Foster v. Neilson

Last updated

Foster v. Neilson, 27 U.S. 253 (1829) was a decision by the United States Supreme Court that held certain treaties ratified by the United States, even if otherwise valid and in force, cannot be given effect domestically without a specific act of Congress. [1] [2] The ruling articulated a more restrictive interpretation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which automatically grants treaties the force of domestic federal law. [3]

The Foster decision was the first to formulate the concept of "self-execution", which distinguishes between treaties that are "self-executing" (meaning domestic courts can enforce them directly upon their ratification) and those that are "non-self-executing" (which are not directly enforceable in U.S. courts unless Congress passes specific implementing legislation). It was also the first time the Court applied the "intent-based doctrine of self-execution", which examines the text of a treaty, as well as its related documents and negotiations, to determine whether the treaty makers intended it to be self-executing. [4]

Decision

The Court's opinion, authored by Chief Justice John Marshall, recognized that the U.S. Constitution, through the Supremacy Clause, "declares a treaty to be the law of the land" and "consequently to be regarded in courts of justice as equivalent to an act of the legislature." However, Justice Marshall immediately adds a qualifying statement that a treaty is only the equivalent of a legislative act when the treaty "operates of itself without the aid of any legislative provision"' when the terms of the treaty "import a contract" or suggest that some future legislative act is necessary, "the treaty addresses itself to the political, not the judicial department; and the legislature must execute the contract before it can become a rule for the Court." [5]

Using this test, the Foster Court held that the treaty provision at issue—which stated that certain land grants from the King of Spain "shall be ratified and confirmed"—was non-self-executing because it suggested that Congress would ratify the land grants through a future legislative act. [6]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitution of the United States</span> Supreme law of the United States of America

The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America. It superseded the Articles of Confederation, the nation's first constitution, in 1789. Originally comprising seven articles, it delineates the national frame and constraints of government. The Constitution's first three articles embody the doctrine of the separation of powers, whereby the federal government is divided into three branches: the legislative, consisting of the bicameral Congress ; the executive, consisting of the president and subordinate officers ; and the judicial, consisting of the Supreme Court and other federal courts. Article IV, Article V, and Article VI embody concepts of federalism, describing the rights and responsibilities of state governments, the states in relationship to the federal government, and the shared process of constitutional amendment. Article VII establishes the procedure subsequently used by the 13 states to ratify it. The Constitution of the United States is the oldest and longest-standing written and codified national constitution in force in the world.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Article Three of the United States Constitution</span> Portion of the US Constitution regarding the judicial branch

Article Three of the United States Constitution establishes the judicial branch of the U.S. federal government. Under Article Three, the judicial branch consists of the Supreme Court of the United States, as well as lower courts created by Congress. Article Three empowers the courts to handle cases or controversies arising under federal law, as well as other enumerated areas. Article Three also defines treason.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Article Four of the United States Constitution</span> Portion of the US Constitution regarding states

Article Four of the United States Constitution outlines the relationship between the various states, as well as the relationship between each state and the United States federal government. It also empowers Congress to admit new states and administer the territories and other federal lands.

Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States decided on March 20, 1816. It was the first case to assert ultimate Supreme Court authority over state courts in civil matters of federal law.

Ratification is a principal's legal confirmation of an act of its agent. In international law, ratification is the process by which a state declares its consent to be bound to a treaty. In the case of bilateral treaties, ratification is usually accomplished by exchanging the requisite instruments, and in the case of multilateral treaties, the usual procedure is for the depositary to collect the ratifications of all states, keeping all parties informed of the situation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Preamble to the United States Constitution</span> Introductory statement of the US Constitutions fundamental purposes

The Preamble to the United States Constitution, beginning with the words We the People, is a brief introductory statement of the US Constitution's fundamental purposes and guiding principles. Courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judiciary Act of 1789</span> United States law establishing the federal court system

The Judiciary Act of 1789 was a United States federal statute enacted on September 24, 1789, during the first session of the First United States Congress. It established the federal judiciary of the United States. Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution prescribed that the "judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and such inferior Courts" as Congress saw fit to establish. It made no provision for the composition or procedures of any of the courts, leaving this to Congress to decide.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Separation of powers under the United States Constitution</span> Overview of the separation of powers under the United States Constitution

Separation of powers is a political doctrine originating in the writings of Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu in The Spirit of the Laws, in which he argued for a constitutional government with three separate branches, each of which would have defined abilities to check the powers of the others. This philosophy heavily influenced the drafting of the United States Constitution, according to which the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of the United States government are kept distinct in order to prevent abuse of power. The American form of separation of powers is associated with a system of checks and balances.

Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920) is a United States Supreme Court case concerning the extent to which international legal obligations are incorporated into federal law under the United States Constitution.

Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, the Full Faith and Credit Clause, addresses the duty that states within the United States have to respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." According to the Supreme Court, there is a difference between the credit owed to laws as compared to the credit owed to judgments. Judges and lawyers agree on the meaning of the clause with respect to the recognition of judgments rendered by one state in the courts of another. Barring exceptional circumstances, one state must enforce a judgment by a court in another, unless that court lacked jurisdiction, even if the enforcing court otherwise disagrees with the result. At present, it is widely agreed that this Clause of the Constitution has a minimal impact on a court's choice of law decision provided that no state's sovereignty is infringed, although this Clause of the Constitution was once interpreted to have greater impact.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards</span> International treaty within the UN framework

The Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, commonly known as the New York Convention, was adopted by a United Nations diplomatic conference on 10 June 1958 and entered into force on 7 June 1959. The Convention requires courts of contracting states to give effect to private agreements to arbitrate and to recognize and enforce arbitration awards made in other contracting states. Widely considered the foundational instrument for international arbitration, it applies to arbitrations that are not considered as domestic awards in the state where recognition and enforcement is sought.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judicial review in the United States</span> Power of courts to review laws

In the United States, judicial review is the legal power of a court to determine if a statute, treaty, or administrative regulation contradicts or violates the provisions of existing law, a State Constitution, or ultimately the United States Constitution. While the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly define the power of judicial review, the authority for judicial review in the United States has been inferred from the structure, provisions, and history of the Constitution.

The incorporation of international law is the process by which international agreements become part of the municipal law of a sovereign state. A country incorporates a treaty by passing domestic legislation that gives effect to the treaty in the national legal system.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Primacy of European Union law</span> Legal principle

The primacy of European Union law is a legal principle establishing precedence of European Union law over conflicting national laws of EU member states.

The Treaty Clause of the United States Constitution establishes the procedure for ratifying international agreements. It empowers the President as the primary negotiator of agreements between the United States and other countries, and holds that the advice and consent of a two-thirds supermajority of the Senate renders a treaty binding with the force of federal law.

Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court that held even when a treaty constitutes an international commitment, it is not binding domestic law unless it has been implemented by an act of the U.S. Congress or contains language expressing that it is "self-executing" upon ratification. The Court also ruled that decisions of the International Court of Justice are not binding upon the U.S. and, like treaties, cannot be enforced by the president without authority from Congress or the U.S. Constitution.

Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506 (1859), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that state courts cannot issue rulings that contradict the decisions of federal courts, overturning a decision by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. The Court found that under the Constitution, federal courts have the final power to decide cases arising under the Constitution and federal statutes, and that the States do not have the power to overturn those decisions. Thus, Wisconsin did not have the authority to nullify federal judgments or statutes. For example, it is illegal for state officials to interfere with the work of U.S. Marshals acting under federal laws. The Ableman decision emphasized the dual form of American government and the independence of State and federal courts from each other.

Rutgers v. Waddington was a case held in the New York City Mayor's Court in 1784 that centered on a conflict between state law and a United States treaty. It is notable for having set precedents for judicial review and the supremacy of treaties over state laws, which would later influence the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Supreme Court. The case is also known for the involvement of U.S. founding father Alexander Hamilton, who litigated on behalf of the defendant.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the "supreme Law of the Land", and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws. It provides that state courts are bound by, and state constitutions subordinate to, the supreme law. However, federal statutes and treaties must be within the parameters of the Constitution; that is, they must be pursuant to the federal government's enumerated powers, and not violate other constitutional limits on federal power, such as the Bill of Rights—of particular interest is the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states that the federal government has only those powers that are delegated to it by the Constitution.

References

  1. ↑ Foster v. Neilson, 27 U.S. (2 Pet.) 253, 314–15 (1829).
  2. ↑ Self-Executing and Non-Self-Executing Treaties | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
  3. ↑ Treaties as Law of the Land: The Supremacy Clause and the Judicial Enforcement of Treaties, Carlos Manuel Vázquez, Vol. 122, No. 2 (Dec. 2008), p 606, www.jstor.org/stable/40042748.
  4. ↑ Executing Foster v. Neilson: The Two-Step Approach to Analyzing Self-Executing Treaties, David L. Sloss, Vol. 53, No. 1 (Winter 2012), p. 143
  5. ↑ Foster, 27 U.S. (2 Pet.) at 314.
  6. ↑ Foster, 27 U.S. (2 Pet.) at 314.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.