Regan v. Wald
Headline: Court allows Treasury to limit Americans’ ability to pay for travel in Cuba, upholding the 1982 rule that blocks most tourist and business travel spending and tightens the embargo.
Holding: The Court held that Congress’s 1977 grandfather clause preserved the President’s authority to restrict travel-related transactions with Cuba, and that the 1982 Treasury amendment is lawful and does not violate the Fifth Amendment travel protection.
- Makes it harder for ordinary Americans to pay for tourist and business expenses in Cuba.
- Reduces hard-currency flows to Cuba by blocking most travel-related payments.
- Affirms that Presidents can continue embargo authorities year by year under the grandfather clause.
Summary
Background
Respondents are American citizens who want to travel to Cuba but were blocked by a long-standing Treasury regulation that forbids transactions involving property in which Cuba or Cubans have any interest. In 1977 a general license allowed visitors to pay ordinary expenses (meals, hotels, taxis), but the Treasury narrowed that license in 1982 to permit only limited categories of travel. Travelers sued to stop the 1982 change; a trial court denied an injunction, the Court of Appeals ordered one, and the Supreme Court took the case and issued this decision.
Reasoning
The central question was whether a 1977 congressional “grandfather” clause let the President keep exercising prior emergency economic powers without using the newer emergency procedures. The Court said Congress’s phrase preserving the “authorities . . . being exercised” on July 1, 1977, kept the President’s broad power to regulate property transactions with Cuba, including travel-related purchases. The Court relied on the text of the statute, the structure of the existing embargo rules, and deference to executive judgments about foreign policy and national security to uphold the 1982 amendment. The Court also held these limits do not violate the Fifth Amendment travel protection in light of foreign policy concerns.
Real world impact
The decision lets the Treasury enforce limits that make ordinary tourist and business spending in Cuba unlawful absent special permission. That reduces hard-currency flows to Cuba, limits what ordinary Americans can purchase there, and affirms the Executive’s continued yearly extensions of embargo authority under the grandfather clause.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Blackmun (joined by three others) and Justice Powell dissented, arguing that Congress intended the grandfather clause to preserve only specific restrictions already in effect and did not authorize enlarging embargo controls without the new IEEPA procedures.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?