political question doctrine in Tennessee

2026These doctrines of justiciability include “(1) the prohibition against advisory opinions, (2) standing, (3) ripeness, (4) mootness, (5) the political question doctrine, and (6) exhaustion of administrative remedies.” Norma Faye Pyles Lynch Family Purpose LLC, 301 S.W.3d at 203 (citations and footnotes omitted).

2024Purpose LLC v. Putnam Cnty., 301 S.W.3d 196, 203 (Tenn. 2009) (listing Tennessee’s justiciability doctrines as “(1) the prohibition against advisory opinions, (2) standing, (3) ripeness, (4) mootness, (5) the political question doctrine, and (6) exhaustion of administrative remedies” (footnotes omitted)); see also West v. Schofield, 468 S.W.3d 482, 490 (Tenn. 2015) (setting forth the same list).

2024Purpose LLC v. Putnam Cnty., 301 S.W.3d 196, 203 (Tenn. 2009) (listing Tennessee’s justiciability doctrines as “(1) the prohibition against advisory opinions, (2) standing, (3) ripeness, (4) mootness, (5) the political question doctrine, and (6) exhaustion of administrative remedies” (footnotes omitted)); see also West v. Schofield, 468 S.W.3d 482, 490 (Tenn. 2015) (setting forth the same list).

2017West v. Schofield, 468 S.W.3d 482, 490 (Tenn. 2015) -17- (“To determine whether a particular case involves a legal controversy, Tennessee courts use justiciability doctrines that ‘mirror the justiciability doctrines employed by the United States Supreme Court and the federal courts,’ and these doctrines ‘include: (1) the prohibition against advisory opinions, (2) standing, (3) ripeness, (4) mootness, (5) the political question doctrine, and (6) exhaustion of administrative remedies.’” (citations omitted)); City of Memphis v. Hargett, 414 S.W.3d 88, 96 (Tenn. 2013) (“Justiciability encompasses

2026“Without justiciability doctrines, the courts would be called upon to decide abstract questions of wide public significance even though other governmental institutions may be more competent to address the questions and even though judicial intervention may be - 11 - unnecessary to protect individual rights.” West, 468 S.W.3d at 490 (quoting ACLU of Tenn. v. Darnell, 195 S.W.3d 612, 620 (Tenn. 2006)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2024Election Law Enf't Comm’n v. DiVincenzo, 169 A.3d 1002, 1008 (N.J.

2024Mayhew v. Wilder, 46 S.W.3d 760, 773 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001) (quoting Baker, 369 U.S. at 217).

2024Indeed, statutory interpretation is a question of law that is traditionally within the role of the judiciary to resolve.”); Office of Hawaiian Affairs. v. Kondo, 528 P.3d 243, 251 (Haw. 2023) (rejecting a contention the political question doctrine rendered a matter non-justiciable because “[s]tatutory interpretation is the judiciary’s forte, central to its mission” and a court engaging in statutory interpretation “does not intrude on another governmental branch”); Bedke v. Ellsworth, 480 P.3d 121, 130 (Idaho 2021) (rejecting an argument for application of the political question doctrine, notin

2024Cir. 2010) (characterizing Baker v. Carr as “the seminal case” of the political question doctrine); Greenham Women Against Cruise Missiles v. Reagan, 591 F. Supp. 1332, 1335 (S.D.N.Y. 1984), aff'd, 755 F.2d 34 (2d Cir. 1985) (“The most authoritative and commonly cited formulation of the political question doctrine is that of Justice Brennan in the seminal case of Baker v. Carr.”); Kan.

2024Cir. 2010) (characterizing Baker v. Carr as “the seminal case” of the political question doctrine); Greenham Women Against Cruise Missiles v. Reagan, 591 F. Supp. 1332, 1335 (S.D.N.Y. 1984), aff'd, 755 F.2d 34 (2d Cir. 1985) (“The most authoritative and commonly cited formulation of the political question doctrine is that of Justice Brennan in the seminal case of Baker v. Carr.”); Kan.

2024Adm’rs, Teamsters Loc. 502, 805 A.2d 476, 485 (Pa. 2002) (describing Baker v. Carr as “the seminal case” of the political question doctrine). 15 [f]rom this review of the existing political question jurisprudence”11 ultimately “synthesized the cases” into the six strands of the political question doctrine.12 In addressing the political question doctrine under the Tennessee Constitution in relation to separation of powers principles, this court borrowed the handiwork of the United States Supreme Court in Baker v. Carr, embracing its six strands: Prominent on the surface of any case held to invo

2024Fund v. State, 359 P.3d 33, 42 (Kan. 2015) (“The seminal United States Supreme Court case on the political question doctrine is Baker v. Carr.”); Pa. Sch.

2024Indeed, statutory interpretation is a question of law that is traditionally within the role of the judiciary to resolve.”); Office of Hawaiian Affairs. v. Kondo, 528 P.3d 243, 251 (Haw. 2023) (rejecting a contention the political question doctrine rendered a matter non-justiciable because “[s]tatutory interpretation is the judiciary’s forte, central to its mission” and a court engaging in statutory interpretation “does not intrude on another governmental branch”); Bedke v. Ellsworth, 480 P.3d 121, 130 (Idaho 2021) (rejecting an argument for application of the political question doctrine, notin

2024See Bredesen, 214 S.W.3d at 435 .13 The School Board’s argument in the present case presses upon the second and third strands of the political question doctrine, with its primary focus on the third.

2024See Bredesen, 214 S.W.3d at 434 .

2017West v. Schofield, 468 S.W.3d 482, 490 (Tenn. 2015) -17- (“To determine whether a particular case involves a legal controversy, Tennessee courts use justiciability doctrines that ‘mirror the justiciability doctrines employed by the United States Supreme Court and the federal courts,’ and these doctrines ‘include: (1) the prohibition against advisory opinions, (2) standing, (3) ripeness, (4) mootness, (5) the political question doctrine, and (6) exhaustion of administrative remedies.’” (citations omitted)); City of Memphis v. Hargett, 414 S.W.3d 88, 96 (Tenn. 2013) (“Justiciability encompasses