The dismissal of a significant lawsuit accusing US President Joe Biden of complicity in Gaza genocide recently made headlines. On Wednesday, the US District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed a case filed by various humanitarian groups, spearheaded by Defense for Children International- Palestine. Notably, the court’s dismissal was rooted in jurisdictional reasons rather than an evaluation of the lawsuit’s substantive claims.
The plaintiff’s principal allegations claimed that President Biden’s continued diplomatic and military support for Israel indirectly resulted in genocide in Gaza. The lawsuit furthers its argument by stating that the president has failed in his responsibility to prevent genocide under the Genocide Convention. However, the court bowed out of this highly charged debate, citing its lack of jurisdiction to decide on this matter.
Under the rules of civil procedure, a motion to dismiss owing to the “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,” is appropriate. If the courts lack jurisdiction, then plaintiffs cannot state a valid claim, leading to the dismissal of the case. This passage became the basis of the Biden administration’s successful motion to dismiss.
While Judge Jeffrey White did note the ruling by the International Court of Justice establishing genocide claims in Gaza as “plausible“, his verdict hinged on the enforcement of the political question doctrine. This principle fortifies the separation of powers between different government branches, making courts hesitant to intervene in affairs that are predominantly political in nature and which fall under the purview of executive and legislative branches.
Notably, only one out of six conditions of the political question doctrine need be present to trigger a lack of jurisdiction. As Judge White pointed out, foreign policy, which is at the core of this lawsuit, is “constitutionally committed to the political branches of government,” confirming the nonjusticiable nature of foreign policy disputes.
The plaintiffs, represented by the Center for Constitutional Rights, expressed their criticism over the case’s resolution on jurisdictional grounds. Yet, they recognized it as a “historic rebuke of Israel and the United States.” The Biden administration has not yet commented on the ruling.
Original case details can be found here.