## Facts

- A Member of the U.S. House of Representatives and several U.S. Air Force officers, among others, sued senior Defense Department officials challenging the legality of U.S. bombing operations in or over Cambodia in 1973.
- Plaintiffs alleged the bombing lacked congressional authorization and violated constitutional war-powers allocations between Congress and the President.
- Congress and the Executive had engaged in a series of funding measures and limitations addressing combat activities in Indochina, culminating in a political compromise contemplating cessation of Cambodian bombing on August 15, 1973.
- The district court granted summary judgment for plaintiffs, declared the Cambodian military activities unauthorized and unlawful, and permanently enjoined defendants from participating in military activities in or over Cambodia; the injunction’s effective date was briefly delayed to allow appellate review.
- A court of appeals panel stayed the injunction pending appeal; after conflicting in-chambers actions, the stay was reinstated, and the court of appeals expedited briefing and argument.

## Issues

1. Whether a federal court may adjudicate the legality of ongoing U.S. bombing in Cambodia alleged to be unauthorized by Congress, or whether the dispute presents a nonjusticiable political question.
2. Whether plaintiffs, including a Member of Congress and military officers, had Article III standing and presented a justiciable controversy.
3. Whether Congress had clearly withdrawn or terminated any authorization such that continued bombing was unlawful.

## Decision

- The court of appeals reversed the district court’s declaratory and injunctive relief and dismissed the complaint.
- The court held the challenge to the Cambodia bombing presented a nonjusticiable political question beyond judicial competence because it implicated military and diplomatic judgments committed to the political branches and lacked judicially manageable standards.
- The court further concluded plaintiffs failed to show the kind of direct, personal injury required for standing, and the record did not demonstrate a clear congressional withdrawal of authority sufficient to support judicial intervention.

## Legal Principles

- Disputes over the conduct, scope, and timing of foreign military operations may be nonjusticiable when they require complex military and diplomatic judgments and are constitutionally committed to the political branches.
- Courts will dismiss war-powers suits where plaintiffs assert generalized or institutional grievances rather than a concrete, individualized injury sufficient for Article III standing.
- Absent clear legislative termination of authority, courts are reluctant to treat appropriations measures and political compromises about military funding and cessation dates as judicially enforceable commands directing specific battlefield decisions.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit set aside the district court’s injunction against U.S. bombing in Cambodia and dismissed the suit, reasoning that the dispute was committed to the political branches and not suitable for judicial resolution, and that plaintiffs had not established a justiciable, personal injury or a clear congressional cutoff enforceable by the courts.


Holtzman v. Schlesinger, 484 F.2d 1307 (2d Cir. 1973)