Goldwater v. Carter

1979 United States Supreme Court case

Goldwater v. Carter

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided December 13, 1979
Full case name| Barry Goldwater, et al. v. James Earl Carter, President of the United States, et al.
Citations| 444 U.S. 996 (more)

100 S. Ct. 533; 62 L. Ed. 2d 428; 1979 U.S. LEXIS 4144

Case history
Prior| Judgment for defendants, 481 F. Supp. 949 (D.D.C. 1979); reversed, 617 F.2d 697 (D.C. Cir. 1979)
Holding
Whether President Carter could unilaterally break a defense treaty with Taiwan without Senate approval was a political question and could not be reviewed by the court, as Congress had not issued a formal opposition. The case was dismissed.
Court membership

Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr. * Potter Stewart
Byron White * Thurgood Marshall
Harry Blackmun * Lewis F. Powell Jr.
William Rehnquist * John P. Stevens
Case opinions
Per curiam
Concurrence| Marshall
Concurrence| Powell
Concurrence| Rehnquist, joined by Burger, Stewart, Stevens
Dissent| Blackmun (in part), joined by White
Dissent| Brennan
Laws applied
U.S. Const. art. II, sct. II

Goldwater v. Carter, 444 U.S. 996 (1979), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court dismissed a lawsuit filed by Senator Barry Goldwater and other members of the United States Congress challenging the right of President Jimmy Carter to unilaterally nullify the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty, which the United States had signed with the Republic of China, so that relations could instead be established with the People's Republic of China.

Goldwater and his co-filers claimed that the President required Senate approval to take such an action, under Article II, Section II of the U.S. Constitution, and that, by not doing so, President Carter had acted beyond the powers of his office. While dismissing the case the Court left open the question of the constitutionality of President Carter's actions.

Granting a petition for certiorari but without hearing oral arguments, the court vacated a court of appeals ruling on December 13, 1979, and remanded the case to a federal district court with directions to dismiss the complaint.[1] A majority of six Justices ruled that the case should be dismissed without hearing an oral argument. Justices Lewis Powell and William Rehnquist issued two separate concurring opinions on the case. Rehnquist claimed that the issue concerned how foreign affairs were conducted between Congress and the President, and was essentially political, not judicial; therefore, it was not eligible to be heard by the court. Powell, while agreeing that the case did not merit judicial review, believed that the issue itself, the powers of the President to break treaties without congressional approval, would have been arguable had Congress issued a formal opposition through a resolution to the termination of the treaty. (The Senate had drafted such a resolution, but had not voted upon it.[2]) This would have turned the case into a constitutional debate between the executive powers granted to the President and the legislative powers granted to Congress. As the case stood, however, it was simply a dispute among unsettled, competing political forces within the legislative and executive branches of government, and hence still political in nature due to the lack of majority or supermajority vote in the Senate speaking officially as a constitutional institution. Today, the case is considered a textbook example of the political question doctrine in U.S. constitutional law.

## U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia

[edit]

In 1978, Senator Goldwater filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.[3]

The plaintiffs included Senators Barry Goldwater, Strom Thurmond, Carl Curtis, Jake Garn, Orrin Hatch, Jesse A. Helms; Senator-Elect Gordon Humphrey; and Congressmen Robert Bauman, Steve Symms, Larry McDonald, Robert Daniel, Bob Stump, Eldon Rudd, John Ashbrook, and George Hansen.[3]

The defendants of the appeals court include President Jimmy Carter and Secretary of State Cyrus Vance.[3]

## Cause of the Plaintiff's Appeal

[edit]

The cause of the court of appeals by the plaintiffs was what the plaintiffs saw, and alleged, as the president's "unconstitutional" termination of the 1954 Defense Treaty with Republic of China, violation of Article II and Article VI of the U.S. Constitution and Public Law 95-384.[4]

According to Professor Joshua Kastenberg at the University of New Mexico's law school in his Goldwater v. Carter: Foreign Policy, China, and the Resurgence of Executive Branch Primacy (Kansas, 2023), the alliance Goldwater built was outside of the Republican center but they argued that if a president could revoke a treaty then NATO was at risk.

