Zivotofsky v. Kerry is a bonanza of foreign relations issues and doctrine: the executive Vesting Clause, the President as the “sole organ” of the nation, the need for the nation to speak with “one voice,” Curtiss-Wright, Youngstown, diplomatic history and practice, the Republic of Texas, secrecy and dispatch, Citizen Genet, the Spanish-American war, international law in constitutional interpretation, the status of Taiwan, formalism and functionalism, exceptionalism and normalization, the list goes on and on!!
Ingrid Wuerth is a Professor at Vanderbilt Law School. She is a leading scholar of foreign affairs and international law in domestic courts, whose broad intellectual interests also include the German Constitution, comparative constitutional law, and methodology. She has written extensively on these topics, including articles published in the Chicago, Michigan, Northwestern and Notre Dame law reviews, the Harvard, Melbourne, Vanderbilt and Virginia journals of international law, and the American Journal of International Law. Professor Wuerth joined Vanderbilt’s law faculty in 2007, was appointed director of Vanderbilt’s International Legal Studies Program in fall 2009, and has won several teaching awards. After law school, she clerked for Judge Jan E. DuBois of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, for Judge Jane R. Roth of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and practiced at Dechert in Philadelphia. She is on academic leave this semester and is living in Berlin, Germany.
John Hay had a fascinating tenure as Secretary of State from 1898 – 1905. This was a period known for the increase in the power of the President, especially at the hands of Teddy Roosevelt. Not coincidentally, U.S. power abroad also increased during the time, often through policies designed or implemented by John Hay.
Is foreign relations law really so different from the law governing domestic affairs? Should it be? We have a new article out this week in the Harvard Law Review that engages these questions in the context of the arc of foreign relations law over the last quarter-century.
The Supreme Court recently granted certiorari in Spokeo v. Robins, a Fair Credit Reporting Act case which might appear to have little connection to national security and foreign relations law. But the case is about standing, in particular Congress’s power to confer standing on private parties who do not suffer an injury-in-fact but have been deprived of the legal rights created by the statute.
At the end of last week, Senators McCain and Reed of the Senate Armed Services Committee and Senators Corker and Menendez of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee sent a letter about the South and East China Sea to Secretaries Kerry and Carter.
Does the Supreme Court Follow the Recommendation of the Solicitor General in Foreign Relations Cases in which the Court has issued a CVSG?
Sometimes when making a decision whether to grant a petition for a writ of certiorari in a case to which the United States is not a party, the Supreme Court formally issues a “call for the view of the Solicitor General” (CVSG). The Solicitor General responds with a brief arguing that certiorari be granted (or not), in whole or in part. But does the Court follow the SG’s recommendation?
The Supreme Court granted certiorari on Friday in OBB Personenverkehr AG v. Sachs, a case involving the commercial activity exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA).