Which scenario would most clearly present a non-justiciable political question?

• A. A challenge to the President’s foreign recognition of a government.
• B. A dispute over a state tax policy under the state constitution.
• C. A challenge to a federal regulatory standard that affects interstate commerce.
• D. A contract dispute between private parties.

Answer: (A)

Non-justiciable political questions are those disputes courts won’t decide because resolving them would require policy choices or actions reserved for the political branches, or because there aren’t judicially manageable standards to apply.

Challenging the President’s foreign recognition of a government is a quintessential example. Recognition decisions involve foreign policy, national sovereignty, and diplomacy—areas the Constitution and historical practice assign to the executive (and Congress in certain facets). Courts lack objective, workable standards to weigh when or whom to recognize, and ruling on such a matter would risk entangling the judiciary in delicate diplomatic relations and national security concerns. That’s why this scenario is non-justiciable.

The other scenarios involve issues that courts can adjudicate using established legal standards: a state tax policy dispute is interpreted against state constitutional and statutory provisions; a federal regulatory standard affecting interstate commerce can be reviewed for statutory authority and reasonableness under administrative law; and a contract dispute between private parties is a straightforward matter of contract law. These are all justiciable because they can be decided with legal rules and do not require the courts to make high-level policy or diplomatic judgments.