Editing Political question (section)

===Foreign policy and war===
A court will not usually decide if a treaty has been terminated because "governmental action [...] must be regarded as of controlling importance."<ref>''Baker v. Carr'', 369 U.S. 186, 212. (1962).</ref> However, courts sometimes do rule on the issue. One example of this is native American tribes who have been officially terminated do not lose their treaty concessions without explicit text from Congress that the treaty is also abrogated.

In the case of ''bin Ali Jaber v. United States'' (2017), the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit under the [[Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991]] after a 2012 US drone strike killed five civilians.<ref name=":7">{{Cite journal|date=2017|title=In Civilians' Claims for Damages after Drone Strike in Yemen, District of Columbia Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Case on Political Question Grounds|journal=International Law Update|volume=23|pages=45–47}}</ref> The [[District of Columbia Court of Appeals]] dismissed the plaintiffs' claims on the basis that the "plaintiffs challenged the type of executive decision found nonjusticiable in ''El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries Co. v. United States'' (2010)." In ''El-Shifa'', the court distinguished "between claims questioning the wisdom of military action, 'a policy choice . . . constitutionally committed' to the political branches, and 'legal issues such as whether the government had legal authority to act.'"<ref name=":8">{{Cite web|date=2018-03-09|title=bin Ali Jaber v. United States|url=https://harvardlawreview.org/2018/03/bin-ali-jaber-v-united-states/|access-date=2021-03-19|website=harvardlawreview.org|publisher=131 Harv. L. Rev. 1473|language=en-US}}</ref> Thus, the court held that the plaintiffs' argument required the court to make a policy decision.<ref name=":8" />