Dellums v. Bush

Following a bloody war with Iran in the early 1980s, Iraq turned to the United States for food and trade to revive its devastated economy. Iraqi trade grew significantly throughout the 1980s despite some congressional opposition. Meanwhile disputes increased between Iraq and Kuwait over war debts, oil policies, and, most importantly, location of a shared boundary. On 2 August 1990, Iraq abruptly invaded Kuwait, leading President George Bush to quickly send U.S. military forces to the Persian Gulf region to stabilize the situation. Over 230,000 U.S. troops were in the region by November. Bush then unexpectedly announced a substantial increase in military presence for the purpose of having an "offensive military option" to force Iraqi's retreat from Kuwait. He received support from the United Nations Security Council to use force if necessary. Though Congress had expressed support for presidential actions in the Persian Gulf earlier in the fall, Bush did not ask Congress for a declaration of war prior to the substantial build-up that was destined to reach 380,000 troops. In reaction, on 19 November, 53 members of the House of Representatives, including congressman Ronald V. Dellums and one U.S. Senator, filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia requesting an injunction against further use of military force until Congress could take action.

Dellums argued Bush had violated the War Powers Resolution and also denied Congress their constitutional right under the War Declaration Clause to debate and vote on the imminent military action. In response, the government argued the "harmonization" of war powers between the two branches was a political, not legal, issue for which the courts had no authority to become involved. Given the "political question doctrine" and lack of established standards, the courts possessed little means to decide if the "offensive military attack" was an act of war. The government also argued the threat of military action was not imminent, only a possibility, and that Bush might still ask for a declaration yet. Lastly, the government contended a congressional member could not challenge the constitutionality of an action simply "because he failed to persuade a majority of his colleagues of the wisdom of his views."