Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T10:44:25.182Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Claiming Control Over Foreign Relations Law: The Roberts Court’s First Decade

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Harlan Grant Cohen
Harlan Grant Cohen*
Affiliation:
University of Georgia School of Law
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
Foreign Relations Law in the Roberts Court: The First Decade
Information
Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting , Volume 109 , 2015 , pp. 42 - 46
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2016

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.)

Footnotes

*

This piece draws heavily from Harlan Grant Cohen, Formalism and Distrust: Foreign Affairs Law in the Roberts Court, 83 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 380 (2015).

References

1 548 U.S. 557 (2006).

2 553 U.S. 723 (2008).

3 128 S. Ct. 2207 (2008).

4 130 S. Ct. 2278 (2010).

5 134 S. Ct. 2250 (2014).

6 552 U.S. 491 (2008).

7 131 S. Ct. 2355 (2011).

8 134 S. Ct. 1198 (2014).

9 130 S. Ct. 2869 (2010).

10 133 S. Ct. 1659 (2013).

11 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014).

12 132 S. Ct. 1421 (2012).

13 135 S. Ct. 2076 (2015). The decision in Zivotofsky II might present something of exception to the trend described here, recognizing a broad, exclusive presidential power over recognition. The majority opinion though is not without its formalist flourishes, and the majority may have been trying to constrain Congress (part of the trend described here) even as it empowered the President. For more of discussion, see Cohen, Harlan Grant, Zivotofsky II ‘s Two Visions for Foreign Relations Law, 109 AJIL Unbound 10 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 634 (1952) (Jackson, J. concurring).

15 Chae Chan Ping v. United States, 130 U.S. 581, 606 (1889).

16 Republic of Austria v. Altmann, 541 U.S. 677 (2004) (applying anti-retroactivity rules more flexibly to the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act).

17 But see Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957); Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312 (1988).

18 Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920).

19 See, e.g., Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654 (1981); Youngstown, supra note 14, at 634 (Jackson, J. concurring).

20 See, e.g., American Ins. Assn. v. Garamendi, 537 U.S. 1100 (2003); Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363 (2000).

21 132 S. Ct. 2492 (2012).

22 252 U.S. 416 (1920).

23 See Cohen, Harlan Grant, Formalism and Distrust: Foreign Affairs Law in the Roberts Court, 83 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 380, 439-45 (2015)Google Scholar (discussing potential future targets).

24 Sitaraman, Ganesh & Wuerth, Ingrid, The Normalization of Foreign Relations Law, 128 Harv. L. Rev. 1897 (2015)Google Scholar.

25 Kiobel, supra note 10, at 1669.

26 Bond v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 2095–96 (2014) (Scalia, J., concurring).

27 Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 133 S.Ct. 1138, 1155 (2013).

28 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009).