Smith v. Obama
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
217 F. Supp. 3d 283 (2016)
In response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Congress passed two laws authorizing the use of military force (AUMFs) against those responsible. The first authorized the president to use all necessary force against the terrorists or anyone who harbored them in order to prevent future attacks. The second authorized the president to use the military as necessary and appropriate to defend national security against the threat posed by Iraq. Congress expressly intended both to supply specific statutory authority for the president to act under the War Powers Act. The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) allied itself with al Qaeda, the group responsible for 9/11, under Osama bin Laden’s leadership. When al Qaeda’s leaderships changed and the groups split, ISIL nonetheless continued to denounce and target the U.S. as its enemy. In 2014, President Obama (defendant) announced plans to destroy the terrorist threat posed by ISIL, citing both AUMFs as authorizing military action. Known as Operation Inherent Resolve, the campaign included airstrikes, ground support, and counterterrorism strategies intended to eliminate ISIL in Iraq and Syria. Congress repeatedly provided funding for the operation without additional AUMFs. As part of the campaign, Army Captain Nathan Smith (plaintiff) was deployed to Kuwait on an intelligence mission. Smith sued, asking the court to declare the campaign unlawful because Congress had not authorized it. President Obama (defendant) moved to dismiss on two grounds: (1) that Smith lacked standing and (2) that his claims raised nonjusticiable political questions.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Kollar-Kotelly, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 724,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 724,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,500 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.