2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 5-10-2010 

# N J P e a ce Ac t ion v

. P reside nt U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-2781

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " N J P e a c e Act ion v

. P r e side nt U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1373. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1373J udge Sci r i ca c om pl et ed hi s t erm as C hi ef J udge on M ay4, 2010. * T h e H o n o ra b le J o h n E . Jo n e s, III, U n ited S tate s D istric t Ju d g e f o r th e M id d le ** D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT 

### N o . 09- 2781 

### NE WJER SE Y P EA CE AC TI ON ; PAUL A R OG OV IN; ANNA BERLINRUT; W I LLI AM J OSEPH WHEELER, Ap p ellants v. B A RA C KH . O B A M A , P resid ent o f th e Un itedS tates, inh is O f f icial C ap acity (Pursuant t o F .R.A.P. 43(c) )

A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 2- 08- cv- 02315) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J os e L. L i nar es Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A pr i l 20, 2010 B efor e: SC I R I C A , A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udges , and J O N E S, D i s t r i ctJ udge * * * ( O pi ni on fi l ed: M ay10, 2010)2 OP I NI ON A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udge T h is c a se is a c h a llen g e to th e c o n stitu tio n a lityo f A m e ric a n m ili tar yo p e ra tio n s in Ira q . T h e p lain tiff

s s e e k a d e c lar a to ryju d g m e n t th a t th e se o p e ra tio n s h a v e b e e n w a g e d in vi ol at i on of the U . S. C ons t i tut i on. T he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed the G overnm ent ’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s forl ack of

s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on, concl udi ng thatthe pl ai nt i ffs l acke d s t andi ng t o br i ng s uch an a ct i on or , i n t he al t ernat i ve, thatthe ac t i on i t s el f w as pr ohi bi t ed b yt h e p o l i t i c a l q u e s t i o n d o c t r i n e . F o rth e r e a s o n s th a tf o l l o w, we a f

f i r m. I. A rticle I, § 8 o f

th e U n ited S tate s C o n stitu tio n g ra n ts to C o n g re ss th e p o w e r to “dec l ar e W ar , ” w hi l e A r t i cl e I I pr ovi des that“[t ] he exe cut i ve Pow ers hal l be ves t ed i n a Pr es i dent ” w ho “s hal l be C om m anderi n C hi ef of the A r m yand N avyof the U ni t ed S ta te s .” I n O ct ober2002, Pr es i dentG eor ge W . B us h s i gned the A uthor i zat i on forU s e of M i l i t aryFor ce A gai ns tI r aq R es ol ut i on of 2002, Pub. L . N o. 107- 243, 116 St at . 1498 ( 2002) ( t he “A ut hor i zat i on”) . I n r el evantpart , the A uthor i zat i on pr ovi ded the Pr es i dent w i t h t h e f

o l l o w i n g a u t h o r i t y: ( a) A U T H O R I Z A T I O N . — T he Pr es i denti s author i zed t o us e the A r m ed For ces of the U ni t ed St at es as he det erm i nes t o be nec es s aryand appr opr i at e i n or dert o—A n o rga n izati o n m ayh av e “ rep rese n tat ion al” stan d ing w h ere : “(a) i ts m em b ers 1 w o u ld o th e rw ise h a v e sta n d in g to su e in th e ir o w n rig h t; (b ) th e in ter e sts it se e k s to pr ot ectar e germ ane t o t he or gani zat i on’ s purpos e; and ( c) nei t herthe cl ai m as s ert ed nor t he r el i ef r eques t ed r equi r es t he part i ci pat i on of i ndi vi dual m ember s i n t he l aw s ui t . ” H unt v. W a sh . S tate Ap

