Doe v. Bush: Difference between revisions

Doe v. Bush
Doe v. Bush
Court	United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Full case name	John Doe I, John Doe II, John Doe III, John Doe IV, Jane Doe I, Susan E. Schumann, Charles Richardson, Nancy Lessin, Jeffrey McKenzie, John Conyers, Dennis Kucinich, Jesse Jackson, Jr., Sheila Jackson lee, Jim McDermott, Jose E. Serrano, Sally Wright, Deborah Regal, Alice Copeland Brown, Jerrye Barre, James Stephen Cleghorn, Laura Johnson Manis, Shirley H. Young, Julian Delgaudio, Rose Delgaudio, Danny K. Davis, Maurice D. Hinchey, Carolyn Kilpatrick, Pete Stark, Diane Watson, Lynn C. Woolsey v. George W. Bush, President, Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Decided	March 13, 2003
Citation	323 F.3d 133 (1st Cir. 2003)
Case history
Prior actions	Doe v. Bush, 240 F. Supp. 2d 95 (D. Mass., 2003) ; Doe v. Bush, 257 F. Supp. 2d 436 (D. Mass., 2003)
Subsequent actions	Rehearing denied by Doe v. Bush, 322 F.3d 109 (1st Cir., Mar. 18, 2003)
Court membership
Judges sitting	Sandra Lynch, Conrad K. Cyr and Norman H. Stahl
Case opinions
	Opinion of the Court: Lynch

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Latest revision as of 19:12, 27 December 2023

Doe v. Bush, 323 F.3d 133 (1st Cir. 2003), was a court case challenging the constitutionality of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The case was dismissed, since the plaintiffs failed "to raise a sufficiently clear constitutional issue."^[1] The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 was challenged by "a coalition of U.S. soldiers, parents of U.S. soldiers, and members of Congress" prior to the invasion to stop it from happening.^[1] They claimed that an invasion of Iraq would be illegal. Judge Lynch wrote of their argument, "They base this argument on two theories. They argue that Congress and the President are in collision -- that the President is about to act in violation of the October Resolution. They also argue that Congress and the President are in collusion -- that Congress has handed over to the President its exclusive power to declare war."^[2]

The case was dismissed on February 24, 2003 by Judge Joseph Tauro of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The petitioners appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. On March 13, a three-judge panel affirmed the decision to dismiss the complaint.^[1] The opinion was written by Judge Sandra Lea Lynch:

An extreme case might arise, for example, if Congress gave absolute discretion to the President to start a war at his or her will... Plaintiffs' objection to the October Resolution does not, of course, involve any such claim. Nor does it involve a situation where the President acts without any apparent congressional authorization, or against congressional opposition... To the contrary, Congress has been deeply involved in significant debate, activity, and authorization connected to our relations with Iraq for over a decade, under three different presidents of both major political parties, and during periods when each party has controlled Congress.

Lynch also cited Massachusetts v. Laird 451 F.2d 26 (1st Cir. 1971), which similarly found that the Vietnam War was constitutional. Lynch concluded that the Judiciary could not intervene, because there was not a fully developed conflict between the President and Congress at that time.^[2] On March 17, the plaintiffs filed for a rehearing. Their petition was denied the next day.^[1] Iraq was invaded on March 20.

References

^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Summary of the case: John Doe I v. President Bush Archived September 11, 2007, at the Wayback Machine Retrieved 8/7/2007.
^ ^a ^b Doe v. Bush Opinion by Judge Lynch 3/13/2003 Archived August 9, 2007, at the Wayback Machine Pages 3,4,10,23,25,26. Retrieved 8/7/2007.

[DoeVBushSum-1] Summary of the case: John Doe I v. President Bush Archived September 11, 2007, at the Wayback Machine Retrieved 8/7/2007.

[DoeVBushOpinion-2] Doe v. Bush Opinion by Judge Lynch 3/13/2003 Archived August 9, 2007, at the Wayback Machine Pages 3,4,10,23,25,26. Retrieved 8/7/2007.

