United States v. Export Corporation, CURTISS-WRIGHT

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtSUTHERLAND
Citation299 U.S. 304,57 S.Ct. 216,81 L.Ed. 255
Decision Date21 December 1936
Docket NumberCURTISS-WRIGHT,No. 98
PartiesUNITED STATES v. EXPORT CORPORATION et al

299 U.S. 304
57 S.Ct. 216
81 L.Ed. 255
UNITED STATES

v.

CURTISS-WRIGHT EXPORT CORPORATION et al.

No. 98.
Argued Nov. 19, 20, 1936.
Decided Dec. 21, 1936.

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.

[Syllabus from pages 304-306 intentionally omitted]

Page 306

Messrs. Homer S. Cummings, Atty. Gen., and Martin Conboy, of New York City (Messrs. Stanley F. Reed, Sol. Gen., Brien McMahon, Asst. Atty. Gen., and William W. Barron and Charles A. Horsky, both of Washington, D.C., on the brief), for the United States.

Page 307

Messrs. George Z. Medalie, J. Edward Lumbard, Jr., and Theodore S. Hope, Jr., all of New York City, for appellee Samuel J. Abelow.

[Argument of Counsel from page 307 intentionally omitted]

Page 308

Mr. William Wallace, of New York City (Mr. Robert D. Shea, of New York City, on the brief), for appellees Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. et al.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 308-310 intentionally omitted]

Page 311

Mr. Neil P. Cullom, of New York City, for appellees Barr Shipping c

orp. et al.

Mr. Justice SUTHERLAND delivered the opinion of the Court.

On January 27, 1936, an indictment was returned in the court below, the first count of which charges that appellees, beginning with the 29th day of May, 1934, conspired to sell in the United States certain arms of war, namely, fifteen machine guns, to Bolivia, a country then engaged in armed conflict in the Chaco, in violation of the Joint Resolution of Congress approved May 28, 1934, and the provisions of a proclamation issued on the same day by the President of the United States pursuant to authority conferred by section 1 of the resolution. In pursuance of the conspiracy, the commission of certain overt acts was alleged, details of which need not be stated. The Joint Resolution (chapter 365, 48 Stat. 811) follows:

Page 312

'Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That if the President finds that the prohibition of the sale of arms and munitions of war in the United States to those countries now engaged in armed conflict in the Chaco may contribute to the reestablishment of peace between those countries, and if after consultation with the governments of other American Republics and with their cooperation, as well as that of such other governments as he may deem necessary, he makes proclamation to that effect, it shall be unlawful to sell, except under such limitations and exceptions as the President prescribes, any arms or munitions of war in any place in the United States to the countries now engaged in that armed conflict, or to any person, company, or association acting in the interest of either country, until otherwise ordered by the President or by Congress.

'Sec. 2. Whoever sells any arms or munitions of war in violation of section 1 shall, on conviction, be punished by a fine not exceeding $10,000 or by imprisonment not exceeding two years, or both.'

The President's proclamation (48 Stat. 1744, No. 2087), after reciting the terms of the Joint Resolution, declares:

'Now, Therefore, I, Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States of America, acting under and by virtue of the authority conferred in me by the said joint resolution of Congress, do hereby declare and proclaim that I have found that the prohibition of the sale of arms and munitions of war in the United States to those countries now engaged in armed conflict in the Chaco may contribute to the reestablishment of peace between those countries, and that I have consulted with the governments of other American Republics and have been assured of the cooperation of such governments as I have deemed necessary as contemplated by the said joint resolution; and I do hereby admonish all citizens of the

Page 313

United States and every person to abstain from every violation of the provisions of the joint resolution above set forth, hereby made applicable to Bolivia and Paraguay, and I do hereby warn them that all violations of such provisions will be rigorously prosecuted.

'And I do hereby enjoin upon all officers of the United States charged with the execution of the laws thereof, the utmost diligence in preventing violations of the said joint resolution and this my proclamation issued thereunder, and in bringing to trial and punishment any offenders against the same.

'And I do hereby delegate to the Secretary of State the power of prescribing exceptions and limitations to the application of the said joint resolution of May 28, 1934, as made effective by this my proclamation issued thereunder.'