p le A dve r. C o m m ’n , 4 3 2 U .S . 3 3 3 , 3 4 3 (1 9 7 7 ). F o r re a so n s d isc u ss e d in P a rt IV , i nfr a , N ew J er s eyPeace A ct i on fai l s the fi r s tpr ong of the H u n t tes t. 3 ( 1) defe nd the nat i onal s ecur i t yof the U ni t ed St at es agai ns tthe cont i nui ng t hr eatpos ed byI r aq; and ( 2) enfor ce a l l r el evantU ni t ed N at i ons Secur i t yC ounci l r es ol ut i ons r egar di ng I r aq. A ut hor i zat i on, § 3. I n M ar ch 2003, the Pr es i dentus ed hi s author i t yunderthe A ut hor i zat i on t o i nvade I r aq. A ft erthe fa l l of Saddam H us s ei n’ s r egi m e, the U ni t ed S ta te s h a s m a in ta in e d a m ilita ry p re s e n c e in th a t c o u n tr ya t th e re q u e s t o f its g o v e rn m e n t. See, e. g. , S . C . R es. 17 90 , U . N . D oc. S / R E S / 17 90 (D ec. 18 , 20 07 ) ( no t i ng “t he requ est c o n v e y e d . . . fr o m th e P rim e M in iste r o f Ira q to th e P re sid e n t o f th e C o u n c il . . . to re tain the p rese n ce o f th e m u lt ination al fo rce in Iraq ”). I n M ay2008— overfi ve y ear s aft erthe U . S. i nvas i on of I r aq— t he pl ai nt i ffs br oughtt he curr entact i on, w hi ch al l eges that“Pr es i dentB us h’ s author i zat i on of an offe ns i ve mi l i t arys t r i ke aga i ns tt he nat i on of I r aq vi ol at ed A r t i cl e I , Sect i on 8 of the U n it ed S tat es C o n sti tuti o n , w h ich a ssign s ex clus ivelyto C o n g ress the d u tyto D ec lare W a r.” A p p . 4 9

– 5 0 . T h e p lain tiff s a re a d iv e rse g ro u p — in c lu d in g a n o n -p ro f it m ember s hi p corpor at i on ( N ew J er s eyPeace A ct i on) , tw o m other s of chi l dr en w ho have 1 compl et ed mul t i pl e t our s of dutyi n I r aq ( Paul a R ogovi n and A nna B er l i nrut ) , and an I r aqi4

wa rv e t e r a n ( Wi l l i a m J o s e p h Wh e e l e r ) . T h e ya s s e r ta v a r i e t yo f i n j u r i e s , wh i c h we cons i deri n tur n. T ur ni ng fi r s tt o N ew J er s eyPeace A ct i on, the or gani zat i on al l eges thatthe in v a sio n o f

Ira q “ im p o s[ e d ] a g re a t ‘o p p o rtu n ityc o st’ u p o n [ it] b e c a u se its lea d e rsh ip f e lt compel l ed t o r edi r ecti t s fi nanci al r es our ces and s t aff t o oppos i t i on t o t he w ar ” r athert han “otherpr oj ect s , ” s uch as “pr om ot i ng nucl eardi s arm ament , pr om ot i ng a ‘ Peace E c o n o m y ,’ o p p o sin g ‘S tar W a rs,’ a n d c o n d u c tin g p e a c e m a k in g e d u c a tio n p ro g ra m s in s chool s . ” A pp. 31. I tal s o cl ai m s t hat“i t s m ember s w er e i nj ur ed bybei ng depr i ved of the o p p o rtu n ityto v o te f