## Order on Goldwater v. Carter by Judge Gasch

[edit]

Judge Oliver Gasch upon consideration of the plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the Court's judgment on the case on June 6, 1979, gave the following orders:

1. That the plaintiff's motion to alter or mend the judgement of June 6, 1979 be granted
2. That the defendants' motion to dismiss is denied
3. That the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment be granted
4. The judgment of the Court that defendant President Carter's notice of termination of the 1954 Mutual Defense Treaty Between the United States and the Republic of China must receive the approval of two-thirds of the United States Senate or a majority of both houses of Congress
5. That defendant Secretary of State Cyrus R. Vance and his subordinate officers be enjoined from taking any action to implement the President's notice of termination.[5]

Notice of the appeal was entered on October 17, 1979, and written by Alice Daniel, Acting Assistant Attorney General and signed by Attorney David J. Anderson.[6]

## Quotes

[edit]

> Prudential considerations persuade me that a dispute between Congress and the President is not ready for judicial review unless and until each branch has taken action asserting its constitutional authority ... The Judicial Branch should not decide issues affecting the allocation of power between the President and Congress until the political branches reach a constitutional impasse. Otherwise, we would encourage small groups or even individual Members of Congress to seek judicial resolution of issues before the normal political process has the opportunity to resolve the conflict. If the Congress, by appropriate formal action, had challenged the President's authority to terminate the treaty with Taiwan, the resulting uncertainty could have serious consequences for our country. In that situation, it would be the duty of this Court to resolve the issue.

> — Justice Powell in his opinion

> I am of the view that the basic question presented by the petitioners in this case is "political" and therefore nonjusticiable because it involves the authority of the President in the conduct of our country's foreign relations and the extent to which the Senate or the Congress is authorized to negate the action of the President.

> — Justice Rehnquist in his opinion

> The issue of decisionmaking authority must be resolved as a matter of constitutional law, not political discretion; accordingly, it falls within the competence of the courts

> — Justice Brennan in his dissenting opinion

## Conclusion

[edit]

While dismissing the case of Goldwater v. Carter, the Supreme Court left open the question of the constitutionality of President Carter's actions. In their concurrences Powell and Rehnquist merely questioned the judicial merit of the case itself; they did not explicitly approve Carter's action.[7] Moreover, Powell even stated that this could be a valid constitutional issue.[2] Article II, Section II of the Constitution merely states that the President cannot make treaties without a Senate majority two-thirds vote. As it stands now, there is no official ruling on whether the President has the power to break a treaty without the approval of Congress.

## See also

[edit]

* List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 444

## References

[edit]

1. ^ Goldwater v. Carter, 444 U.S. 996 (1979).
2. ^ a b Powell's opinion, Section III, Paragraph 1
3. ^ a b c Goldwater v. Carter, 617 F.2d 697 (D.C. Cir. 1979).
4. ^ Barry GOLDWATER et al. v. James Earl CARTER, President of the United States, et al. No 79-2246, 100 S.Ct. (1979). 3.
5. ^ Barry GOLDWATER et al. v. James Earl CARTER, President of the United States, et al. No 78-2412, 100 S.Ct. (1979). 897-898.
6. ^ Barry GOLDWATER et al. v. James Earl CARTER, President of the United States, et al. No 78-2412, 100 S.Ct. (1979). 899.
7. ^ Powell's opinion, Section I, Paragraph 1; Rehnquist's opinion, Section I, Paragraph 1

## External links

[edit]

* Text of Goldwater v. Carter, 444 U.S. 996 (1979) is available from: CourtListener Findlaw Justia Oyez (oral argument audio)
* Arizona State University Archives Online: Personal and Political Papers of Senator Barry M. Goldwater 1880s-2008

