The President recognizes a foreign country and enters diplomatic relations, triggering the termination of a lucrative private contract with the U.S. government. A citizen sues in federal court seeking to set aside the recognition as inconsistent with constitutional government. The proper disposition is:

The President recognizes a foreign country and enters diplomatic relations, triggering the termination of a lucrative private contract with the U.S. government. A citizen sues in federal court seeking to set aside the recognition as inconsistent with constitutional government. The proper disposition is:

• A. Dismiss for lack of standing.
• B. Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
• C. Dismiss as presenting a nonjusticiable political question.
• D. Allow the suit to proceed on the merits.

Answer: (C)

The issue tests the political-question doctrine and nonjusticiability in foreign-affairs cases. Recognition of a foreign country is a high-level外交 policy decision that the Constitution assigns primarily to the President (and, in some aspects, the Senate for treaties). When a plaintiff asks the courts to set aside such a recognition as contrary to constitutional government, the case asks the judiciary to police or override executive diplomacy and national sovereignty. Courts require judicially manageable standards to review a claim. Here, there isn’t a workable, neutral standard to determine when recognition “conforms to” or “violates” constitutional government, because foreign-relations decisions involve strategic policy choices, diplomatic considerations, and the balance of powers between branches. Interfering would risk entangling the judiciary in diplomatic affairs and potentially undermining sovereign decisions. Thus this claim is nonjusticiable: the proper disposition is dismissal on the ground that the issue presents a political question. The other options would not fit because standing or jurisdiction isn’t the central obstacle here, and allowing merits review would contradict the political-question limitation.

The issue tests the political-question doctrine and nonjusticiability in foreign-affairs cases. Recognition of a foreign country is a high-level外交 policy decision that the Constitution assigns primarily to the President (and, in some aspects, the Senate for treaties). When a plaintiff asks the courts to set aside such a recognition as contrary to constitutional government, the case asks the judiciary to police or override executive diplomacy and national sovereignty.

Courts require judicially manageable standards to review a claim. Here, there isn’t a workable, neutral standard to determine when recognition “conforms to” or “violates” constitutional government, because foreign-relations decisions involve strategic policy choices, diplomatic considerations, and the balance of powers between branches. Interfering would risk entangling the judiciary in diplomatic affairs and potentially undermining sovereign decisions.

Thus this claim is nonjusticiable: the proper disposition is dismissal on the ground that the issue presents a political question.

The other options would not fit because standing or jurisdiction isn’t the central obstacle here, and allowing merits review would contradict the political-question limitation.