McCall v. Pelosi

In McCall v. Pelosi, a federal district court judge in San Antonio rejected a demand for judicial intervention to order Congress to call a disastrous Constitutional Convention, also known as a "Con Con."

“

"The dominant consideration in any political question inquiry is whether there is a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department." Saldano v. O'Connell, 322 F.3d 365, 369 (5th Cir. 2003). Defendants contend that the text of Article V "makes clear that it is Congress and Congress alone to which the Constitution commits the power of calling a convention." ECF No. 31 at 13. Plaintiffs argue "that the question before the Court is not one of political choices, but one of Constitutional mandate" because Article V uses mandatory language (Congress "shall" call a Convention as opposed to Congress "may" call a Convention). ECF No. 38 at 3. The Court agrees with Defendants and finds that ratification of proposed constitutional amendments is a nonjusticiable political question. Cf. Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 453-54, 59 S. Ct. 972, 83 L. Ed. 1385 (1939) (concluding that political and non-justiciable questions related to power under Article V can be decided by Congress "with the full knowledge and appreciation ascribed to the national legislature of the political, social and economic conditions which have prevailed during the period since the submission of the amendment."). The mandatory language of the constitution does not change the Court's finding that the requested action—calling a constitutional convention—is within the province of Congress and not the courts and is, accordingly, nonjusticiable. Because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claims, it need not reach the merits of Defendants' arguments under Rule 12(b)(6).

”

McCall v. Pelosi, Civil Action No. SA-22-CV-00093-XR, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207669, at *14-15 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 16, 2022)