Last year the Supreme Court held that some issues, like partisan gerrymandering, are beyond the reach of federal courts because they are “entrusted to one of the political branches or involve no judicially enforceable rights.” The political question doctrine raises important questions about the role of courts in our modern polarized political environment. This fall marks the 20th anniversary of Bush v. Gore in which the Court declined to sidestep a politically charged case and effectively determined the outcome of a presidential election. On the other hand, courts have recently signaled their hesitation about wading into the presidential impeachment process despite pressure by interest groups, members of Congress, and the general public. Please join the Connecticut Law Review for a symposium that aims to situate the jurisprudence of highly politicized issues in broader theories of judicial review and democratic accountability, looking back to the justifications and rationale that gave birth to the political question doctrine, while also looking forward to the important role that courts play in everyday American life. Our day will include a keynote address from Jamal Greene, Dwight Professor of Law at Columbia Law School.