Sarnoff v. Connally, 71-3049.
| Decision Date | 27 March 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 71-3049.,71-3049. |
| Citation | 457 F.2d 809 |
| Parties | Irving SARNOFF et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. John B. CONNALLY, Secretary of the Treasury, Dorothy A. Elston, Treasurer of the United States, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
George T. Altman, Beverly Hills, Cal., for plaintiffs-appellants.
William D. Keller, U. S. Atty., Frederick M. Brosio, Jr., Carolyn M. Reynolds, Asst. U. S. Attys., Los Angeles, Cal., for defendants-appellees.
Before HAMLEY, BROWNING, and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges.
Appellants seek a judicial determination that the military assistance and foreign aid provisions of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, 22 U.S.C. §§ 2318, 2360, and 2364, are an invalid delegation to the Executive of power to wage war without a congressional declaration of war, because of the disbursement of funds under these sections for military purposes in Southeast Asia.
The conduct of foreign affairs is within the exclusive province of Congress and the Executive. Whether a plaintiff challenges the selective service system or the foreign aid and appropriations aspects of congressional cooperation in the present conflict, he presents a political question which we decline to adjudicate. See DaCosta v. Laird, 448 F.2d 1368 (2d Cir. 1971); Orlando v. Laird, 443 F.2d 1039 (2d Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 869, 92 S.Ct. 94, 30 L.Ed.2d 113 (1971); Simmons v. United States, 406 F.2d 456, 460 (5th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 982, 89 S.Ct. 2144, 23 L.Ed.2d 770 (1969); Luftig v. McNamara, 126 U.S.App.D.C. 4, 373 F.2d 664 (1967), cert. denied, 387 U.S. 945, 87 S.Ct. 2078, 18 L.Ed.2d 1332 (1967).
Dismissal of the complaint is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mottola v. Nixon
...Velvel v. Nixon, 415 F.2d 236 (10th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 1042, 90 S.Ct. 684, 24 L.Ed.2d 686 (1970). Cf. Sarnoff v. Connally, 457 F.2d 809 (9th Cir. 1972). The Massachusetts action in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Laird, supra, was filed in the District Court of Massachusett......
-
Koohi v. U.S.
...when or whether a war has ended, illustrate areas of application of the doctrine. Id. at 211-13, 82 S.Ct. at 706-08; see Sarnoff v. Connally, 457 F.2d 809 (9th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Sarnoff v. Schultz, 409 U.S. 929, 93 S.Ct. 227, 34 L.Ed.2d 186 (1972). The Federalist Papers, explaini......
-
Holtzman v. Schlesinger
...(but cf. Mitchell v. Laird, supra); Davi v. Laird, 318 F.Supp. 478 (W.D.Va.1970). One might also include cases such as Sarnoff v. Connally, 457 F.2d 809 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 929, 93 S.Ct. 227, 34 L.Ed.2d 186 (1972), and Head v. Nixon, 342 F.Supp. 521 (E.D.La.), aff'd, 468 F.2d......
-
Northrop Corp. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.
...93 S.Ct. 2440, 37 L.Ed.2d 407 (1973) (court supervision of National Guard training constituted a political question); Sarnoff v. Connally, 457 F.2d 809, 809-10 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 929, 93 S.Ct. 227, 34 L.Ed.2d 186 (1972) (action challenging war-power provisions of the Foreign......