Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:28:34.128Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weinberger v. Rossi. 102 S.Ct. 1510

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 76 , Issue 4 , October 1982 , pp. 855 - 857
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1982

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 Rossi v. Brown, 467 F.Supp. 960 (D.D.C. 1979), summarized in 74 AJIL 200 (1980), rev’d, 642 F.2d 553 (D.C. Cir. 1980).

2 The Court expressly declined to consider whether the BLA violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. §2000e) because the issue was neither raised in the petition for certiorari nor reached by the court of appeals. 102 S.Ct. 1510, 1518 n. 18. However, in a somewhat related case decided this term, the Supreme Court analyzed a potential conflict between Title VII and the preferential employment provisions of an Article II treaty. See Sumitomo Shoji America, Inc. v. Avagliano, 102 S.Ct. 2374, summarized at p. 853 supra.

3 102 S.Ct. at 1514. See, e.g., Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, Art. 2(1 )(a), reprinted in 63 AJIL 875, 876 (1969); Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law Of the United States (Revised), Introductory Note 3, at 74 (Tent. Draft No. 1, 1980).

4 At times in this opinion, the Court uses the term “Article II treaties” to refer exclusively to treaties entered into by the President pursuant to Article II, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution.

5 39 U.S.C. §407(a), authorizing the Postal Service, with the consent of the President, to “negotiate and conclude postal treaties or conventions.”

6 102 S.Ct. at 1514, 1515. In this connection, the Court observed that “[i]t has been a maxim of statutory construction since the decision in Murray v. The Charming Besty, 2 Cranch 64, 117- 118 (1804), that ‘an act of congress ought never to be construed to violate the law of nations, if any other possible construction remains. . . .’ ” Id. at 1515.

7 The Court failed to state whether respondents were dependents of U.S. servicemen stationed in the Philippines, although at least one reference in the opinion (id. at 1513) suggested that they were.

8 Id. at 1513.

9 Id. at 1514 n.6. See 75 AJIL 954 (1981).

* This analysis was prepared by Marco C E. J. Bronckers, Member of The Hague Bar, the Netherlands.