o r o r a g a in st th e ir e lec ted re p re se n tativ e s b a se d u p o n h o w th e ir r epr es ent at i ves vot ed on the i s s ue of goi ng t o w ari n I r aq” a nd “bei ng compel l ed t o pay t ax dol l ar s foran uncons t i tut i onal w arthattheyoppos e. ” A pp. 31. R ogovi n and B er l i nr outal l ege s i m i l ari nj ur i es t o t hei rr i ght s as vot er s and t axpay er s . I n addi t i on, t heycl ai m that“[t ] he fa ctthatno D ecl ar at i on of W aragai ns tI r aq w a s e v e r b ro u g h t to a v o te in C o n g re ss . . . d ire c tlyc a u s[ e d ] [ th e m ] to su f f e r e m o tio n a l, phy s i cal [, ] and ps y chol ogi cal i nj ur y , ” bas ed on both t hei rangeratPr es i dentB us h and the emot i onal t r auma of havi ng t hei rchi l dr en depl oy ed i n a dange r ous m i l i t aryconfl i ct . A pp. 32, 33. Fi nal l y , t heyal s o al l ege a n i nj urybas ed on “opportuni t ycos t s ”— namel y , thatt he al l egedl yuncons t i tut i onal i nvas i on of I r aq l ed them t o devot e t i m e and r es our ces oppos i ng t he w art hatt heycoul d have s penton otherpur s ui t s , i ncl udi ng “gar deni ng” and “w or ki ng on new books . ” A pp. 32, 34.In p arti cu lar, the p lai n ti ff s see k an o rde r th at “[ d ]ec lare[s ] th at th e P reside n t’ s 2 or derof M ar ch 2003 t o i nvade the s over ei gn nat i on of I r aq, i n the abs ence of a C ongr es s i onal D ecl ar at i on of W ar , vi ol at ed A r t i cl e I , Sec. 8 of the U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on and the D ue Pr oces s C l aus e of the Fi fth A m endment. . . . ” A pp. 51–52. 5 W heel ers erved i n t he U . S. A r m yfr om M ay2001 t hr ough J anuary2004. D ur i ng t hi s per i od, he compl et ed a t ourof dutyi n I r aq, w hi ch l as t ed fr om M ar ch 2003 thr ough N ovember2003. H e w as honor abl ydi s char ged fr om the A r m yi n J anuary2004, but s ubj ectt o r eca l l t o act i ve dutyunt i l M ay2009. I n t he curr entact i on, W heel erfi r s tal l eges i nj ur i es bas ed on the “e m ot i onal , ps y chol ogi cal [, ] and phy s i cal [e] ffe ct s ar i s i ng fr om t he or deal of combat . ” A pp. 35. Second, he cl ai m s thathe “s uffe r ed i nj urybybei ng compel l ed t o obeyor der s t hatw er e unl aw ful beca us e theyw er e pr emi s ed on the Pr es i dent ’ s uncons t i tut i onal i ni t i at i on of the W ari n I r aq. ” A pp. 36. Fi nal l y , he al l eges f u tu re in ju rie s b a se d o n a p o ss ib le r e c a ll o rd e r to se rv e in f u tu re u n c o n stitu tio n a l w a rs “ in I r an orel s ew her e. ” A pp. 36. I n s pi t e of the di ver s e i nj ur i es al l eged, the pl ai nt i ffs s eek a comm on form of re lief

— a d e c lar a to ryju d g m e n t th a t th e “ w a r in Ira q is b e in g w a g e d in v io latio n o f A rticle I , Sec. 8 of the U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on. ” A pp. 28. T he pl ai nt i ffs al l ege thatthe 2 A ut hor i zat i on’ s “pr i nci pal vi ce . . . i s thati tdeni ed the peopl e know l edge of how r epr es ent at i ves vot ed on w ar , beca us e thei rr epr es ent at i ves nevercas ta vot e cl ear l yand sol el yon t he is sue of

go i ng t o w ar. ” A pp . 45 . T he p l ai nti ffs al so at t ack the “vag uen ess” of the A ut hor i zat i on, not i ng t hati t“gave the Pr es i dentr oom t o as s um e unl i m i t ed6

di s cr et i on t o at t ack I r aq. ” A pp. 45. I n s hor t , the pl ai nt i ffs ar gue thatthe A uthor i zat i on “cann ot be con si dered a D ecl arat i on of W ar because t o d o so w ou l d b e t o g rantC on gress t he r i ghtt o del egat e i t s dut yt o det erm i ne w hetherornotw ars houl d be dec l ar ed t o t he Pr es i dent . ” A pp. 45–46. I n t he end, the pl ai nt i ffs cont end that“[a ] deci s i on i n favorof [them] i n t hi s cas e w i l l cl ar i fyt he cons t i tut i onal i s s ues conce r ni ng the curr entw ar , and w i l l i m pactt he manneri n w hi ch futur e hos t i l i t i es ar e cons i der ed byC ongr es s and the P re s id e n t.” A p p . 2 9 . T h e D istric t C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t th e p lain tiff s la c k e d sta n d in g to b rin g th is s u it and that , i n t he al t ernat i ve, t he s ui tw as pr ohi bi t ed bythe pol i t i cal ques t i on doctr i ne. For t h e r e a s o n s t h a tf

o l l o w, we a f

f i r m. II. T he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . §§ 1331 and 2201. W e have juri sd ict ion u n d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 . T h e q u esti o n o f stan d ing is subject t o p lena ry re v ie w . G oode v. C i t

y of P hi l a. , 5 3 9 F . 3 d 3 1 1 , 3 1 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ).