* v
* t
* e

U.S. Supreme Court Article III case law

Federalism

| Abstention|

* Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co. (1941)
* Burford v. Sun Oil Co. (1943)
* Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. City of Thibodaux (1959)
* United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Ideal Cement Co. (1962)
* England v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners (1964)
* Younger v. Harris (1971)
* Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States (1976)
* Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. (1983)

|

Adequate and
independent state ground|

* Murdock v. City of Memphis (1875)
* Seneca Nation of Indians v. Christy (1896)
* Fox Film Corp. v. Muller (1935)
* Harrison v. NAACP (1959)
* Michigan v. Long (1983)

Federal common law|

* United States v. Hudson (1812)
* Swift v. Tyson (1842)
* Black & White Taxicab & Transfer Co. v. Brown & Yellow Taxicab & Transfer Co. (1928)
* Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (1938)
* Hinderlider v. La Plata River & Cherry Creek Ditch Co. (1938)
* Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States (1943)

Rooker–Feldman doctrine|

* Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. (1923)
* District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman (1983)
* Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp. (2005)

Sovereign immunity and
presidential immunity|

* Little v. Barreme (1804)
* The Schooner Exchange v. M'Faddon (1812)
* Mississippi v. Johnson (1867)
* United States v. Lee (1882)
* Schillinger v. United States (1894)
* Feres v. United States (1950)
* United States v. Wunderlich (1951)
* Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino (1964)
* Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez (1978)
* Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982)
* United States v. Stanley (1987)
* Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Citizen Band, Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma (1991)
* Saudi Arabia v. Nelson (1993)
* Clinton v. Jones (1997)
* Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc. (1998)
* College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board (1999)
* C & L Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizen Band, Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma (2001)
* Inyo County v. Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community (2003)
* United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe (2003)
* Republic of Austria v. Altmann (2004)
* City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York (2005)
* Dolan v. United States Postal Service (2006)
* Permanent Mission of India v. City of New York (2007)
* Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons (2008)
* Samantar v. Yousuf (2010)
* United States v. Bormes (2012)
* Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd. (2014)
* OBB Personenverkehr AG v. Sachs (2015)
* Jam v. International Finance Corp. (2019)
* Republic of Sudan v. Harrison (2019)
* Opati v. Republic of Sudan (2020)
* Trump v. United States (2024)

Jurisdiction

* Chisholm v. Georgia (1793)
* Marbury v. Madison (1803)
* United States v. More (1805)
* Martin v. Hunter's Lessee (1816)
* American Insurance Co. v. 356 Bales of Cotton (1828)
* Sheldon v. Sill (1850)
* United States v. Jackalow (1862)
* Ex parte Vallandigham (1864)
* Ex parte McCardle (1869)
* United States v. Klein (1871)
* City of St. Louis v. Myers (1885)
* Barrett v. United States (1898)
* Burton v. United States I (1905)
* Burton v. United States II (1906)
* Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley (1908)
* Muskrat v. United States (1911)
* American Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co. (1916)
* Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust Co. (1921)
* Hartsville Oil Mill v. United States (1926)
* Wisconsin v. Illinois (1929)
* Crowell v. Benson (1932)
* Colegrove v. Green (1946)
* Glidden Co. v. Zdanok (1962)
* Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. County of Oneida (1974)
* Arizona v. New Mexico (1976)
* Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle (1977)
* Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. (1982)
* Thomas v. Union Carbide (1985)
* Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Schor (1986)
* Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson (1986)
* Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc. (1995)
* JPMorgan Chase Bank v. Traffic Stream (BVI) Infrastructure Ltd. (2002)
* Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Mfg. (2005)
* Bowles v. Russell (2007)
* Patchak v. Zinke (2018)

Justiciability

| Mootness|

* DeFunis v. Odegaard (1974)
* Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez (2016)
* Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski (2021)
* Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer (2023)

|

Political question|

* Baker v. Carr (1962)
* Goldwater v. Carter (1979)
* Nixon v. United States (1993)

Ripeness|

* Poe v. Ullman (1961)
* Toilet Goods Ass'n, Inc. v. Gardner (1967)
* Laird v. Tatum (1972)
* Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City (1985)
* Trump v. New York (2020)

