Opinion ID: 204341
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Prudential Considerations

Text: The remaining four Baker factorsthe impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion; the impossibility of a court's undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect owing to the coordinate branches of government; an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; and the potential of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one questionalso weigh against an adjudication of this case on the merits. Deeply rooted constitutional [s]eparation-of-powers principles impel a reluctance in the judiciary to interfere with or embarrass the executive in its constitutional role as the nation's primary organ of international policy. Spacil v. Crowe, 489 F.2d 614, 619 (5th Cir.1974). As we have already outlined and as the government has emphasized to us in its briefing, the United States, for more than the last 35 years and through decisions made at the highest levels of the Executive Branch[,]. . . has charted a consistent course of managing the complex U.S. relationships with foreign oil-producing states upon which this country still depends for its domestic energy needs, rather than resorting to the far blunter instrument of antitrust litigation against them. Any ruling on the merits of the instant case would by its very nature involve a policy determination at odds with this longstanding policy of diplomatic engagement, expressing a lack of the respect owed to the Executive Branch, which is constitutionally responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs. This would inevitably result in embarrassment from the Judicial Branch's conflicting pronouncement about the United States' mode of engagement with foreign nations that control a critical resource on which this country depends. Such profound foreign policy questions uniquely demand a single-voiced statement of the Government's views. Baker, 369 U.S. at 211, 82 S.Ct. 691. We are thus presented with an unusual need for adherence to the political decision already made. [15] As the foregoing discussion makes clear, each one of the Baker factors counsels declining to adjudicate the merits of Appellants' complaints. Under the case and controversy requirement of Article III, we hold that federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over this nonjusticiable political question.