III . “[E] veryfede r al appel l at e courthas a s peci al obl i gat i on t o s at i s fyi t s el f notonl yof i t s ow n j ur i s di ct i on, butal s o t hatof the l ow ercour t s i n a ca us e underr evi ew . . . . ” B e n d e r v . W

ill ia m sp o rt A re a Sc h . D ist. , 475 U . S. 534, 541 ( 1986) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m a rk s o m itt e d ). F e d e ra l co u rts a re lim ited b yA rticle III o f th e U .S . C o n stitu tio n to cons i deronl yactual “ca s es orcontr over s i es . ” See W hi tm or e v. A rkans as , 495 U . S. 149,“In ad d it ion to the im m u table re q u ir em en ts of A rt icl e III, ‘th e f

ed era l j u d ici ary 3 h as a lso a d h ere d to a s et of p rud en ti al princ iples tha t bea r on the q u esti o n o f stan d ing . ’” B ennet tv. Spear , 5 2 0 U . S . 1 5 4 , 1 6 2 (19 9 7 ) ( qu oti ngV alley Forge C hrist i an C oll . v. A m s. U ni t ed f orSepar at i on of

C hur ch and Stat e, I

nc. , 454 U . S. 464, 474–75 ( 1982) ) . T w o of th e se re q u ire m e n ts a re p o ten tiallyim p lica ted in th is c a se . F irst, “th e p lain tiff g e n e ra lly m us tas s er thi s ow n l egal r i ght s and i nt er es t s , and ca nnotr es thi s cl ai m t o r el i ef on the l egal r i ght s ori nt er es t s of thi r d par t i es . ” W a rth v . Se ld in , 4 2 2 U .S . 4 9 0 , 4 9 9 (1 9 7 5 ). S econ d, a cou rtm aydis m i ss a s uitfor l ack o f st and i ng “w hen the assert ed h arm i s a ‘ gener al i zed gr i evanc e’ s har ed i n a s ubs t ant i al l yequal m eas ur e byal l ora l ar ge cl as s of ci t i zens . ” I

d. 7 154–55 ( 1990) . T he “c or e” of t he “c as e- or - contr over s yr equi r ement ” i s the “tr i ad of i nj ur yi n fac t , caus at i on, and r edr es s abi l i t y . ” S teel C o . v. C it izen s for a B ett er E n v’t , 523 U . S . 8 3 , 1 0 3 (19 9 8 ). T h is do ctri n al co re “ serv es to iden ti fytho se d ispu tes w h ich a re 3 appr opr i at el yr es ol ved thr ough t he j udi ci al pr oces s . ” W hitm ore , 4 9 5 U .S . a t 1 5 5 . T o m eett he “i nj ur y - i n- fac t ” r equi r ement , a pl ai nt i ff mustes t abl i s h “an i nvas i on of a l egal l ypr ot ect ed i nt er es tw hi ch i s ( a) concr et e and pa r t i cul ar i zed, and ( b) actual or i m m i nent , notconj ectur al orhypot het i cal . ” L u ja n v . D e fen d e rs o f W ild lif e , 504 U . S. 555, 560 ( 1992) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . T o m eetthe “c aus at i on” r equi r ement , a pl ai nt i ff mustes t abl i s h “a c aus al connec t i on betw een the i nj uryand the conductcompl ai ned of. ” I d. Fi nal l y , t o m eetthe r edr es s abi l i t yr equi r ement , a pl ai nt i ff m us tes t abl i s h t hati ti s “l i kel y , as oppos ed t o m er el ys pecul at i ve, thatthe i nj uryw i l l be r edr es s ed bya fa vor abl e dec i s i on. ” I d. at561 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . I f a l i t i gantdoes notm eett hes e r equi r ement s , the ca s e mustbe di s m i s s ed forl ack of s ubj ect m a tte r j u ri s d ic tio n . See Steel C o. , 523 U . S. at88–89. T hi s i s true eve n w hen a pl ai nt i ffI n t he cont extof a de cl ar at oryj udgm ent , the “c as e orcontr over s y ” r equi r ement 4 m aybe sat i sfi ed w hen “t here i s a subst anti al con t rovers y , betw een p art i es having ad verse lega l i n terests, o f su ff