Standing|

* Bailiff v. Tipping (1805)
* Fairchild v. Hughes (1922)
* Massachusetts v. Mellon (1923)
* Ex parte Levitt (1937)
* Altvater v. Freeman (1943)
* Flast v. Cohen (1968)
* Sierra Club v. Morton (1972)
* United States v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (1973)
* Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee to Stop the War (1974)
* Warth v. Seldin (1975)
* Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois (1977)
* Pfizer Inc. v. Government of India (1978)
* Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church & State (1982)
* City of Los Angeles v. Lyons (1983)
* Allen v. Wright (1984)
* Diamond v. Charles (1986)
* Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992)
* Raines v. Byrd (1997)
* FEC v. Akins (1998)
* Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. (2000)
* DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno (2006)
* Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation (2007)
* Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (2007)
* Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn (2011)
* Bond v. United States (2011)
* Clapper v. Amnesty International USA (2013)
* Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins (2016)
* Texas v. Pennsylvania (2020)
* Trump v. New York (2020)
* Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski (2021)
* TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez (2021)
* Biden v. Nebraska (2023)
* FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (2024)
* Murthy v. Missouri (2024)

Others|

* Hayburn's Case (1792)
* County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York State (1985)
* Davis v. Bandemer (1986)
* Vieth v. Jubelirer (2004)
* Rucho v. Common Cause / Benisek v. Lamone (2019)

Treason

* Ex parte Bollman (1807)
* United States v. Burr (1807)
* Cramer v. United States (1945)

Others

* Stuart v. Laird (1803)
* Osborn v. Bank of the United States (1824)
* Forrester v. White (1988)
* Mistretta v. United States (1989)
* Peretz v. United States (1991)
* United States v. Hatter (2001)
* Stern v. Marshall (2011)
* Bank Markazi v. Peterson (2016)

* v
* t
* e

Barry Goldwater

Political career|

* Electoral history of Barry Goldwater
* Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act
* Goldwater v. Carter
* Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984
* Goldwater–Nichols Act

Elections|

* 1952
* 1958
* 1964 presidential campaign
* 1964 Republican National Convention
* 1964 United States presidential election
* 1968
* 1974
* 1980

Family|

* Barry Goldwater Jr. (son)

Other|

* Barry Goldwater statue
* The Conscience of a Conservative
* The Goldwaters (musical group)
* Goldwater v. Ginzburg
* Goldwater rule
* Barry M. Goldwater Scholarship
* Barry M. Goldwater Air Force Range
* Goldwater Institute

* Category
* Commons

* v
* t
* e

Jimmy Carter

* 39th President of the United States (1977–1981)
* 76th Governor of Georgia (1971–1975)
* Georgia State Senator (1963–1967)

Presidency
(timeline)|

* Transition
* Inauguration
* Timeline
* 1977
* 1978
* 1979
* 1980
* January 1981
* Political positions
* Judicial appointments
* controversies
* Executive Actions
* Executive Order 12036
* Executive Order 12086
* Executive Order 12148
* Executive Order 12170
* Executive Order 12172
* Carter bonds
* Rabbit incident
* Carter Doctrine
* Camp David Accords
* Egypt–Israel peace treaty
* Torrijos–Carter Treaties
* Iran hostage crisis
* Operation Eagle Claw
* Canadian Caper
* Engagement with Ruhollah Khomeini
* 1979 oil crisis
* Support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War
* Diplomatic relations with China
* Goldwater v. Carter
* Civil Service Reform Act of 1978
* Senior Executive Service
* Strategic Arms Limitation Talks
* International trips
* 1980 Summer Olympics boycott
* Cannabis policy
* Community Reinvestment Act
* Airline Deregulation Act
* Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977
* Clean Water Act of 1977
* Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act
* Federal Reserve Reform Act of 1977
* Electronic Fund Transfer Act
* Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
* Financial Institutions Regulatory and Interest Rate Control Act of 1978
* Right to Financial Privacy Act
* Humphrey–Hawkins Full Employment Act
* Superfund
* Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977
* Solar power at the White House
* Three Mile Island accident
* Presidential transition of Ronald Reagan

Speeches|

* Moral Equivalent of War
* Island of Stability
* A Crisis of Confidence
* State of the Union Addresses
* 1978
* 1979
* 1980
* 1981

