fundamental question presented by the decision below and by the arguments that the united states made is whether or not when ever the united states says that a claim touches on foreign affairs  there the courts must abandon their responsibilities to review real claims about whether or not the executives actions have complied with structure of our government it is particularly remarkable in this case because the government asked this where to move and in its responsibilities without the government having ever first had to put forward any evidence any suggestion any statement that the court's exercise of its responsibilities will actually intrude upon the foreign and military affairs operations that the political question  designed for to so for example in this quarter's most important decision with respect to this area that was about a presidential decision to retaliate for the bombing of the united states embassy imbedded in this plane that the players were trying to make there was a question about believe jussi of a presidential decision to retaliate with respect to and us the bomb we knew that was what the decision was about because the president had actually submitted the war powers act a letter to congress about it the record was fully clear about what was happening and then the claimants asked the court because say well no question whether or not what the president and the full force of the united states government had done was a procedure is that the name distinction that you would have a strong with all she found is that there there had been a public statement by the president no i think it is  ad distinction is not so much that it is a public statement it is that in the record the court knew what it was asked being asked to refrain from doing the court said oh the president here has said that in this instance this was an exercise of our power that's all there for the court to understand we're in and we're going to as a credential matter stay away from examining that here really even know who all the john doe defendants are yet we have some of the people to at the beginning and the united states has that sort of size the westfall with respect to the you name defendant but we don't have a statement that in this case there was a presidential decision to target this person even if we don't have a record we don't have a name camera submission we don't have anything but in the complaint alleges that this was carried out of the signature strike yes so the  theory of the complaint is that this is a drone strike that was carried out in court and with the coordinated action of the defendants who include the director of the cia the secretary of defense and the president alleges that this was cornered into using if this was an action which was done pursuant to those defendants and with their complicity but it doesn't go further the government has come back and said either yes it was or no it wasn't the government hasn't come back and said no this this is something this was different and so the court is being is essentially asked to step back without knowing what is being asked to step back from and that i think is shifting the balance with respect to the responsibilities too far at words to say look we understand if if we were here now saying using similarly in international law international courts courts in israel and elsewhere of standards about what is or is it proportional to evaluate what is distinct and other things in fact matters national security information that cannot be the disclosure of which cannot be forced the action happens later on not of the threshold as in the packaging of it is just a figure it would be a different about how this is different we don't cases some of them are getting into this this is about the judicial legal function and if we look at it right judges and lawyers and apply it step by step i think it works and so has some statements but there's no schieffer really about it's about a set of facts i looked at and evaluated under the doctor the facts the circumstances where that was are very distinct from where we are here now how does think are they because it's sounds to me like there's two distinctions you're drawing with one is that there you had a  presidential public determination that was something that could be that was already as a predicate here you don't have something like that that's been publicly acknowledged and then secondly that there's something different about the theory of recovery and i'll schieffer from the theory of recovery here as to the latter there were legal standards to be applied in that case too they were statutory claims that incorporated international law principles and the courts still said even though that's a statutory cause of action that incorporates internet and international law norm it's not something we're going to look at and here it's also a statutory cause of action that incorporates an international law norm which would be a legal standard but the question is as i understand it from does the nature of the the issue raised by the norm cause us to look at the substantive merits or demerits of the decision to undertake this military targeting mission at that level they seem similar but i think  was sort of in this one off world that we used to be and this case is in the world we live in now where we have a defining hopefully knowledge discussed program of using drones against persons who we believe threaten us in yemen we have the president having rules about it with the president earlier this month releasing almost statement about this is what we do this is how we do it this is how we are going law you know this will  a law that applies to the executive branch not all of the ranch is traditionally enforceable i'm heartened not discouraged by the notion that internally the cases by which we are bound c v a a t s you know same the same standards now but part of the political question doctoring comes out of this notion of interference and  address the disease or present it doesn't say doesn't overrule it which is why i want to be cautious about that but if you just tell us of the supreme court may not be as enamored of the political question doctrine as lower courts who you know for operating under some different allow courts to apply the walls that courts use our courts of i but they don't raise the concerns undermining the political question dr klein concerns with the past because this can sometimes be overstate