ici en t i m m ed iacyan d rea li tyto w arran t th e issu an ce o f a d ec laratory j udgm ent . ” St ep- SaverD ata Sys . , I nc. v. W ys e Tech. , 912 F. 2d 643, 647 ( 3d C i r . 1990) (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). S i nce w e con cl ud e t hat none of the plai nti ffs has st and i ng , w e need no tadd res s 5 t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s appl i cat i on of the pol i t i cal ques t i on doctr i ne t o t hi s act i on. 8 s e e k s a d e c la ra to ry ju d g m e n t. See, e. g. , St . Thom as –St . John H ot el & Tour is m A s s ’ n, I

nc. v. G ov’ tof

the U . S. V i r gi n I s l ands , 2 1 8 F . 3 d 2 3 2 , 2 4 0 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) (“A d ec laratory j udgm ent. . . can i s s ue onl yw hen the cons t i tut i onal s t andi ng r equi r ement s of a ‘ cas e’ or

‘ contr over s y ’ ar e met . ”) . I m por t ant l y , “[t ] he part yi nvoki ng fede r al j ur i s di ct i on bear s t he 4 bur den of e s t abl i s hi ng t hes e el ement s . ” Luj an , 504 U . S. at561. I V. T o r epea t , t he pl ai nt i ffs col l ect i vel ys eek a decl ar at oryj udgm entthatPr es i dent B u sh ’s o rd e r to in v a d e Ira q w a s u n c o n stitu tio n a l. T h e ya rg u e th a t t heyhave s t andi ng t o s eek a D ecl ar at oryJ udgm entbeca us e theyar e among “the Peopl e of the U ni t ed St at es , [w ho] i n O r dert o form a more per fec t U ni on” es t abl i s hed a c ons t i tut i on thati m pos ed expl i ci tpr ocedur al r equi r ement s t hatm us tbe fol l ow ed[, ] . . . and theyhave s uffe r ed i nj ur i es becau se of P res i den tB ush’s vi olat i on of those requi rem ents . A ppel l ant s ’ B r . 45 ( quot i ngU . S. C ons t . pm bl . ) . E ven w er e w e t o as s um e thatthe p l a i n t i f f s a r e a b l e t o s a t i s f

yt h e “ i n j u r y - i n - f a c t ” a n d “ c a u s a t i o n ” r e q u i r e me n t s , we con cl ud e t hat theirpropo sed dec l arat i on w ou l d n ot r edress theiral l eged i njur i es. 5 T her efor e, w e hol d t hattheyl ack s t andi ng t o br i ng the curr entact i on. O n appea l , t he pl ai nt i ffs s t r es s thattheyar e not“s eeki ng r el i ef i n t he form ofW h e e le r h im s e lf is n o lo n g e r s u b je c t to re c a ll in to m ilita ry s e rv ic e . See App. 34. 6 9 damages , ” buti ns t ead “ ar e mer el ys eeki ng a dec l ar at oryj udgm ent , w hi ch . . . w i l l be s uffi ci entt o pr ovi de them w i t h atl eas ts om e r emedyforthe harm theyhave s uffe r ed. ” R epl yB r . 18. I n par t i cul ar , t he pl ai nt i ffs ar gue that“[t ] he D ecl ar at oryJ udgm ents ought h e re in w o u ld lik e lyp re v e n t a r e c u rre n c e o f th e c h a llen g e d p re sid e n tial c o n d u c t,” a s w e ll as r emedyt hei ri ndi vi dual i nj ur i es by“vi ndi cat i ng the Fundament al C ons t i tut i onal R i ght t hatt heycl ai m . ” A ppel l ant s ’ B r . 49. T heyal l ege thats uch r el i ef w oul d “pr ovi de gr eat r edr es s [t o t hem], ” i d. at51, by“ef fec t i vel yact i ng as a form al apol ogy , ” R epl yB r . 23. N evertheles s, t he p l ai nti ffs’ pr op osed rel i ef w ou l d n ot gi ve them a fresh oppor tuni t yt o cas t( m or e) i nform ed vot es forthei rr epr es ent at i ves , paythem back fort ax d o ll ars e x p en d ed , o r all o w them to rea ll o ca te t im e a lr ea d ysp en t op p o sing m il it ary oper at i ons i n I r aq. I tw oul d nott ake ba ck the al l egedl yunl aw ful or der s thatW heel erhas a lre a d yo b e y e d , n o r w o u ld it p ro v id e a n yc o n c re te c o m p e n sa tio n f o r th e e m o tio n a l, p sy c h o lo g ica l, an d p h y sic a l in ju rie s th a t h e h a s a lleg e d lysu f f e re d . In d e e d , itis “ m e re ly 6 sp e c u lativ e ” th a t an yp sy c h ic b e n e f its o f d e c lar a to ryre lief

