United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp.

Background

An indictment charged several defendants with conspiring, beginning May 29, 1934, to sell fifteen machine guns to Bolivia while that country was at war in the Chaco. The sales were alleged to violate a Joint Resolution of Congress (May 28, 1934) and a Presidential proclamation implementing that resolution. The President later revoked the proclamation in November 1935 but included language preserving penalties for prior violations. The defendants argued the law was unconstitutional because Congress unlawfully delegated legislative power to the President, that the President never made the required findings, and that the revocation removed any liability.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether Congress could give the President broad discretion in matters affecting foreign affairs. It explained that powers over external relations differ from purely domestic powers and that a long history of congressional acts has given the President similar discretion in foreign affairs. Relying on that practice and the text of the proclamation, the Court found the President’s factual finding adequate and concluded Congress did not unlawfully abdicate its power. The Court also held that the later revocation of the proclamation did not erase criminal liability for acts committed while the original proclamation was in force.

Real world impact

The decision means prosecutions may go forward against people who sold arms during the active ban, even though the President later revoked the proclamation. It affirms wide presidential discretion to trigger or end export bans tied to foreign conflicts and supports the continued validity of similar statutes setting conditions for executive action.

Dissents or concurrances

One Justice dissented, believing the lower court reached the correct result and the indictment should have been dismissed.