ROBERT LUFTIG, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT S. MCNAMARA, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a suit seeking to enjoin military deployment based on the alleged unconstitutionality of the war presents a non-justiciable political question and is an unconsented suit against the United States.
Appellant, a private, sued to enjoin his deployment to Vietnam, claiming the war was unconstitutional. He did not challenge his induction or seek rele…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Political Question Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from dismissal of a suit for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief brought by Appellant, a private in the Army of the United States, to enjoin the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Army from sending him to Viet Nam. He claims that American military action in Viet Nam is unconstitutional and illegal and that Appellees have no lawful authority to assign him there.1 Appellant does not challenge the legality of his induction and does not seek release from military duty.
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 Court sua sponte ordered 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 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. 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.
. This is Appellant’s second attempt to have a Federal court hold the war illegal. His prior suit was dismissed, Luftig v. Ferguson, No. 44700, N.D.Cal., Feb: 18, 1966.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (20 total)
-
Simmons v. United States, 406 F.2d 456 (5th Cir. 1969)
-
Temistocles Ramirez de Arellano v. Caspar W. Weinberger, 745 F.2d 1500 (D.C. Cir. 1984)
-
Nat'l Treas. Emps. Union v. Nixon, 492 F.2d 587 (D.C. Cir. 1974)
Previewing 3 of 20 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Chicago & S. Air Lines, Inc. v. Waterman S.S. Corp., 333 U.S. 103 (U.S. 1948)
- Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763 (U.S. 1950)
- Bivins v. Gulf Oil Corp., 364 U.S. 835 (U.S. 1960)
- Linus C. Pauling v. McELROY, 278 F.2d 252 (D.C. Cir. 1960)
- Linus C. Pauling v. McNAMARA, 331 F.2d 796 (D.C. Cir. 1963)
- Univ. Nat'l Stockholders Protective Comm., Inc. v. Univ. Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 377 U.S. 933 (U.S. 1964)
- Bryant v. Moore, 377 U.S. 933 (U.S. 1964)
- Emilio Eminente v. Johnson, 361 F.2d 73 (D.C. Cir. 1966)
- Eminente v. Johnson, 385 U.S. 929 (U.S. 1966)
- Layton v. Selb Mfg. Co., 385 U.S. 929 (U.S. 1966)