Opinion ID: 186705
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Order of Decision

Text: 6 At the outset, the plaintiffs question whether [the United States is] procedurally barred from raising th[e] issue of justiciability because it did not cross-appeal the district court's refusal to apply the political question doctrine. Because Rule 12(b)(6) is a threshold procedural requirement that cannot include a determination of the merits of a claim, the plaintiffs maintain the Government has improperly asked this court to consider justiciability prior to analyzing the District Court's dismissal. 7 The plaintiffs mistake the nature of our inquiry. A dismissal based upon the political question doctrine is not an adjudication on the merits. Hwang Geum Joo v. Japan, 413 F.3d 45, 47 (D.C.Cir. 2005). Rather, the doctrine is a jurisdictional limitation[] imposed upon federal courts by the `case or controversy' requirement of Art[icle] III; hence the presence of a political question ... prevent[s] the power of the federal judiciary from being invoked by the complaining party. Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208, 215, 94 S.Ct. 2925, 41 L.Ed.2d 706 (1974); accord Bancoult v. McNamara, 445 F.3d 427, 432 (D.C.Cir. 2006). It follows that regardless whether the Government has raised the issue — in a timely or an untimely manner or not at all — we must consider whether the plaintiffs' claims present a political question lest the court invade the province of the political branches. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 101-02, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998). 8