really apply that to declaratory relief as well in haas interest versus holder and so the problem for us is that we don't see a basis here for a declared term relief case to go forward respect and the responsibilities under the law with respect to not only the personal representatives but the children in the family and protection we would believe we would have been able to craft in a minute which dealt with the future looking out there's no  we talk about an ad the children in other belters for whom the deceased or responsible one have was there as they prepare for as persons who reside in an area which is a source of active hostilities where there are ongoing decision by the president that their claims fall within the core of the political question doctrine and they're squarely governed by this court's holding in that case this court held the courts cannot second guess the president's determination that missile strike was justified and that's exactly the sort of declaration that the plaintiffs are asking for here they're challenging the executives alleged determination about whether the targets of the straight who's a threat and about whether there was some other means to a new better international law because it was an unjustified taking of their property that did not hinge on whether the president had given a statement about the justification for the attack of the second response is that it would be we think it would be backwards  ll then a case in which the president has publicly discussed the events what about the notion that the supreme court has basically said yes in  face and here if you look at the particular claims brought by the plaintiffs the questions that are before this court are for example you know whether there was an urgent military purpose that justified the strike at j ten or  you know whether they whether the targets of the alleged straight pose any threat much less an imminent one against the united states j thirty seven if you need those determinations are exactly are exactly the types of determinations that the political question doct while you are in another way of putting it in sit atop the court could answer the question about whether the statute was constitutional without addressing the issue that raise a political question which was whether  israel whether jerusalem should be recognized as as in israel on a passport and so the court could answer the constitutional question without answering the political question here that's not the case but the plants claims in the complete make clear that to  claims the courts would have to decide that the very specific sensitive political judgments that this court in the supreme court have had made clear are committed to the put texturally committed to the political branches and that includes both the threat posed by the alleged targets of the strike that the best in the sort of the good conscience in the proper functioning of the government to claim that there really was a bona fide the national security interest in what they did commit to do say we're going to kill to know that infringed that the president's authority without answering a clinically sensitive question about where whether jerusalem was located and real here the court can't educate the plaintiffs claims without addressing the political questions about whether there claim was that this was a strike that was in violation of that statute and hundreds of a posse there would be no problem with addressing the constitution constitutionality of that statute so the good you are the  supreme court has directed courts to look into the particular claim is raised by the plaintiffs in the case and see whether this particular claims really is the questions i think in the statute that the hypothetical you're proposing you're trying to avoid any of those sorts of political judgments if it's true the statute truly didn't didn't raise any of the claims under that statute truly didn't raise any of the political questions raised here then it might be more it would be more similar to and and clearly within the core of the political question doctrine because the plaintiff's claims here you just looking at the complaint it's clear that the plaintiff's claims raise precisely those types of judgments that that question doctrine keeps courts out of and the courts are not well suited to make those and i know you have responses to this but there's a problem there is the possibility of recreating at least there's that's been raised with some of the other arguments you've made about the t v in the a t s there is not a possibility of repeating to deal with them but the question is are those jurisdictional arguments that are actually alternatives to standing a political question or are they merits arguments that you can't get to until you conclude that this case neither is a political question nor has a standing pro we think it's too speculative that there will be future attacks in the area that would spread these people but it's important to remember that the claim is brought by the state and it's unclear how it's state even how you know what still think it would be too speculative and it in addition it's unclear how that the particular declaration that they seek we redress that injury because the declaration that they're seeking is a very suspect specific declaration that seems very problematic what about a claim for damages plane would need to be made before the agency i was just trying to explain that i'm not sure exactly what that would look like because this is fairly unprecedented and it's you know an extraordinary lawsuit and just to be clear you begin to wonder if you were someone trying to bring this extraordinary lawsuit where would you would would not be able to proceed but just to be clear we think the most straightforward way for this court towards all this case is through application of the political question doctrine because this this these claims falls clear squarely within the cour there's a question about what would happen in the aftermath but sir i really feel that i feel that we have very strong standing arguments ancestry arguments as well i just didn't want to lose sight of the fact that we think that this is a very straightforward political question case that's governed by the court's decision how more regular process more opportunity for the court to decide whether or not there are issues that they can decide which school exercising respect for good order practice