On November 14, 1935, this proclamation was revoked (49 Stat. 3480), in the following terms:

'Now, therefore, I, Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States of America, do hereby declare and proclaim that I have found that the prohibition of the sale of arms and munitions of war in the United States to Bolivia or Paraguay will no longer be necessary as a contribution to the reestablishment of peace between those countries, and the above-mentioned Proclamation of May 28, 1934, is hereby revoked as to the sale of arms and munitions of war to Bolivia or Paraguay from and after November 29, 1935, provided, however, that this action shall not have the effect of releasing or extinguishing any penalty, forfeiture or liability incurred under the aforesaid Proclamation of May 28, 1934, or the Joint Resolution of Congress approved by the President on the same date; and that the said Proclamation and Joint Resolution shall be treated as remaining in force for the purpose of sustaining any proper action or prosecution for the enforcement of such penalty, forfeiture or liability.'

Page 314

Appellees severally demurred to the first count of the indictment on the grounds (1) that it did not charge facts sufficient to show the commission by appellees of any offense against any law of the United States; (2) that this court of the indictment charges a conspiracy to violate the Joint Resolution and the Presidential proclamation, both of which had expired according to the terms of the Joint Resolution by reason of the revocation contained in the Presidential proclamation of November 14, 1935, and were not in force at the time when the indictment was found. The points urged in support of the demurrers were, first, that the Joint Resolution effects an invalid delegation of legislative power to the executive; second, that the Joint Resolution never became effective because of the failure of the President to find essential jurisdictional facts; and, third, that the second proclamation operated to put an end to the alleged liability under the Joint Resolution.

The court below sustained the demurrers upon the first point, but overruled them on the second and third points. (D.C.) 14 F.Supp. 230. The government appealed to this court under the provisions of the Criminal Appeals Act of March 2, 1907, 34 Stat. 1246, as amended, U.S.C., title 18, § 682 (18 U.S.C.A. § 682). That act authorizes the United States to appeal from a district court direct to this court in criminal cases where, among other things, the decision sustaining a demurrer to the indictment or any count thereof is based upon the invalidity or construction of the statute upon which the indictment is founded.

First. It is contended that by the Joint Resolution the going into effect and continued operation of the resolution was conditioned (a) upon the President's judgment as to its beneficial effect upon the re-establishment of peace between the countries engaged in armed conflict in the Chaco; (b) upon the making of a proclama-

Page 315

tion, which was left to his unfettered discretion, thus constituting an attempted substitution of the President's will for that of Congress; (c) upon the making of a proclamation putting an end to the operation of the resolution, which again was left to the President's unfettered discretion; and (d) further, that the extent of its operation in particular cases was subject to limitation and exception by the President, controlled by no standard. In each of these particulars, appellees urge that Congress abdicated its essential functions and delegated them to the Executive.

Whether, if the Joint Resolution had related solely to internal affairs, it would be open to the challenge that it constituted an unlawful delegation of legislative power to the Executive, we find it unnecessary to determine. The whole aim of the resolution is to affect a situation entirely external to the United States, and falling within the category of foreign affairs. The determination which we are called to make, therefore, is whether the Joint Resolution, as applied to that situation, is vulnerable to attack under the rule that forbids a delegation of the lawmaking power. In other words, assuming (but not deciding) that the challenged delegation, if it were confined to internal affairs, would be invalid, may it nevertheless be sustained on the ground that its exclusive aim is to afford a remedy for a hurtful condition within foreign territory?

It will contribute to the elucidation of the question if we first consider the differences between the powers of the federal government in respect of foreign or external affairs and those in respect of domestic or internal affairs. That there are differences between them, and that these differences are fundamental, may not be doubted.

The two classes of powers are different, both in respect of their origin and their nature. The broad statement that the federal government can exercise no powers except

