Eight times since the enactment of the War Powers Resolution in 1973, Members of Congress have filed suit to force various Presidents to comply with its requirements or otherwise to recognize Congress's war powers under the Constitution. In each instance where a ruling was delivered, the reviewing court refused to render a decision on the merits. In four of these cases, the suits foundered on the political question or equitable discretion doctrines, which the federal courts use to insulate themselves from what they view as essentially political disputes. In two other cases the suit failed on grounds of standing, and in two other cases the suits foundered on the ripeness doctrine. Most recently, 10 Members of Congress filed suit to enjoin U.S. military operations against Libya in the absence of a declaration of war, but the reviewing federal district court dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds due to lack of standing. Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution confers on Congress the power to "declare War," and Congress has enacted declarations eleven times in American history. It has also enacted a number of authorizations for the use of military force not rising to the level of a declaration of war. Nonetheless, concern that Congress had allowed its war power to atrophy in the contexts of the Cold War and the wars in Korea and Vietnam led to the enactment in 1973, over President Nixon's veto, of the War Powers Resolution (WPR; P.L. 93-148 ). The legislation's supporters hoped that its enactment would ensure that a national consensus precedes the use of U.S. Armed Forces in hostilities. Accordingly, the WPR requires the President to consult with Congress "in every possible instance" prior to introducing U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities and to report to Congress within 48 hours when, absent a declaration of war, U.S. Armed Forces are introduced into "hostilities or ... situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances." After this report is submitted (or after such date that it was required to be submitted), the WPR requires that U.S. troops be withdrawn at the end of 60 days (90 days in certain circumstances), unless Congress authorizes continued involvement by passing a declaration of war or some other specific authorization for continued U.S. involvement in hostilities. Several Presidents have viewed aspects of the War Powers Resolution as unconstitutionally trenching upon their constitutional authorities in matters of war and foreign relations. Nonetheless, Presidents from Ford to Obama have submitted more than 125 reports to Congress giving notice of the involvement of U.S. Armed Forces in hostile situations, as is required under the War Powers Resolution. With one exception, however, all of these reports have characterized themselves as being "consistent with," rather than pursuant to, the requirements of the War Powers Resolution. This language appears intended to leave open the question as to whether the executive recognizes the reported activities to fall under the purview of the War Powers Resolution, or perhaps whether the executive deems the Resolution's requirements to be legally binding upon it. The practice has frustrated numerous lawmakers and has led some to pursue other avenues, including litigation, to compel the President to recognize the legal necessity of obtaining congressional authorization for the use of force Both the Members who have initiated suits and the White House have claimed that their respective position will ultimately prevail if the courts ever pass judgment on the merits of the controversy. But in the cases where final rulings have been issued, the reviewing courts have found that neither side has taken steps that would give the courts a viable statutory or constitutional issue to resolve, rather than a policy dispute. On the one hand, despite periodic claims by the executive branch that it would welcome a court test, the Justice Department has consistently raised threshold obstacles to court challenges such as Member standing to sue and the political question doctrine—obstacles which have so far successfully forestalled judicial rulings on the merits. On the other hand, litigation by Members of Congress to force a decision has not been preceded by legislative actions that have been sufficient to create the "irreconcilable conflict" between the executive and legislative branches that might make a judicial decision possible, if not probable. This report summarizes the eight suits that have been brought by Members of Congress since the enactment of the War Powers Resolution which have alleged presidential noncompliance with the Resolution or the requirements of the Constitution with respect to the involvement of U.S. Armed Forces in El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Grenada; U.S. escort operations in the Persian Gulf; Iraq's invasion of Kuwait; NATO's actions against Yugoslavia, Iraq's noncompliance with its obligation to disarm; and U.S. military operations against Libya. In the 1982 case of Crockett v. Reagan , 16 Senators and 13 House Members asked a federal district court to declare that military aid supplied to the government of El Salvador by President Reagan usurped Congress's war powers under the Constitution and violated the War Powers Resolution and the Foreign Assistance Act. In particular, the lawmakers charged that the unreported dispatch of at least 56 members of the U.S. Armed Forces as military advisers to war-racked El Salvador constituted a violation of the Resolution. The Reagan Administration moved to dismiss the action on the grounds the suit involved a political question, and the district court granted the motion. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed. Examining the categories of political questions set forth by the Supreme Court in Baker v. Carr , the trial court rejected the Administration's arguments that judicial resolution was inappropriate because it would interfere with executive discretion in the foreign affairs field or because the suit involved the apportionment of power between the executive and legislative branches. However, it concluded, judicial resolution was inappropriate because there were no "judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolution" of the case: The questions as to the nature and extent of the United States' presence in El Salvador and whether a report under the WPR is mandated because our forces have been subject to hostile fire or are taking part in the war effort are appropriate for congressional, not judicial, investigation. Further, in order to determine the application of the 60-day provision, the Court would be required to decide at exactly what point in time U.S. forces had been introduced into hostilities or imminent hostilities, and whether that situation continues to exist. This inquiry would be even more inappropriate for the judiciary. .... The Court lacks the resources and expertise (which are accessible to the Congress) to resolve disputed questions of fact concerning the military situation in El Salvador. The trial court contrasted the situation in El Salvador with the conflict in Vietnam, noting that the latter conflict had persisted for seven years, resulted in more than 1 million deaths (including over 50,000 Americans), and involved the expenditure of $100 billion. In El Salvador, the court noted, the American military personnel were relatively few in number and had suffered no casualties. Accordingly, the court concluded, the question of whether U.S. forces had been introduced into hostilities in El Salvador was less obvious than Vietnam, and "[t]he subtleties of fact-finding in this situation should be left to the political branches." The court declined to speculate about the kind of congressional actions that might give rise to a judicially manageable issue, noting simply that "Congress has taken absolutely no action that could be interpreted to have that effect." However, it did state that "were Congress to pass a resolution to the effect that a report was required under the WPR, or to the effect that the forces should be withdrawn, and the President disregarded it, a constitutional impasse appropriate for judicial resolution would be presented." On appeal the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed the dismissal in a brief per curiam opinion "for the reasons stated by the District Court." The Supreme Court subsequently denied a petition of certiorari to review the decision. In Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan in 1983, 12 Members of the House of Representatives, 12 Nicaraguan citizens, and 2 United States citizens sued for damages, injunctive relief, and a declaration that President Reagan and other executive officials violated various federal statutes, including the War Powers Resolution, by supporting paramilitary operations designed to overthrow the government of Nicaragua. A federal district court dismissed the litigation as raising nonjusticiable political questions, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia again affirmed. The district court stated as a predicate that the separation of powers doctrine affords the judiciary a very limited role in matters related to foreign policy and national security, stating that such matters are largely, if not exclusively, entrusted to the political branches. The court then examined various benchmarks established by the Supreme Court for application of the political question doctrine, and found three of the criteria established in Baker v. Carr, supra, for determining whether a question falls into that category to be particularly relevant. In accord with the Crockett decision, the district court held that resolution of the issue raised by the congressional plaintiffs called for fact-finding that exceeded the court's competence. In political question terms, the court said that resolution of the issue raised by the lawmakers was difficult if not impossible because of the lack of "judicially discoverable and manageable standards." According to the court, the circumstances before it were even more egregious than those in Crockett since "the covert activities of CIA operatives in Nicaragua and Honduras are perforce even less judicially discoverable than the level of participation by U.S. military personnel in hostilities in El Salvador." In addition, the court stated, in light of the wide differences between the President and Congress concerning Nicaraguan policy, "[a] second reason for finding this matter non-justiciable is the impossibility of our undertaking independent resolution without expressing a lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government."