Presidential Power in Foreign Affairs

Curtiss Wright v. US ; Dames & Moore v. US ; Missouri v. Holland ; US v. Pink ; Trump v. Hawaii

Curtiss-Wright v. United States

they sold fighter planes and bombers to Bolivar during the Chaco War which violated a Joint Resolution of Congress and a proclamation issued by President Roosevelt.

Proclamation by President Roosevelt

banned US weapons manufacturers from aiding either side of the war

Joint Resolution

a legislative measure that both the Senate and the House of Representatives pass

• has the force of law when signed by the president or passed over a veto

what did Curtiss-Wright argue?

congress violated the non-delegation doctrine by allowing the executive branch to make decisions that were properly left to the legislature

Issue: Curtiss

In the Joint Resolution, did Congress unconstitutionally delegate legislative power to the President?

reasoning: Curtiss

• the president is the sole organ in foreign affairs

• the president has broad power in foreign affairs and possess plenary powers beyond those listed in Article II

• because the president alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation, Congress may provide the President with a special degree of discretion in external matter which would be afforded domestically.

• limits apply to domestic NOT foreign affairs, thus Roosevelt had discretion to determine what impact a certain policy might have on foreign affairs and make decisions accordingly

justification for domestic versus foreign powers

• foreign policy powers do not come from the constitution alone but from the US as a sovereign nation

• sole organ in foreign affairs — president is the primary authority in foreign relations

• congress can delegate broad authority in foreign affairs — congress can give the president wide authority to act in foreign affairs

Dames & Moore v. Reagan

President Carter invoked the International Emergency Economic Act (IEEPA) and ordered a freeze on Iranian assets within the U.S.

issue: Dames

Did the president have authority to transfer Iranian funds and to nullify legal claims against Iran?

executive agreement of Iranian Hostages

1. terminate all legal proceedings in US courts involving claims against Iran

2. nullify all attachments et judgements

3. prohibit all future litigation

reasoning: Dames

• The IEEPA constituted a specific congressional authorization for the President to order the transfer of Iranian assets.

• Although the IEEPA didn’t explicitly authorize it, previous acts of Congress had “implicitly approved” of executive control of claim settlement.

• Jackson’s concurrence in Youngstown

Jackson’s Concurrence in relation to Dames and Moore

• The court found that Congress had not explicitly authorized the exact actions Reagan took, but there was a long history of Congress allowing the President to settle international claims

• This placed Reagan’s actions in Jackson’s "Zone of Twilight.” where the Court ruled that the president had implied authority based on historical precedent and congressional acquiescence

domestic affairs presidential power

higher burden; rely on congressional approval (must state or explicitly state)

foreign affairs presidential power

sole organ theory — Curtiss-Wright v. US ; nation needs to speak with one voice

State of Missouri v. Holland

The 1918 Migratory Bird Treaty Act between the US and GB for protection of birds migration between Canada and the US. When Holland, the US Game Warden, threatened to arrest citizens of Missouri for violating the Act, the state of Missouri challenged the treaty.

issue: MZ

Did the treaty infringe upon rights reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment?

reasoning: MZ

• No, the Court upheld the Supremacy Clause which renders treaties the “supreme law of the land,” a finding that trumps any state level concerns.

• the treaty clause and necessary and proper clause

treaty clause

gives the president and the senate the power to make treaties

necessary and proper clause

allows congress to pass laws needed to carry out treaties

applying clauses to MZ v. Holland

the US signed a treaty with Britain, Congress passed a law enforcing the treaty, the Supreme court ruled the treaty is valid, the law enforcing it was also valid, even if Congress normally couldn’t regulate birds on its own

why does MZ v. Holland matter?

expanded federal power by confirming that treaties can give Congress authority to pass laws beyond its usual constitutional limits, as long as the treaty itself is constitutional

United States v. Pink

Similar to US v. Belemont, the US attempted to assist the Soviet Union in recovering assets of the First Russian Insurance Company which the NY superintendent of Insurance refused to release

issues: Pink

• Is the power of international affairs shaved between state and federal?

• Did U.S. agreements with the U.S.S.R. compel NY to release the assets?

reasonings: Pink

• reaffirmed Sutherland’s ruling in Belemont and argued NY couldn’t rewrite our foreign policy to conform to its own domestic policies

• power over external affairs is vested in the national government exclusively and state laws and policies don’t apply

• Russian nationalization includes overseas assets

• treaties supreme to state law

• sole organ theory

Trump v. Hawaii

Trump campaigned with a promise to make “our borders safe again.” He signed a serious of three executive orders initiating travel bans of foreign nationals. The third ban which imposed entry restricts of immigration of Muslims from 8 different countries.

why where the Muslims from 8 different countries denied entry into the US?

based on their inability to meet informed entry and national security criteria.

issue: Hawaii

• Did the president have the authority under the INA to issue the third ban (the Proclamation) restricting entry from certain countries?

• Did the Proclamation violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by discriminating based on religion?

reasoning: Hawaii

• the INA allows the President to suspend the entry of any aliens into the United States whenever he finds that their entry would be important to the interest of the United States, he may proclamation…

• The Court applied a rational basis review due to the context involving national security and immigration, areas where the Executive has broad discretion.

• He was targeting based on security and information-sharing criteria rather than religious identity. The majority concluded that Trump’s ban was justified by legitimate security concerns, thus warranting judicial deference

• The Proclamation only effected a small portion of the world’s Muslim population and that other predominantly Muslim countries were not included, which undermined that the Proclamation was a Muslim ban