## Facts

- Iraq invaded Kuwait on August 2, 1990.
- The President deployed U.S. forces to the Persian Gulf and later increased troop levels to support an “offensive military option” if needed to secure Iraq’s withdrawal.
- Congress enacted measures supporting sanctions and U.N.-related actions but did not declare war or expressly authorize offensive hostilities against Iraq.
- Fifty-four Members of Congress sued the President in their official capacities, seeking to prevent initiation of an offensive attack without a declaration of war or other explicit congressional authorization under Article I, § 8, cl. 11.
- Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction; the government opposed and moved to dismiss on political question, standing, and ripeness grounds.

## Issues

1. Whether a separation-of-powers dispute over initiating war without congressional authorization is nonjusticiable under the political question doctrine.
2. Whether individual Members of Congress have standing to challenge alleged executive usurpation of Congress’s constitutional war-declaring role.
3. Whether the dispute was ripe for adjudication before offensive combat began and without a clear institutional position by Congress opposing the President.

## Decision

- The court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction and dismissed the complaint.
- The court held the claims were not ripe because there was not yet a concrete constitutional impasse between Congress and the President.
- The court indicated the dispute was justiciable in principle and that plaintiffs plausibly alleged a legislative injury, but those conclusions did not overcome the ripeness defect.

## Legal Principles

- War-powers disputes are not categorically barred by the political question doctrine; courts may apply legal standards derived from the Constitution’s allocation of war-making authority.
- Legislator standing may be plausibly alleged where executive action is claimed to nullify legislators’ opportunity to exercise a constitutionally assigned vote.
- Federal courts generally should not adjudicate interbranch war-powers conflicts absent a concrete, developed confrontation demonstrating a constitutional impasse.
- Lack of a clear, institutional congressional position—especially where only a minority of legislators sue—can render the controversy unripe.
- Preliminary injunctive relief requires imminent, non-speculative harm; contingent future hostilities and ongoing diplomatic developments weigh against such relief.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed the legislators’ challenge to anticipated offensive operations against Iraq because, before hostilities began and without a clear majority-backed congressional opposition, the dispute had not matured into a ripe constitutional impasse warranting judicial intervention.


Dellums v. Bush, 752 F. Supp. 1141 (D.D.C. 1990)