Elections|

* Georgia gubernatorial elections
* 1966
* 1970
* Democratic Party presidential primaries
* 1976
* 1980
* Democratic National Conventions
* 1972
* 1976
* 1980
* Presidential elections
* 1976
* campaign
* 1980

Post-presidency|

* Carter Center
* Presidential Library and Museum
* Habitat for Humanity
* Jimmy & Rosalynn Carter Work Project
* The Elders
* Jimmy Carter National Historical Park
* Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter House
* Nairobi Agreement, 1999
* One America Appeal
* Continuity of Government Commission

Books|

* Everything to Gain (1987)
* The Hornet's Nest (2003)
* Our Endangered Values (2006)
* Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid (2006)
* reaction and commentary
* Beyond the White House (2007)
* We Can Have Peace in the Holy Land (2009)
* White House Diary (2010)
* A Call to Action (2014)
* A Full Life (2015)

Awards
and honors|

* Nobel Peace Prize
* Presidential Medal of Freedom
* Freedom of the City
* Silver Buffalo Award
* Philadelphia Liberty Medal
* United Nations Prize in the Field of Human Rights
* Hoover Medal
* Christopher Award
* Carter–Menil Human Rights Prize
* Grammy Award

Legacy|

* Jimmy Carter Peanut Statue (1976)
* USS Jimmy Carter
* Jimmy Carter National Historical Park (1987)
* Georgia State Capitol statue (1994)

Related|

* Residences
* Birthplace
* Home
* Mary Prince (nanny)
* UFO incident
* Jimmy Carter (2002 television documentary)
* Man from Plains (2007 documentary)

Family|

* Rosalynn Carter (wife)
* Jack Carter (son)
* Amy Carter (daughter)
* Jason Carter (grandson)
* James Earl Carter Sr. (father)
* Lillian Gordy Carter (mother)
* Gloria Carter Spann (sister)
* Ruth Carter Stapleton (sister)
* Billy Carter (brother)
* Emily Dolvin (aunt)
* Hugh Carter (cousin)

* ← Gerald Ford
* Ronald Reagan →

* Category

* v
* t
* e

Taiwan–United States relations

Diplomatic posts|

* Former Embassy of Taiwan, Washington, D.C.
* Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Atlanta
* Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Boston
* Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Honolulu
* Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Houston
* Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Miami
* Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Los Angeles
* Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in San Francisco
* Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Seattle
* Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States
* Twin Oaks
* Former Ambassador of the United States to China
* American Institute in Taiwan
* American Institute in Taiwan Kaohsiung Branch Office
* Former Embassy of the United States in Taipei
* U.S. Commercial Service in Taiwan
* Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs

Diplomacy|

* Mutual Defense Treaty between the United States and the Republic of China
* Formosa Resolution of 1955
* July 2002 state visit to the United States
* Trump–Tsai call
* 2022 visit by Nancy Pelosi to Taiwan
* Congressional Taiwan Caucus
* Senate Taiwan Caucus
* Six Assurances

Incidents|

* Rover incident
* Raid on Taipei
* Capture of the Tuapse
* May 24 incident
* Joint Communiqué on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations
* Goldwater v. Carter
* One-China policy
* United States beef imports in Taiwan
* 2022 Laguna Woods shooting

Military relations|

* Chinese Civil War
* First Taiwan Strait Crisis
* Operation King Kong
* Second Taiwan Strait Crisis
* Third Taiwan Strait Crisis
* United States Taiwan Defense Command
* Yangmingshan American Military Housing
* American arms sales to Taiwan
* Major non-NATO ally

Legislation|

* Taiwan Relations Act
* Taiwan Security Enhancement Act
* Taiwan Relations Act Affirmation and Naval Vessel Transfer Act of 2014
* Taiwan Travel Act
* Taiwan Allies International Protection and Enhancement Initiative Act

Related|

* American Chamber of Commerce in Taipei
* Formosan Association for Public Affairs
* International Community Radio Taipei
* China–United States relations

Category:Taiwan–United States relations
*[v]: View this template
*[t]: Discuss this template
*[e]: Edit this template