Following the October 7, 2023, attacks by Hamas on Israel, the United States continued to provide military, diplomatic, and financial support to Israel during its operations in the Gaza Strip. A coalition of Palestinian non-governmental organizations, residents of Gaza, and Palestinian-Americans sued President Biden, Secretary of State Blinken, and Secretary of Defense Austin. The plaintiffs alleged that the United States violated its obligations under the Genocide Convention by failing to prevent genocide and by providing assistance that made the U.S. complicit in genocidal acts. They sought wide-ranging injunctive and declaratory relief, including orders to stop all military aid to Israel and to declare U.S. support unlawful. The district court dismissed the complaint, finding the claims raised fundamentally non-justiciable political questions. The Ninth Circuit reviewed this dismissal de novo.
The panel affirmed the dismissal based on the political question doctrine, which excludes from judicial review controversies revolving around policy choices constitutionally committed to the legislative or executive branches. Applying the framework from Baker v. Carr, the court found that the case involved a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of foreign affairs and military decisions to the political branches. The court reasoned that 'the management of foreign affairs predominantly falls within the sphere of the political branches,' and that there are no judicially discoverable or manageable standards to determine what kind of support to provide an ally in wartime. The court emphasized that 'the courts do not chart the national security and geopolitical objectives of the United States.' The plaintiffs argued that centering the case on alleged violations of legal duties under the Genocide Convention took it outside the political question doctrine. The court rejected this, stating that 'it is not the role of the courts to indirectly indict Israel for violating international law with military equipment the United States government provided.' The court distinguished the case from Zivotofsky v. Clinton, noting that Zivotofsky involved a dispute between political branches over a statutory mandate, whereas this case asks the judiciary to evaluate and reject the 'military decisions and strategy' of the Executive Branch. The court also rejected the argument that a request for declaratory judgment avoided the political question impediment, noting that resolving such a request would present the same nonjusticiable issues.
The decision affirms the lower court's dismissal, meaning the plaintiffs' lawsuit is terminated without a ruling on the merits of their Genocide Convention claims. The government's current military and diplomatic strategy regarding Israel remains legally unchallenged in federal court under this specific theory. The ruling reinforces the principle that federal courts lack jurisdiction to question the prudence of political branches in matters of foreign policy or national security, even when framed as violations of international law. No remand instructions were issued as the case was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download