w o u ld re d re ss th e “ e m o tio n a l, p h y s ic a l[ ,] a n d p s y c h o lo g ic a l in ju r[ ie s ]” a lr e a d ys u f

f e re d b yth e p la in tif

f s in th is c a s e . F in a lly , ev e n if

w e w e re to g ra n t th e p ro p o se d d e c lar a to ryre lief , itis u n c lea r th a t itw o u ld have a nypr act i cal eff

ecton t he ac t i ons of the Pr es i dentand C ongr es s i n t he fa ce of any f u tu re (a s y e t u n sp e c if

ied ) m ili tar yc o n f

lict. I n t he end, t he pl ai nt i ffs fi l ed thi s act i on m or e than fi ve y ear s aft erthe A m er i canTh i s k e yf a c td i s t i n g u i s h e s t h i s c a s e f r o m M assachu set t

s v. L aird , 451 F. 2d 26 7 ( 1s tC i r . 1971) . I n L aird , the p lai n ti ff s b rou g h t an a cti o n to en join o n g o ing m il it ary o p e ra tio n s in S o u th e a s t A s ia . I d. a t 2 8 . 10 inv asio n o f Iraq . A s the G o v ern m en t no tes, o u r cu rren t com m itm en ts i n that co u n tryare “a t th e re q u est o f [ it s] G o v ern m en t . . . — a f ac t th at plaintiffs d o n o t dispu te. ” A p p ell ee ’s B r . 5. T her efor e, even a s s um i ng t he truth of the pl ai nt i ffs ’ al l egat i ons , the “i l l egal ” w ar itse lf h a s e f f e c tiv e lye n d e d . P re sid e n t G e o rg e W . B u sh is n o lo n g e r P re sid e n t, an d h is p a rtyw a s d e f

e a ted a t th e p o lls in 2 0 0 8 . F u rth e rm o re , the p lain tiff s s tre ss th a t th e ir

“ C o m p lain t se e k s n o c o e rc iv e re lief a g a in st th e P re sid e n t an d d o e s n o t as k th e c o u rt to in ter v e n e in a n yw a yw ith th e h o stilit ies in Ira q .” A p p e llan ts’ B r. 3 . It d o e s n o t “s e e k to 7 i m pr ove the manneri n w hi ch Pr es i dentG eor ge W . B us h exer ci s ed hi s pow erand Pr es i dentO bama i s exer ci s i ng hi s pow er . ” R epl yB r . 14. T he pl ai nt i ffs fur t herconce de t hat“the W ari n I r aq obvi ous l ycannotbe undone byj udi ci al decr ee orbyanyot her m or t al act . ” I

d. at 22 . G iven this, theyco n ce d e tha t “th e re d ress tha t Plainti ff s are c a p a b le o f

