United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp
United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. is a landmark Supreme Court case from 1936 that addressed the extent of presidential powers in foreign affairs. The case arose after Congress authorized President Franklin D. Roosevelt to impose an arms embargo against Bolivia and Paraguay during their conflict. When Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation was indicted for violating this embargo, it argued that Congress had unconstitutionally delegated its legislative authority to the president. The Supreme Court, in a 7-1 ruling, upheld the president's actions, asserting that powers in foreign affairs are distinct from those in domestic matters. Justice George Sutherland articulated that the president possesses inherent powers in the international realm, necessitating greater discretion than would be permissible in domestic governance. This decision has sparked ongoing debates about the balance of power between Congress and the president, particularly regarding the War Powers Act and executive actions in foreign policy. Many legal scholars continue to critique the ruling for its implications on the separation of powers outlined in the Constitution. Overall, the case remains a pivotal reference point in discussions about executive authority in the context of U.S. foreign relations.
United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp
Date: December 21, 1936
Citation: 299 U.S. 304
Issues: Presidential powers; foreign affairs
Significance: The Supreme Court declared that the federal government possesses broad and inherent powers to deal with other countries and that the president exercises primacy in formulating and conducting foreign policy.
In 1934 Congress passed a joint resolution authorizing the president to prohibit the sale of arms to the warring nations of Bolivia and Paraguay. Congress also provided criminal penalties for violators. President Franklin D. Roosevelt quickly proclaimed an embargo. After the Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation was indicted for disobeying the embargo, it asserted that the congressional resolution was an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the president.
By a 7-1 margin, the Supreme Court found nothing unconstitutional about the government’s arrangement. Justice George Sutherland distinguished between two kinds of legislation, domestic and foreign, and held that the rule against delegation of duties applied only to the former. He theorized that the powers in foreign affairs derived less from the Constitution than from the inherent attributes of a sovereign country. In the international field, moreover, the president has primacy, and Congress “must often accord to the President a degree of discretion and freedom from statutory restriction which would not be admissible were domestic affairs alone involved.”
There has been much controversy concerning Curtiss-Wright’s expansive views of inherent presidential powers in foreign affairs. The decision was cited by opponents of the War Powers Act of 1973 and by supporters of executive discretion in the Iran-Contra affair. Probably a majority of legal scholars believe that Sutherland’s statements about presidential powers are inconsistent with constitutional principles of separation of powers. In Regan v. Wald (1984), the Court recognized that the conduct of foreign affairs is under the domain of both the legislative and executive branches.