Congress, Constitutional Law, International, Justice, Lawyering, Media, Military, Politics, Society, Supreme Court

Members of Congress Challenge Libyan War in Federal Court

Today, I have the honor of representing ten members of the United States House of Representatives in challenging the constitutional basis for the Libyan War — and the underlying claims made by President Obama. These members include Democrats and Republicans from across the political spectrum. They share a belief that Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution expressly requires the authorization of Congress before a president can commit the nation to war. The lawsuit will be heard in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. We filed this afternoon and held a press conference with the members in front of the courthouse. A copy of the complaint (which will be heard by Judge Reggie Walton) is below.


This challenge goes beyond Libya and challenges the claim by the Administration that the President has the inherent authority to order combat operations without the approval or declaration of Congress. The Plaintiffs in this action include the second most longest standing member of Congress, John Conyers, as well as leading members from both parties. The members are Representatives Roscoe Bartlett (R., Md); Dan Burton (R., Ind.); Mike Capuano (D., Mass.); Howard Coble (R., N.C.); John Conyers (D., Mich.); John J. Duncan (R., Tenn.); Tim Johnson (R., Ill.); Walter Jones (R., N.C.); Dennis Kucinich (D., Ohio); and Ron Paul (R., Tx).

This is an action for injunctive and declaratory relief. In addition to challenging the circumvention of express constitutional language, it will also challenge arguments that no one (including members of Congress) has “standing” to submit this question to judicial review. These members will ask the federal district court for review of the constitutional question and for recognition that the Constitution must allow for judicial review of claims of undeclared wars under Article I.

I am being assisted in this case by a team including Jodie Cheng, David Fox, Kyle Noonan, Eric Sidler, and Geoff Turley (no relation to Professor Turley).

We are deeply honored to represent these courageous members of Congress in their defense of important constitutional limitations on executive power. While there are many uncertain questions under the Constitution, this is not one of them. The Framers spoke repeatedly and forcibly of their desire to bar presidents from committing the nation to war without congressional authorization and inserted an express limitation into Article I. The last few years have vividly demonstrated the dangers that the Framers sought to avoid in dividing the war powers between the Executive and Legislative branches. Despite their sharp ideological differences, these members are bond by deep faith in the Constitution and a sense of responsibility in defending its provisions. We shall their concerns and are eager to advance their claims in the Judicial Branch in this lawsuit.

As in past high-profile cases, I will have to be circumspect in my public comments once the case is filed.

Here is the filed complaint: Libyan Complaint;pdf

Jonathan Turley

155 thoughts on “Members of Congress Challenge Libyan War in Federal Court”

  2. Glenn Greenwald writes about the positiveness amidst the hypocrisy.

    http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/radio/2011/06/15/sherman/index.html

    “The very pro-Obama blogger Booman today astutely argued that the GOP is of course being hypocritical in its sudden assertion of Congressional war powers (Boehner, for instance, long argued against the law’s viability), but that — regardless of the hypocrisy — this is nonetheless a positive development. Indeed it is. The very idea that the President can start and prosecute wars on his own, without democratic consent, is not only lawless but is the hallmark of an empire, and it’s long past time to put an end to that abuse. Even Bush went through the motions of having Congress endorse his wars.”

  3. CNN interrogates Kucinich on the case. The interviewer implies that no war can exist without “boots on the ground” in Libya:

  5. Swarthmore mom, (I’d like to just address you as “mom,” but we hardly know each other!)

    The courts refused to get involved in either the Iraq or the Vietnam wars. Why will they choose this one ?

    Iraq and Vietnam were authorized by Congress. There were stupid and evil ventures, but there you have it. Obama didn’t receive authorization from Congress, so I do hope the courts get involved.

    Personally, I think Nixon and Kissinger should have been put in prison for their secret bombings of Laos and Cambodia, which had to be illegal (unless someone here in the know can explain how they weren’t).

