Editing Political question (section)

==Other applications==
While the scope of the political question doctrine is still unsettled, its application has been mostly settled in a few decided areas. These areas are:

=== Guarantee Clause ===
The [[Guarantee Clause]] of the US Constitution requires the federal government to "guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." The Supreme Court has ruled that this clause does not imply any set of "judicially manageable standards which a court could utilize independently in order to identify a State's lawful government."<ref>''Baker v. Carr'', 369 U.S. 186, 223 (1962).</ref> On this ground, the Court refused to identify the legitimate [[government of Rhode Island]] during the [[Dorr Rebellion]] in ''[[Luther v. Borden]]'' (1849).<ref>48 U.S. 1 (1849)</ref><ref>Note, Political Rights as Political Questions: The Paradox of Luther v. Borden, 100 Harv.L.Rev. 1125 (1987).</ref> Since then, the Court has consistently refused to resort to the Guarantee Clause as a constitutional source for invalidating state action, such as whether it is lawful for states to adopt laws through referendums.<ref name=":0" /><ref>Pacific States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. State of Oregon, 223 U.S. 118, 32 S. Ct. 224 (1912)</ref>

=== Impeachment ===
{{See also|Federal impeachment in the United States}}
Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution states that the House "shall have the sole power of Impeachment," and Article I, Section 3 provides that the "Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments."<ref>United States Constitution, Article I, Section 2-3.</ref> Since the Constitution placed the sole power of impeachment in two political bodies, it is qualified as a political question. As a result, neither the decision of the House to impeach, nor of the Senate to remove a President or any other official, can be appealed to any court.<ref>[[Nixon v. United States]], 506 U.S. 224 (1993)</ref>

===Foreign policy and war===
A court will not usually decide if a treaty has been terminated because "governmental action [...] must be regarded as of controlling importance."<ref>''Baker v. Carr'', 369 U.S. 186, 212. (1962).</ref> However, courts sometimes do rule on the issue. One example of this is native American tribes who have been officially terminated do not lose their treaty concessions without explicit text from Congress that the treaty is also abrogated.

In the case of ''bin Ali Jaber v. United States'' (2017), the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit under the [[Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991]] after a 2012 US drone strike killed five civilians.<ref name=":7">{{Cite journal|date=2017|title=In Civilians' Claims for Damages after Drone Strike in Yemen, District of Columbia Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Case on Political Question Grounds|journal=International Law Update|volume=23|pages=45–47}}</ref> The [[District of Columbia Court of Appeals]] dismissed the plaintiffs' claims on the basis that the "plaintiffs challenged the type of executive decision found nonjusticiable in ''El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries Co. v. United States'' (2010)." In ''El-Shifa'', the court distinguished "between claims questioning the wisdom of military action, 'a policy choice . . . constitutionally committed' to the political branches, and 'legal issues such as whether the government had legal authority to act.'"<ref name=":8">{{Cite web|date=2018-03-09|title=bin Ali Jaber v. United States|url=https://harvardlawreview.org/2018/03/bin-ali-jaber-v-united-states/|access-date=2021-03-19|website=harvardlawreview.org|publisher=131 Harv. L. Rev. 1473|language=en-US}}</ref> Thus, the court held that the plaintiffs' argument required the court to make a policy decision.<ref name=":8" />

=== Gerrymandering ===
In cases like ''[[Davis v. Bandemer]]'' (1986), ''[[Vieth v. Jubelirer]]'' (2004), and ''[[Gill v. Whitford]]'' (2018), the Supreme Court had repeatedly treated partisan [[Gerrymandering in the United States|gerrymandering]] as judiciable, but it remained unable to agree on a majority standard for deciding such cases. In ''[[Rucho v. Common Cause]]'' (2019), the Supreme Court ultimately reversed itself, deciding that partisan gerrymandering was a purely political question.<ref>{{Cite journal |date=November 2019 |title=Rucho v. Common Cause |url=https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-133/rucho-v-common-cause/ |journal=[[Harvard Law Review]] |volume=133 |issue=1 |pages=252–261}}</ref>

=== Private military contractors ===
In the case of ''Ghane v. Mid-South'' (January 16, 2014),<ref>{{cite web| url = http://courts.ms.gov/Images/Opinions/CO91632.pdf| title = Narjess Ghane, et al v. Mid-South Institute of Self Defense Shooting; JFS, LLC; John Fred Shaw; Donald Ross Sanders, Jr.; and Jim Cowan (Miss.2014)}}</ref> the Mississippi Supreme Court held that a wrongful death action against a [[private military company]] by the family of a deceased [[United States Navy SEAL]] could proceed under Mississippi law since the plaintiff's claims did not present a non-justiciable political question under ''[[Baker v. Carr]]'' (1962).<ref name="Baker v. Carr 1962" />