were considered but not finally voted—and the case reached federal court as a direct challenge to the President’s move.

Reasoning

The Court granted review but did not decide the constitutional question on the merits. Instead, it vacated the Court of Appeals’ judgment and sent the case back to the trial court with instructions to dismiss the complaint. Several Justices who joined that disposition reasoned the dispute was either not ready for judicial review or was a political question best handled by the political branches. Other Justices dissented or would have given full briefing and argument before reaching a merits decision.

Real world impact

The Order stops this particular lawsuit and leaves unresolved whether the President may terminate treaties without congressional approval. Because the Court dismissed the case rather than deciding the constitutional issue, the substance of executive treaty-termination power remains legally unsettled and likely to be addressed, if at all, by Congress and the President rather than by the courts.

Dissents or concurrances

Concurring opinions argued the case was not ripe or was a nonjudicial political question; dissenters said the question implicated the President’s recognition power and would have warranted affirming the appeals court or full briefing and argument.