Courts should not adjudicate malapportionment despite admitting its unfairness

Evidence

The one stark fact that emerges from a study of the history of Congressional apportionment is its embroilment in politics … To sustain this action would cut very deep into the very being of Congress. Courts ought not to enter this political thicket. The remedy for unfairness in districting is to secure State legislatures that will apportion properly, or to invoke the ample powers of Congress. The Constitution has many commands that are not enforceable by courts because they clearly fall outside the conditions and purposes the circumscribe judicial action. — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process, 3674

Categorization

• DEFINE: The ‘political thicket’ doctrine stated in its classic form: what makes a question nonjusticiable is not that it is political but that courts lack workable criteria to decide it.
• XREF: connects to: Absence of unfair surprise never justifies overruling precedent alone — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 2563; Courts can act on apportionment only where a prior legal standard supplies criteria — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 3682; Courts may not let moral condemnation override their limited institutional role — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 1774

Broader Connections

• Courts may not let moral condemnation override their limited institutional role #corroborates (0.78) — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process, 1774