United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp.

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued November 19 – 20, 1936
Decided December 21, 1936


Full case name:	United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation et al.

Citations:	299 U.S. 304; 299 U.S. 304, 57 S.Ct. 216, 81 L.Ed. 255

Prior history:	Judgment sustaining a demurrer to the indictment, 14 F.Supp. 230 (D. D.C. 1952)

Holding

Found in favor of the government, reasoning that while the Constitution may not explicitly say that all ability to conduct foreign policy on behalf of the nation is vested in the President, that it is nonetheless given implicitly and by the fact that the Executive, by its very nature, is empowered to conduct foreign affairs in a way which Congress cannot and should not.

Court membership

Chief Justice: Charles Evans Hughes
Associate Justices: Willis Van Devanter, James Clark McReynolds, Louis Brandeis, George Sutherland, Pierce Butler, Harlan Fiske Stone, Owen Josephus Roberts, Benjamin N. Cardozo

Case opinions

Plurality by: Sutherland
Dissent by: McReynolds
Stone took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304 (1936)^[1], was a United States Supreme Court case involving principles of both governmental regulation of business and the supremacy of the executive branch of the federal government to conduct foreign affairs.

1 Facts
2 Decision of the Court
3 References
4 External links

[edit] Facts

Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. was a subsidiary of the Curtiss-Wright Corporation, which was itself a lineal descendant of the original manufacturing concern set up by the Wright Brothers, developers of the first commercially successful aviation ventures and commonly considered the inventors of the airplane. This corporation desired to be able to sell its products in whatever foreign markets that it desired — for example, selling machine guns to Bolivia.

Bolivia was involved in a war, specifically the Chaco War with Paraguay, from 1932-1935.^[1] It has been noted that during this time Curtiss-Wright, with the export of bombers to Bolivia, was provided with nearly two-thirds of its foreign sales in 1933.^[2]

The President of the United States, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, had issued a Joint Resolution of Congress approved in May 28, 1934, which stated that it was illegal for U.S. manufacturers like Curtiss-Wright to sell products that were primarily of a military nature or had potential military use to countries engaged in armed conflict. This proclamation was premised on the doctrine of "national security".^[3]

In 1936 the Curtiss-Wright Corporation was charged with illegally sending arms of war to Bolivia. ^[4]

[edit] Decision of the Court

Curtiss-Wright challenged the validity of this proclamation, advancing several arguments that the regulations following from it were unconstitutional. It had not specifically been named in any statutory laws passed by United States Congress, which had instead given the President broad discretionary authority. Additionally, the commerce involved was not "interstate commerce" which the United States Constitution specifically gives Congress the right to regulate, but international commerce, and in any event, the regulation was being made not by Congress but by the President, in violation of the non-delegation doctrine.

In an opinion written by Justice Sutherland, the Supreme Court rejected these arguments and found in favor of the government. The Court reasoned that, while the Constitution may not explicitly say that all ability to conduct foreign policy on behalf of the nation is vested in the President, such power is nonetheless granted implicitly. Moreover, said the Court, the Executive, by its very nature, is empowered to conduct foreign affairs in a way which Congress cannot and should not. The Court stated that "there is sufficient warrant for the broad discretion vested in the President to determine whether the enforcement of the statute will have a beneficial effect upon the reestablishment of peace in the affected countries."^[5]

The upshot of this ruling not only upheld export limitations on the grounds of national security (similar ones still exist today) but also established the broader principal of executive supremacy in national security and foreign affairs – one of the reasons advanced in the 1950s in favor of the almost-successful attempt to add the Bricker Amendment to the Constitution.

[edit] References

^ Janis, M & Noyes, J., International Law, Cases and Commentaries, 3rd Ed. P. 213 (2006).
^ Divine, Robert. "The Case of the Smuggled Bombers", Quarrels That Have Shaped the Constitution 210, 213-14 (John A. Garraty ed. 1964)
^ United States v. Curtiss-Wright, 299 U.S. 304 (1936).
^ United States v. Curtiss-Wright, 299 U.S. 304 (1936).
^ United States v. Curtiss-Wright, 299 U.S. 304 (1936).