Which doctrine describes a non-justiciable barrier when a case involves a non-justiciable political question?

Which doctrine describes a non-justiciable barrier when a case involves a non-justiciable political question?

• A. Political Questions
• B. Standing
• C. Ripeness
• D. Mootness

Answer: (A)

The main idea here is the political question doctrine. This doctrine says that some issues are not appropriate for courts to decide because they are inherently political or belong to another branch of government to resolve. When a case presents a political question, the judiciary recognizes it cannot provide a decision without overstepping its constitutional role, so it declines to hear the case as a non-justiciable barrier. That’s why this option fits best: it names the doctrine that governs situations where the court won’t resolve a dispute because the issue is political in nature or constitutionally committed to another branch. By contrast, standing is about whether the plaintiff has a sufficient stake to sue, ripeness is about whether the issue is ready for review, and mootness is about whether there is still a live controversy. These other concepts address different readiness or locus questions, not the non-justiciable nature of political questions themselves.

The main idea here is the political question doctrine. This doctrine says that some issues are not appropriate for courts to decide because they are inherently political or belong to another branch of government to resolve. When a case presents a political question, the judiciary recognizes it cannot provide a decision without overstepping its constitutional role, so it declines to hear the case as a non-justiciable barrier.

That’s why this option fits best: it names the doctrine that governs situations where the court won’t resolve a dispute because the issue is political in nature or constitutionally committed to another branch. By contrast, standing is about whether the plaintiff has a sufficient stake to sue, ripeness is about whether the issue is ready for review, and mootness is about whether there is still a live controversy. These other concepts address different readiness or locus questions, not the non-justiciable nature of political questions themselves.