Goldwater v. Carter
Goldwater v. Carter is a significant Supreme Court case stemming from President Jimmy Carter's decision in December 1979 to terminate the Mutual Defense Treaty with Taiwan, as part of establishing full diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China. This decision prompted Senator Barry Goldwater and 24 other members of Congress to file a lawsuit challenging the president's authority to unilaterally revoke a treaty without Senate approval. The case raised important questions about presidential powers and the separation of powers within the U.S. government.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision to vacate the lower court's ruling and dismiss the case. The justices expressed divergent views, with some asserting that the dispute between the president and Congress constituted a nonjusticiable political question, while others believed the matter was not ready for judicial review due to insufficient congressional opposition. The decision highlighted the complexities of the balance of power in U.S. governance and set a precedent regarding how such political conflicts are handled in the judicial system. This case remains a reference point in discussions of executive authority and legislative oversight.
Goldwater v. Carter
Date: December 13, 1979
Citation: 444 U.S. 996
Issues: Political questions; presidential powers
Significance: The Supreme Court refused to decide whether President Jimmy Carter had the authority to terminate a treaty without the approval of the Senate, but the majority could not agree about why the issue was nonjusticiable.
In December, 1979, President Jimmy Carter announced that he was establishing full diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China, an action that required terminating the Mutual Defense Treaty with Taiwan. In view of the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that a treaty must be approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate, Senator Barry Goldwater and twenty-four other members of Congress filed a suit contesting the president’s right to unilaterally terminate a treaty. A federal court of appeals ruled in favor of the president.
By a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court summarily vacated the ruling and dismissed the complaint. In one concurring opinion, Justice William H. Rehnquist, joined by three other justices, argued that a disagreement between the president and members of Congress was a nonjusticiable political controversy. In another concurrence, Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr., found that the issue was “not ripe for judicial review” because a congressional majority had not opposed the president’s policy. Justice Thurgood Marshall concurred without writing or joining an opinion. In a dissent, two justices insisted that the Court should not render a decision about justiciability without first hearing oral arguments. In another dissent, Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., argued that the Court should uphold the judgment of the court of appeals.