United States v. Curtiss-Wright
United States v. Curtiss Wright Export Corp, 299 U.S. 304 (1936), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court concerning the foreign affairs powers of the President. The case arose from a joint resolution passed by Congress on May 28, 1934, authorizing President Franklin D. Roosevelt to prohibit the sale of arms and munitions to countries engaged in the Chaco War between Paraguay and Bolivia if he found such a prohibition might contribute to peace.
The President issued a proclamation implementing the embargo on the same day, which was later revoked on November 14, 1935.
Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., a weapons manufacturer, was indicted for conspiring to sell aircraft machine guns to Bolivia in violation of the embargo.
The company challenged the indictment, arguing that the joint resolution constituted an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the executive branch, violating the non-delegation doctrine.
The trial court agreed and dismissed the indictment. The United States appealed directly to the Supreme Court.
In a 7-1 decision authored by Justice George Sutherland, the Court upheld the constitutionality of the joint resolution and the President's authority to enforce the embargo.
The Court held that the powers of the federal government in foreign or external affairs are fundamentally different from those in domestic or internal affairs.
==It reasoned that the Constitution, while not explicitly stating that all foreign policy power is vested in the President, implicitly grants such authority because the executive is the "sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations".
This power is described as "plenary and exclusive," meaning it does not require an act of Congress to be exercised, although it must still be exercised within the bounds of the Constitution.==
The Court emphasized that the United States, as a sovereign nation, possesses complete external sovereignty,and the President, as the nation's representative in foreign affairs, has broad discretion to determine actions and policies that serve national interests abroad.
The decision established that the President's foreign affairs powers are inherent in the executive's role and are not dependent on congressional delegation, a principle that has significantly influenced the expansion of executive power in foreign policy.
While the Court has later tempered the absolute nature of this power—most notably in the 2015 Zivotofsky v. Kerry decision, which rejected the idea of "plenary and exclusive" presidential power over foreign relations—the Curtiss-Wright ruling remains a foundational precedent for presidential authority in international affairs.