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{Use mdy dates|date=September 2023}}
-'''''Doe v. Bush''''' [[Case citation|323 F.3d 133]] ([[1st Cir.]] [[2003]]) was a [[United States Court of Appeals]] case challenging the [[constitutionality]] of the [[2003 invasion of Iraq]] which was dismissed since the plaintiffs' claim failed “to raise a sufficiently clear constitutional issue.”<ref name="DoeVBushSum">[http://www.mfso.org/article.php?id=334 Summary of the case: John Doe I v. President Bush] Retrieved 8/7/2007.</ref>.  The [[Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002]] was challenged by "a coalition of US soldiers, parents of US soldiers, and Members of Congress" prior to the invasion to stop it from happening.<ref name="DoeVBushSum">[http://www.mfso.org/article.php?id=334 Summary of the case: John Doe I v. President Bush] Retrieved 8/7/2007.</ref>  They claimed that an invasion of Iraq would be illegal.  Judge Lynch wrote of their argument, "They base this argument on two theories. They argue that Congress and the President are in collision -- that the President is about to act in violation of the October Resolution. They also argue that Congress and the President are in collusion -- that Congress has handed over to the President its exclusive power to declare war."<ref name="DoeVBushOpinion">[http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/03-1266-01A.pdf Doe v. Bush Opinion by Judge Lynch 3/13/2003] Pages 3,4,10,23,25,26. Retrieved 8/7/2007.</ref>
+{{Infobox Court Case
+| name               = Doe v. Bush
+| court              = [[United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit]]
+| image              =
+| imagesize          =
+| imagelink          =
+| imagealt           =
+| caption            =
+| full name          = John Doe I, John Doe II, John Doe III, John Doe IV, Jane Doe I, Susan E. Schumann, Charles Richardson, Nancy Lessin, Jeffrey McKenzie, John Conyers, Dennis Kucinich, Jesse Jackson, Jr., Sheila Jackson lee, Jim McDermott, Jose E. Serrano, Sally Wright, Deborah Regal, Alice Copeland Brown, Jerrye Barre, James Stephen Cleghorn, Laura Johnson Manis, Shirley H. Young, Julian Delgaudio, Rose Delgaudio, Danny K. Davis, Maurice D. Hinchey, Carolyn Kilpatrick, Pete Stark, Diane Watson, Lynn C. Woolsey v. [[George W. Bush]], President, [[Donald H. Rumsfeld]], Secretary of Defense
+| date decided       = March 13, 2003
+| citations          = [[Case citation|323 F.3d 133]] (1st Cir. 2003)
+| transcripts        =
+| judges             = [[Sandra Lynch]], [[Conrad K. Cyr]] and [[Norman H. Stahl]]
+| prior actions      = ''Doe v. Bush,'' 240 F. Supp. 2d 95 (D. Mass., 2003)
+<br>''Doe v. Bush,'' 257 F. Supp. 2d 436 (D. Mass., 2003)
+| subsequent actions = Rehearing denied by ''Doe v. Bush,'' 322 F.3d 109 (1st Cir., Mar. 18, 2003)
+| opinions           = '''Opinion of the Court:''' Lynch
+| keywords           =
+}}
+'''''Doe v. Bush''''', [[Case citation|323 F.3d 133]] ([[1st Cir.]] 2003), was a court case challenging the [[constitutionality]] of the [[2003 invasion of Iraq]]. The case was dismissed, since the plaintiffs failed "to raise a sufficiently clear constitutional issue."<ref name="DoeVBushSum">[http://www.mfso.org/article.php?id=334 Summary of the case: John Doe I v. President Bush] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070911191508/http://www.mfso.org/article.php?id=334 |date=September 11, 2007 }} Retrieved 8/7/2007.</ref> The [[Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002]] was challenged by "a coalition of [[Military of the United States|U.S. soldiers]], parents of U.S. soldiers, and [[Member of Congress|members of Congress]]" prior to the invasion to stop it from happening.<ref name="DoeVBushSum"/>  They claimed that an invasion of Iraq would be illegal.  Judge Lynch wrote of their argument, "They base this argument on two theories. They argue that Congress and the President are in collision -- that the President is about to act in violation of the [[Iraq Resolution|October Resolution]]. They also argue that Congress and the President are in collusion -- that Congress has handed over to the President its exclusive power to declare war."<ref name="DoeVBushOpinion">[http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/03-1266-01A.pdf Doe v. Bush Opinion by Judge Lynch 3/13/2003] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070809115028/http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/03-1266-01A.pdf |date=August 9, 2007 }} Pages 3,4,10,23,25,26. Retrieved 8/7/2007.</ref>
+The case was dismissed on February 24, 2003 by Judge [[Joseph Louis Tauro|Joseph Tauro]] of the [[United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts]]. The petitioners appealed to the [[United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit]]. On March 13, a three-judge panel affirmed the decision to dismiss the complaint.<ref name="DoeVBushSum"/>  The opinion was written by Judge [[Sandra Lea Lynch]]:
-The case was first dismissed on [[February 24]] [[2003]] by [[U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts]] Judge Joseph Tauro.  It was appealed to the [[U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit]].  On [[March 13]], a three-judge panel affirmed the decision to dismiss the complaint.<ref name="DoeVBushSum"/>  The opinion was written by Judge [[Sandra Lea Lynch|Sandra Lynch]]:
 <blockquote>
 ''An extreme case might arise, for example, if Congress gave absolute discretion to the President to start a war at his or her will... Plaintiffs' objection to the October Resolution does not, of course, involve any such claim. Nor does it involve a situation where the President acts without any apparent congressional authorization, or against congressional opposition... To the contrary, Congress has been deeply involved in significant debate, activity, and authorization connected to our relations with Iraq for over a decade, under three different presidents of both major political parties, and during periods when each party has controlled Congress.''
 </blockquote>
-She also cited ''Massachusetts v. Laird'' [[Case citation|451 F.2d 26]] ([[1st Cir.]] [[1971]]), which similarly found that the Vietnam War was constitutional.  Lynch concluded that the Judiciary could not intervene, because there was not a fully developed conflict between the President and Congress at that time.<ref name="DoeVBushOpinion"/>  On [[March 17]], the plaintiffs filed for a rehearing.  Their petition was denied the next day.<ref name="DoeVBushSum"/>  Iraq was invaded on [[March 20]].
+Lynch also cited ''[[Massachusetts v. Laird]]'' 451 F.2d 26 ([[United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit|1st Cir.]] 1971), which similarly found that the Vietnam War was constitutional.  Lynch concluded that the Judiciary could not intervene, because there was not a fully developed conflict between the President and Congress at that time.<ref name="DoeVBushOpinion"/>  On March 17, the plaintiffs filed for a rehearing.  Their petition was denied the next day.<ref name="DoeVBushSum"/> Iraq was invaded on March 20.
-==See Also==
-*[[2003 invasion of Iraq]]
+==See also==
-*[[Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002]]
 *[[Ehren Watada]]
 *[[Legality of the Iraq War]]
-*[[UN Charter]]
+*[[United Nations Charter]]
 ==References==
-{{refs}}
+{{wikisource}}
+{{reflist}}
-[[Category:United States Court of Appeals cases]]
+[[Category:United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit cases]]
-[[Category:Causes and prelude of the 2003 Iraq conflict]]
+[[Category:Iraq War legal issues]]
+[[Category:2003 in United States case law]]
+[[Category:2003 invasion of Iraq]]