o b ta in in g h e re is lim ite d a n d im p e rf e c t.” A p p e lla n ts ’ B r. 5 0 . W i t h t hes e l i m i t at i ons i n m i nd, the pl ai nt i ffs s pecul at e thatthe pr opos ed decl ar at or yr el i ef w oul d, i f gr ant ed, s erve t o gui de futur e exe cut i ve and l egi s l at i ve d e c isio n -m a k in g . In p a rticu lar , the p lain tiff s c laim th a t a d e c lar a to ryju d g m e n t f ro m th is C our tw oul d “nec es s ar i l ycaus e the curr entand futur e Pr es i dent s t o r efr ai n fr om ut i l i zi ng l egi s l at i ve devi ces — s uch as t he [A uthor i zat i on]

— t o avoi d t he C ons t i tut i on’ s r equi r ement of a Congre s s i onal D ecl ar at i on of W arbefor e i nvadi ng a s over ei gn s t at e thathas notSuch an ac t i on al s o runs afoul of the w el l - r ecogni zed prudent i al l i m i ton our 8 stan d ing to h ea r ac ti o n s tha t con sti tute “g en era li ze d g ri ev an ce s. ” A s the S u p rem e C o u rt not ed i n Luj an , t he C ou rthas cons i s t ent l yhel d t hata pl ai nt i ff r ai s i ng onl ya gene r al l yavai l abl e gr i evanc e a b o u t g o v e rn m e n t— c laim in g o n lyh a rm to h is a n d e v e ryc iti z e n ’s in ter e st in pr operappl i cat i on of the C ons t i tut i on and l aw s , and s eeki ng r el i ef thatno m or e di r ect l yand t angi bl ybenef i t s hi m than i tdoes the publ i c at la rg e — d o e s n o t s ta te a n A rt ic le II I c a s e o r c o n tr o v e rs y . 504 U . S. at573–74. 11 at t acke d t he U ni t ed St at es . ” R epl yB r . 22–23. W e conc l ude thats uch s pecul at i on i s of i ns uffi ci ent“i m m edi acyand r eal i t y ” t o j us t i fya dec l ar at oryj udgm enti n t hi s cas e. St ep- 8 SaverD ata Sys . , I

nc. v. W ys e Tech. , 912 F. 2d 643, 647 ( 3d C i r . 1990) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m a rk s o m itt e d ); s ee al

s o St . Thom as , 218 F. 3d at240 (“ A lth o u g h d e c lar a to ryju d g m e n ts a re f re q u e n tlyso u g h t in a d v a n c e o f th e f u ll h a rm e x p e c ted , the ym u st s til l p re se n t a j us t i ci abl e contr over s yr athert han ‘ abs t r act , hypot het i cal [, ] orcont i ngentques t i ons . ’ ”) ( qu oti ngA l a. Stat e Fed’n of La bo r v. McA do ry , 325 U . S. 450, 461 ( 1945) ) . H ypot het i cal w ar s agai ns tpos s i bl e foe s ar e nei t her“i m m edi at e” nor“r eal . ” Fur t herm or e, i ti s an e x e rc ise in ju d icia l g u e ss w o rk to p re d ict w h a t f o rm su c h a h yp o th e tica l co n f lict w o u ld t ake, i ncl udi ng how t he Pr es i dentw oul d choos e t o pr ocee d and w hattype of a uthor i zat i on C o n g re ss m ig h t g ra n t (if a n y ). G iv e n th is, it i s u n c lea r w h e th e r a n ysu c h c o n f lict w o u ld r es embl e ourr ece ntact i vi t i es i n I r aq— and eve n l es s cl earhow a dec l ar at oryj udgm ent fr om ourC our ti n t he curr entcas e w oul d i nform anyfutur e ac t i ons bythe Pr es i dentand C o n g re s s .12 * * * * * Fort hes e r eas ons , w e agr ee w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our tthati n t hi s cas e “[ a] j udi ci al d e c lar a tio n o f

u n c o n stitu tio n a lityw o u ld b e , at b e st, a n a d v iso ryo p in io n n o t su f f icie n t to red ress a n yo f P lai n ti ff

s’ claim ed injuries. ” A p p . 1 3 . T h ere fo re, w e a ff irm the C o u rt ’s ju d g m e n t.