Page 316

those specifically enumerated in the Constitution, and such implied powers as are necessary and proper to carry into effect the enumerated powers, is categorically true only in respect of our internal affairs. In that field, the primary purpose of the Constitution was to carve from the general mass of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
620 practice notes
  • Nonimmigrants; removal orders, countries to which aliens may be removed,
    • United States
    • Federal Register July 19, 2004
    • July 19, 2004
    ...the President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation.'' United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 319 (1936). Accordingly, the Department of Homeland Security proposes to amend its regulations by recognizing that the terms ``acceptance'' a......
  • Al Bahlul v. United States, No. 11–1324
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • October 20, 2016
    ...than we think it does, we should not feel at liberty at this late day to disturb.” United States v. Curtiss–Wright Export Corp ., 299 U.S. 304, 329, 57 S.Ct. 216, 81 L.Ed. 255 (1936).The joint dissent responds that Congress, over the course of more than two centuries, actually thought itsel......
  • Al Bahlul v. United States, No. 11–1324.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • July 14, 2014
    ...(1953) ; United States v. Belmont, 301 U.S. 324, 332, 57 S.Ct. 758, 81 L.Ed. 1134 (1937) ; United States v. Curtiss–Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 318, 57 S.Ct. 216, 81 L.Ed. 255 (1936). We have followed those precedents consistently, recognizing that the Fifth Amendment did not extend ......
  • U.S. v. Bin Laden, No. S(7) 98 CR.1023(LBS).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • December 5, 2000
    ...by our Constitution to the political departments of the government, Executive and Legislative"); United States v. Curtiss-Wright, 299 U.S. 304, 320, 57 S.Ct. 216, 81 L.Ed. 255 (1936) (discussing the "very delicate, plenary and exclusive power of the President as the sole organ of ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
593 cases
  • Al Bahlul v. United States, No. 11–1324
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • October 20, 2016
    ...than we think it does, we should not feel at liberty at this late day to disturb.” United States v. Curtiss–Wright Export Corp ., 299 U.S. 304, 329, 57 S.Ct. 216, 81 L.Ed. 255 (1936).The joint dissent responds that Congress, over the course of more than two centuries, actually thought itsel......
  • Al Bahlul v. United States, No. 11–1324.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • July 14, 2014
    ...(1953) ; United States v. Belmont, 301 U.S. 324, 332, 57 S.Ct. 758, 81 L.Ed. 1134 (1937) ; United States v. Curtiss–Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 318, 57 S.Ct. 216, 81 L.Ed. 255 (1936). We have followed those precedents consistently, recognizing that the Fifth Amendment did not extend ......
  • U.S. v. Bin Laden, No. S(7) 98 CR.1023(LBS).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • December 5, 2000
    ...by our Constitution to the political departments of the government, Executive and Legislative"); United States v. Curtiss-Wright, 299 U.S. 304, 320, 57 S.Ct. 216, 81 L.Ed. 255 (1936) (discussing the "very delicate, plenary and exclusive power of the President as the sole organ of ......
  • U.S. v. Delgado-Garcia, No. 03-3060.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • July 23, 2004
    ...the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations." United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 320, 57 S.Ct. 216, 220, 81 L.Ed. 255 (1936). The executive's expert exercise of prosecutorial discretion and foreign diplomacy should be more t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
21 books & journal articles
  • International Climate Action Without Congress: Does §115 of the Clean Air Act Provide Sufficient Authority?
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter Nbr. 44-7, July 2014
    • July 1, 2014
    ...agreement). 9. See Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law §303 (1987). 10. See United States v. Curtiss-Wright Exp. Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 319 (1936) (“he President is the sole organ of the nation in its external relations, and its sole representative with foreign nations.”) (quoting 10......
  • Nuclear Command and Statutory Control
    • United States
    • Journal of National Security Law & Policy Nbr. 11-2, July 2020
    • July 1, 2020
    ...Court also dealt a devastating blow to the gloss on presidential power generally provided by United States v. Curtiss-Wright Exp. Corp. 299 U.S. 304 (1936). For nearly eight decades this simple legislative delegation case’s unnecessary and over-read dicta provided Executive lawyers with a t......
  • Emergency Powers, Real and Imagined: How President Trump Used and Failed to Use Presidential Authority in the Covid-19 Crisis
    • United States
    • Journal of National Security Law & Policy Nbr. 11-1, January 2020
    • January 1, 2020
    ...art. I, § 8, cl. 15. 6. See LOUIS FISHER, PRESIDENTIAL WAR POWER 8-10 (2d rev. ed. 2004). 7. United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 319 (1936). 8. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 643-44 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring) (emphasis added). 2020] EMERGE......
  • THE IMAGINARY IMMIGRATION CLAUSE.
    • United States
    • Michigan Law Review Vol. 120 Nbr. 7, May 2022
    • May 1, 2022
    ...Toll, 458 U.S. at 10. (543.) Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 387, 395 (2012)(citing United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 318 (544.) Fields, supra note 539, at 757 (emphasis added); Kevin R. Johnson, Immigration in the Supreme Court, 2009-13: A New Era of Immig......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT