Sunday, March 25, 2012

Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council case brief

Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council (S Ct 2000)
  • Holding: Burma Law of Massachusetts, restricting the authority of its agencies to purchase goods or services from companies doing business w/ Burma, is invalid under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution b/c of its threat of frustrating federal statutory objectives.
  • Can states pass statutes that affect intl law? What about “buy America” statutes? Reality today, however, come cities have foreign affairs—not clear. Commerce Clause says Congress has the pwr.
  • Reasons here: ct thinks fed statute was more reasonable approach, EU upset and WTO—state interference; division of power here; foreign policy issues (state making it very difficult for foreign policy).
  • Ct cld have back pedaled a little—must defer to fed govt w/ foreign affairs.
  • N. 2, p. 232—cf. Crosby w/ Alvarez. Why follow traditional law here? If occupied by fed govt, states can’t act on foreign affairs. Muth: Doesn’t know how far to carry this deference to the federal govt.
  • N. 3, p. 232—What if fed govt hasn’t enacted fed legislation? Probably, Muth Says, dormant commerce clause wld still pre-empt state law.
  • Problem now: hard to distinguish foreign affairs from domestic affairs.
  • Recent developments: Peru—US gave no warning to embassy to try for murder-DOJ says no stay—went ahead w/ execution). Germ got a temporary injunction from the ICJ, but the US wldn’t listen.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Exploring Career Paths: What Can You Do with a Juris Doctor Degree?

Earning a Juris Doctor (JD) degree is a significant accomplishment, opening a wide array of career paths beyond the traditional legal practi...