Opinion ID: 77837
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Other Baker factors

Text: Finally, Presidential has not yet demonstrated that the other Baker factors apply to this case, for essentially the same reasons discussed above. [35] As the case appears to be an ordinary tort suit, there is no impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion. Baker, 369 U.S. at 217, 82 S.Ct. at 710. There is also no evident impossibility of a court's undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government, id., because Presidential has not shown that the suit will implicate a decision made by a coordinate branch of government. For the same reason, there is no unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made or the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question. Id. Presidential simply has not shown that the case implicates any political decision or decision made by any other department[ ] of government. Id. Finally, we note that to this point the United States has not intervened in the instant case, despite an invitation to do so. We have previously found the opinion of the United States significant in deciding whether a political question exists. See Occidental, 577 F.2d at 1204 n. 14 (noting that it is . . . clear that whether the state department believes that judicial action would interfere with its foreign relations is germane to whether a court may decide actions involving foreign relations). The apparent lack of interest from the United States to this point fortifies our conclusion that the case does not yet present a political question. We expressly do not (and could not) hold that this litigation will not at some point present a political question. The existence of a political question deprives a court of jurisdiction. See Made in the USA Found., 242 F.3d at 1319. As a result, Presidential remains free to assert the argument at any time, and the district court has an independent obligation to make sure that the disposition of the case will not require it to decide a political question. But at this juncture, when almost no discovery has been completed, we cannot say that resolution of this case will require the court to decide a political question. The evidence before us does not show a conflict between the allegations in the complaint and decisions made by the U.S. military. It would be inappropriate to dismiss the case on the mere chance that a political question may eventually present itself. See Ibrahim, 391 F.Supp.2d at 16 (noting in litigation against Abu Ghraib contractors that [m]anageability problems may well emerge as the litigation in this case proceeds. . . . The government is not a party, however, and I am not prepared to dismiss otherwise valid claims at this early stage in anticipation of obstacles that may or may not arise.). We therefore affirm the district court's refusal to dismiss the case on the basis of the political question doctrine. [36]