    I’d like to see Bush and Cheney in prison too, but Obama has protected them here and overseas from investigation, while he’s been prosecuting whistle-blowers at the highest rate in decades.

  8. The courts refused to get involved in either the Iraq or the Vietnam wars. Why will they choose this one ? I am not picking on the tea party members or the birthers for being hypocrites. I am always suspicious of their motives and curious why they would want to spend their funds on this.

  10. W=c,

    A very Happy Birthday and may you have all the flaming desserts your heart desires!

  11. Bob, Esq.:

    I thought the tu quoque argument was supposed to be raised by a party as justification for its failure to confirm judicial candidates.

    And happy b’day, Woosty.

  14. Les: “Whether or not some of the politicians who are challenging the President’s authority on this are hypocrites – and I’m sure we can agree that they are – is irrelevant to the question of whether or not our President has broken the law in unilaterally ordering acts of war to be committed upon another country. In other words, one of these issues matters and one doesn’t.”

    To argue contrariwise is to invoke the tu quoque fallacy; assuming all ‘hypocrisy’ centers around whether or not to call a president out on unconstitutional activities.

  15. Catullus “If the president resists, the Congress can impeach”.

    Ya think? I’m wondering if the President is talking about one term because he understands their intent. Of course the fact that Dunbar is finally subpoenaing witnesses in the CIA torture investigation may be a form of insurance against that.

  16. Most Auspicious!

    In light of the Full Blood Red and fully eclipsed Moon,
    The middle of the month, in the middle of the year …
    (and my birthday…)
    FINALLY!!!!!

    and thank you so much, whichever way it goes, this is an important statement that we need to see made….and I do hope the effort succeeds.

  17. “The Plaintiffs acknowledge that standing of members has been curtailed in prior judicial
    opinions, but they believe that these decisions allow for an exception for these claims and that members of Congress must have the ability to seek judicial review in this context.”

    Really? Um, where are those exceptions exactly? I read all those cases today and I see no exception at all. In fact, this is almost exactly Campbell v. Clinton. What exactly differentiates this case from that one?

    Won’t hold my breath for an answer.

  18. White House to Congress: We Don’t Need Your Authorization On Libya

    WASHINGTON — The White House finally made its case to Congress on why it doesn’t need lawmakers’ approval to forge ahead with military operations in Libya: Because we’re not at war.

    Senior administration officials said Wednesday that the fact that the U.S. is only playing a support role in the NATO-led military effort in Libya — that is, no U.S. troops on the ground and no potential for casualties — and only plans to be involved for a short time means Obama doesn’t need congressional authorization per the War Powers Act to proceed

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/15/war-power-act-congress-libya_n_877736.html

  19. frank and rafflaw,

    Oh, I understand that part. Really, I do. Politicians are hypocrites. The fact that some of the politicians who have challenged Obama on this are hypocrites is, to me, unimportant, because politicians will always be hypocrites. It’s an everyday occurrence in the world of politics.

    So we have two matters here. We have a President who has unilaterally ordered military action against another country, outside the authority granted to him in the Constitution. And then, we have politicians being hypocrites.

    One matter involves life and death and the distinct appearance of a President flouting the law in order to invade another country. The other involves the same kind of petty politics that have been around since before the birth of the nation.

    Whether or not some of the politicians who are challenging the President’s authority on this are hypocrites – and I’m sure we can agree that they are – is irrelevant to the question of whether or not our President has broken the law in unilaterally ordering acts of war to be committed upon another country.

    In other words, one of these issues matters and one doesn’t.

  20. Some qoutes that caught my eye,”Preparedness meets Opportunity”Good Luck Professor.

    “rafflaw

    Hypocrisy has a tendency to rear its ugly head whenever the tea party is involved.”

    “Swarthmore mom

    kimberley, Some of these guys are sponsors of the birther bill.”

    “Lemmy

    Of these, Bartlett, Capuano, Coble, Johnson and Jones all voted for the Iraq war authorization.”

Comments are closed.