Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T15:46:32.447Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nuclear Pacific, Inc. v. United States Department of Commerce. No. C84-49R

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Judicial Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 79 , Issue 2 , April 1985 , pp. 460 - 462
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Defendants also argued that the case presented a nonjusticiable political question involving national security considerations and that plaintiff had failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The court, however, characterized plaintiff’s claim as a justiciable challenge to the federal regulations implementing export-licensing decisions. Moreover, since exhaustion of the administrative appeal process was not mandated by an existing statute, application of the exhaustion doctrine was within the sound discretion of the court. The court found that, on balance, plaintiff’s need for judicial resolution of the dispute outweighed the interests of the Commerce Department in continued administrative proceedings.

2 On Oct. 23, 1984, the Government filed a notice of appeal.

3 The EAA expired initially on Sept. 30, 1983, but was extended by Congress through joint resolutions until Mar. 30, 1984.

4 Slip op. at 7.

5 In this respect, the court relied on various cases that considered the legality of a different executive order—No. 12294—which suspended claims pending in U.S. courts against the Iranian Government. See, e.g., Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654 (1981); Electronic Data Systems Corp. Iran v. Social Sec. Org. of Iran, 508 F.Supp. 1350 (N.D. Tex.), aff’d in part and vacated in part, 651 F.2d 1007 (5th Cir. 1981) (executive orders lacking congressional approval or authority cannot interfere with the exercise of jurisdiction by federal courts).

6 See Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 140-41 (1967).