## Facts

- The United States and the Republic of China (Taiwan) entered the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty in 1954.
- In 1978, President Jimmy Carter announced the United States would recognize the People’s Republic of China and terminate the defense treaty with Taiwan.
- On December 23, 1978, the President gave formal notice of termination under the treaty’s terms, effective January 1, 1980.
- Senator Barry Goldwater and other members of Congress sued, alleging the President’s unilateral termination deprived them of a constitutionally required role because the Senate’s advice and consent is necessary to make treaties.
- The district court entered judgment for the President.
- The D.C. Circuit (en banc) reversed, concluding Senate participation was required for termination.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the D.C. Circuit’s judgment, and remanded with directions to dismiss the complaint.

## Issues

1. Whether a suit by individual members of Congress challenging the President’s unilateral termination of a treaty presents a nonjusticiable political question.
2. Whether the dispute is unripe absent formal, institutional action by Congress as a body opposing the President.
3. (Unreached) Whether the Constitution permits the President to terminate a treaty without Senate or congressional approval.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals’ judgment and directed dismissal of the complaint.
- The Court did not decide the constitutional merits of unilateral presidential treaty termination.
- No single rationale commanded a majority:
  - A plurality concluded the dispute was a political question involving foreign relations and interbranch allocation of authority.
  - A separate concurrence would dismiss as unripe because Congress had not taken final institutional action creating a concrete interbranch confrontation.
  - Dissents would have proceeded to merits consideration (either after full briefing/argument or by resolving the merits).

## Legal Principles

- Federal courts may decline to resolve separation-of-powers disputes in foreign affairs when the controversy is not suitable for judicial resolution.
- The political question doctrine can bar adjudication where the Constitution commits the matter to the political branches and courts lack manageable standards, particularly in sensitive foreign-relations conflicts.
- Interbranch disputes may be unripe for judicial review unless and until both political branches take definitive, institutional steps asserting their constitutional authority, producing a concrete “constitutional impasse.”
- A dismissal on justiciability grounds leaves underlying constitutional questions (here, unilateral treaty termination authority) unsettled.

## Conclusion

The Court required dismissal of legislators’ challenge to the President’s termination of a defense treaty, treating the controversy as not fit for judicial resolution at that time on political question and/or ripeness grounds, and it left open whether the President may terminate treaties without Senate or congressional participation.


Goldwater v. Carter, 444 U.S. 996 (1979)