Lawyers for the rejected plaintiffs in the 1st Circuit case challenging Bush's authority to declare war plan a push to reopen the case.

A significant constitutional issue is involved: "Whether there is a wrongful concentration of power in one person - the president.'' Lawyers for the plaintiffs say that the Appeals Court did not doom the case entirely, but left it subject to reconsideration if new facts were developed. The Court rejected the Government's assertion that there is a "categorical bar" to challenges and on the court's role in such disputes.

The administration had argued that the courts have no role to play in the dispute because the Constitution assigns war-making power solely to Congress and the White House. The Appeals Court said this is a murky area of constitutional law, so it dismissed the case instead on the ground that the legal controversy was not fully developed. Courts could not review the dispute, it said, ''until the available facts make it possible to define the issues with clarity. ... Here, too many crucial facts are missing.''

Seventy-four law professors across the country "urged the appeals court to rule that Bush cannot send the nation to war against Iraq without UN approval or, failing that, without a formal declaration of war by Congress."

We regret we haven't followed this lawsuit more closely since the beginning (our prior coverage is here) and we intend to report on it from this point foward.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs promise they are not going to "wait until bombs fall" to press forward with the case.

If the Appeals Court allows the case to go forward, it could set the stage for a major constitutional conflict between the president and the courts, and it could force the White House to put war plans on hold, awaiting court action.

Additional media coverage of the lawsuit is available here and here and <a href="http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-ilaw.htm and " here. We also encourage you to re-read the text of Senator Robert Byrd's October 3, 2002 floor remarks delivered to the U.S. Senate.

You can read the major pleadings in the lawsuit here. Coverage pertaining the the First Circuit arguments in the case is here.

You can read the First Circuit's opinion in the case, Doe v. Bush, here. The Plaintiffs in the case are active-duty members of the military, parents of military personnel, and members of the U.S. House of Representatives who sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the defendants, President George W. Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, from initiating a war against Iraq based on consitutional grounds.

Special thanks to George Hunnsinger, Professor of Theology at the Princeton Theological Seminary for prodding us to report in greater detail on the lawsuit and the need for greater awareness of it. You can read some of his writings on the topic here and here. We agree with him that issues surrounding the legality of going to war without UN Security Council approval and challenges based upon principles of international and consitutional law must continue to be raised in the Courts.