## Facts

- A closely contested 1984 election for Indiana’s Eighth Congressional District produced shifting vote totals between Democratic candidate Frank McCloskey and Republican candidate Richard McIntyre.
- After corrections, the Indiana Secretary of State certified McIntyre as the winner in December 1984.
- A state-supervised recount completed in January 1985 showed McIntyre ahead by a larger margin.
- When the new House convened on January 3, 1985, the House declined to seat McIntyre and appointed a task force to investigate the election.
- The task force conducted its own recount using procedures not drawn from Indiana election law and reported that McCloskey had won by four votes.
- On May 1, 1985, the House voted to seat McCloskey.
- Republican voters filed suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief (including seating McIntyre retroactively with seniority) and damages, alleging violations of multiple constitutional provisions and the Federal Contested Election Act.

## Issues

1. Whether federal courts have jurisdiction to review the substance or procedures of the House of Representatives’ determination of the winner of a House election and its decision to seat a member under Article I, § 5, cl. 1.
2. Whether statutory claims under the Federal Contested Election Act, or constitutional claims (e.g., First Amendment, due process, Tenth Amendment), make such a dispute justiciable.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit summarily affirmed the district court’s dismissal.
- The court held federal courts lack jurisdiction to review either the procedures or the merits of the House’s decision about who was elected and entitled to be seated.
- The court concluded the controversy presented a non-justiciable political question because the Constitution commits judging House elections and returns to the House itself.
- The court rejected reliance on the Federal Contested Election Act as a basis for judicial review.
- The court held that characterizing the dispute as constitutional-rights violations did not overcome the constitutional commitment of the issue to the House.

## Legal Principles

- Article I, § 5, cl. 1 (“Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members”) commits to each House exclusive authority to decide contested elections and seating of its members.
- Where the Constitution textually commits an issue to a coordinate political branch, federal courts will treat the dispute as non-justiciable under the political question doctrine.
- The Federal Contested Election Act establishes internal House procedures for resolving election contests; it does not confer jurisdiction on federal courts to review House election determinations.
- Constitutional and statutory labels do not create justiciability when the asserted injury depends on judicial second-guessing of whom the House chose to seat pursuant to Article I, § 5.

## Conclusion

The court held that challenges seeking judicial review of the House’s recount procedures and decision to seat one candidate over another in a contested House election are barred because the Constitution assigns that determination exclusively to the House, and neither the Federal Contested Election Act nor asserted constitutional-rights violations supply a basis for judicial intervention.


Morgan v. United States, 801 F.2d 445 (D.C. Cir. 1986)