United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp.: Difference between revisions

From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
(Created page with "{{Infobox Case Brief |court=U.S. Supreme Court |citation=299 U.S. 304 (1936) |date=December 21, 1936 |subject=Constitutional Law |appealed_from= |case_treatment=No |overturned...")
 
m (Text replacement - "|case_treatment=No " to "")
 
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)
Line 4: Line 4:
|date=December 21, 1936
|date=December 21, 1936
|subject=Constitutional Law
|subject=Constitutional Law
|appealed_from=
|facts=President Roosevelt issued an [[Constitution_of_the_United_States#Section_3:_Duties|executive order]] prohibiting munitions sales to the warring nations in the Chaco border dispute.  
|case_treatment=No
 
|overturned=
Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. was indicted for conspiring to sell fifteen machine guns to Bolivia, and then appealed the fact that the President issued this law-making authority, which should be reserved for Congress.
|partially_overturned=
|reaffirmed=
|questioned=
|criticized=
|distinguished=
|cited=
|followed=
|related=
|facts=President Roosevelt issued an order prohibiting munitions sales to the warring nations in the Chaco border dispute. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. was indicted for conspiring to sell fifteen machine guns to Bolivia, and then appealed the fact that the President issued this law-making authority, which should be reserved for Congress.
|procedural_history=
|issues=Whether the Joint Resolution is vulnerable to attack under the rule that forbids a delegation of the lawmaking power to the Executive Branch of government.
|issues=Whether the Joint Resolution is vulnerable to attack under the rule that forbids a delegation of the lawmaking power to the Executive Branch of government.
|arguments=
|holding=Judgment against Curtiss-Wright Export Corp.
|holding=Judgment against Curtiss-Wright Export Corp.
|judgment=
|reasons=The President had the discretion to determine what impact a certain policy might have on foreign affairs and make decisions accordingly, even had Congress not authorized him.
|reasons=The President had the discretion to determine what impact a certain policy might have on foreign affairs and make decisions accordingly, even had Congress not authorized him.
|rule=
|rule=POTUS has plenary powers exceeding that of the [[Congress]] in the area of foreign affairs.
|comments=
|case_text_links=
|Court_opinion_parts={{Court opinion part
|Court_opinion_parts={{Court opinion part
|opinion_type=majority
|opinion_type=majority
|written_by=George Sutherland
|written_by=George Sutherland
|joined_by=
}}{{Court opinion part
}}{{Court opinion part
|opinion_type=dissent
|opinion_type=dissent
|written_by=McReynolds
|written_by=McReynolds
|joined_by=
}}
}}
}}
}}

Latest revision as of 03:44, July 14, 2023

United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp.
Court U.S. Supreme Court
Citation 299 U.S. 304 (1936)
Date decided December 21, 1936
Case Opinions
majority written by George Sutherland
dissent written by McReynolds

Facts

President Roosevelt issued an executive order prohibiting munitions sales to the warring nations in the Chaco border dispute.

Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. was indicted for conspiring to sell fifteen machine guns to Bolivia, and then appealed the fact that the President issued this law-making authority, which should be reserved for Congress.

Issues

Whether the Joint Resolution is vulnerable to attack under the rule that forbids a delegation of the lawmaking power to the Executive Branch of government.

Holding

Judgment against Curtiss-Wright Export Corp.

Reasons

The President had the discretion to determine what impact a certain policy might have on foreign affairs and make decisions accordingly, even had Congress not authorized him.

Rule

POTUS has plenary powers exceeding that of the Congress in the area of foreign affairs.

Retrieved from "https://www.wikilawschool.net/w/index.php?title=United_States_v._Curtiss-Wright_Export_Corp.&oldid=46270"