Foreign Affairs

Case briefs for final

United States v. Curtiss-Wright Corp. (1936) Facts:

• A joint resolution from Congress allowed the President to issue an order prohibiting the sale of weapons to parties engaged in conflict in Chaco

• Resolution gave the President the discretion to issue a prohibition if he finds it would contribute to the reestablishment of peace

United States v. Curtiss-Wright Corp. (1936) Holding:

• The President’s order is constitutional because the federal government has implied powers over foreign affairs and the President has the sole power to act as a representative of the U.S. in foreign affairs

• The President should enjoy freedom from statutory restriction in handling foreign affairs because he alone has a better opportunity to understand “the conditions which prevail in foreign countries”

United States v. Curtiss-Wright Corp. (1936) Rule:

• The President has the sole power to act as a representative of the U.S. in foreign affairs

Dames & Moore v. Regan (1981) Rule:

Executive orders that are a necessary incident to the resolution of a major foreign policy dispute are constitutional in the face of Congress’ silence

Dames & Moore v. Regan (1981) Facts:

• President Carter declared a national emergency and froze all Iranian assets

• Dames & Moore sued Iran’s AEO for failure to pay

• American hostages in Iran were later released pursuant to an agreement stating that the U.S government would seek to end all pending litigation against Iran by referring cases to an Iran-United states claims tribunal

• Dames & Moore sued to stop the order’s enforcement

Dames & Moore v. Regan (1981) Holding:

The President’s order was constitutional because the settlement of claims has been determined to be necessary incident to the resolution of a major foreign policy dispute between the U.S. and another nation; Congress acquiesced in the President’s action

Am. Ins. Ass’n v. Garamendi (2003) Facts:

• A California Act required any insurers doing business in the state to disclose information about all policies sold in Europe during the Holocaust

• the Act conflicted with a federal policy established by an executive agreement

Am. Ins. Ass’n v. Garamendi (2003) Holding:

• California’s act was unconstitutional because the federal government has primary authority in dealing with foreign affairs

• Congress has not spoken on the issue and therefore the court cannot conclude that Congress disapproved of the agreement

Am. Ins. Ass’n v. Garamendi (2003) Rule:

• State law is preempted by federal policies that touch on foreign relations

• Federal authority in foreign policy preempts state policy when there is evidence of a clear conflict between the two