United States v. Belmont

Last updated
United States v. Belmont
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued March 4, 1937
Decided May 3, 1937
Full case nameUnited States v. Belmont, et al., Executors
Citations301 U.S. 324 ( more )
57 S. Ct. 758; 81 L. Ed. 1134
Case history
Prior85 F.2d 542 (2d Cir. 1936)
Court membership
Chief Justice
Charles E. Hughes
Associate Justices
Willis Van Devanter  · James C. McReynolds
Louis Brandeis  · George Sutherland
Pierce Butler  · Harlan F. Stone
Owen Roberts  · Benjamin N. Cardozo
Case opinions
MajoritySutherland
ConcurrenceStone, joined by Brandeis, Cardozo

United States v. Belmont, 301 U.S. 324 (1937), was a dispute between the federal executive branch and the State of New York over property rights to a deposit from a former Russian corporation with August Belmont & Company, a private New York City banking firm. [1] Belmont established executive predominance over state laws and constitutions in the sphere of foreign policy, and allocated the constitutional power for initiating executive agreements solely to the president of the United States. [2]

Contents

Background

During the Russian Revolution, Petrograd Metal Works, a Russian corporation, deposited a sum of money with August Belmont & Company, a private banker in New York City. [1] On November 6, 1917, the Bolsheviks took control of Russia. With the establishment of the Communist regime, they issued several decrees, which inter alia (among other things) ratified confiscation of private properties without compensation. [3] The Decree of June 15, 1918 was enacted exclusively to outline nationalization of manufacturing companies; a portion of it reads as follows:

Hereinafter mentioned industrial and trading concerns ... with all their capital and properties, whatever form they might be in, the property of the Russian Socialist Federated Republics ... All the property, the affairs and capital of the concerns ... wherever this property is located and in whatever form it is, is declared the property of the R. S. F. S. R. [3]

In an effort to preserve their estates, fugitive business owners had relocated their assets to foreign banks. This impeded Soviet attempts to retrieve those deposits, mainly because they had to negotiate with foreign tribunals which consistently inclined toward the former owners. [4]

The United States' non-recognition of the Communist state precluded the Soviet government from filing disputes in U.S. courts. [5] Likewise, as a result of Soviet nationalization, the U.S. could not seek any legal remedies from the Soviet nation. [5] In an attempt to recover the losses due to Russian communalization, President Franklin D. Roosevelt began negotiations with the Communist state. [6] On November 16, 1933, the President held his first annual dinner party, with Soviet Commissar of Foreign Affairs, Maxim Litvinov, as his guest. [6] During this event, he presented Litvinov prepared drafts with conditions under which the U.S. was willing to recognize Soviet Russia. [7] The same day, both officials signed their exchanged notes, later known as the RooseveltLitvinov Accords. [7] Along with a section acknowledging the Communist state, this document permitted the U.S. government to collect all amounts "due or that may be found to be due" deposited in the U.S. banks by former owners of Russian corporations, provided that the Soviet government was "to be duly notified in each case of any amount realized by the Government of the United States from such release and assignment." [8] Within the nine years of litigations, the United States Department of Justice successfully recovered nearly ten million dollars in Soviet funds. [9] One of its victories was the case of United States v. Belmont, in which the Supreme Court allowed the U.S. Government to recover Petrograd's deposits, holding that the presidential agreement with Russia superseded the laws of the State of New York; petitioner's complaint to recover deposited sum constituted a cause of action against the respondents, duly-appointed executors of Belmont's will. [10]

Procedural history

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the case, and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the case in question should be decided according to New York State laws, not federal, for: (1) the deposit was placed in the state of New York; (2) titles are a matters of state laws; and (3) pursuant to the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the New York Civil Practice Act § 977-b, petitioner's claim could not have been recognized at least "until after the expiration of the period within which creditors or stockholders may claim it." [11]

Holding

On May 3, 1937, the United States Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Circuit Court's decision in holding: (1) The president has the power to initiate executive agreements with foreign states without the advice or consent of the Senate; (2) The executive agreements are binding over state constitutions, laws, and policies; and (3) The United States Constitution is not extraterritorial, except in respect to U.S. citizens. [1]

Opinion of the Supreme Court

Delivered by Justice Sutherland:

"Governmental power over external affairs is vested exclusively in the national government;" state laws, constitutions, and policies are irrelevant in disputes concerning international agreements between two governments, and therefore, "no state can prevail against the international compact." [12] Although under Article II §2 of the United States Constitution, treaties require the advice and consent of the Senate, "international compact, as this was, is not always a treaty," and it does not require participation of the Senate. [13] The public policy of the United States, declared by the U.S. Constitution, prohibits confiscation of private property without just compensation. The U.S. Constitution, statutes, and policies, however, "have no extraterritorial operation," except in respect to U.S. citizens. [14] The actions of the Soviet government toward its citizens are not a matter for U.S. judicial review; such nationals shall seek remedy with their own nation's courts and government. [14] The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is not an issue here, for the respondents have no interests in that matter beyond that of a custodian. [14] This decision, however, does not consider the status of adverse claims; it only holds that petitioner's complaint "alleges facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the respondents." [10]

Concurrence

Delivered by Justice Stone, joined by Justice Brandeis and Justice Cardozo:

The concurrence agreed with the holding, but it did not follow the path by which this decision was reached. [15] While it supported the Court's decision allowing the U.S. Government to recover Petrograd's deposits, it disagreed with the majority's claim that the United States had greater rights than its transferor, and that the President, by mere executive action, had the right to alter the laws and policies of any state in which the debtor of an assigned claim might reside. [16]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Politics of Finland</span> Political system of Finland

The politics of Finland take place within the framework of a parliamentary representative democracy. Finland is a republic whose head of state is President Sauli Niinistö, who leads the nation's foreign policy and is the supreme commander of the Finnish Defence Forces. Finland's head of government is Prime Minister Sanna Marin, who leads the nation's executive branch, called the Finnish Government. Legislative power is vested in the Parliament of Finland, and the Government has limited rights to amend or extend legislation. The Constitution of Finland vests power to both the President and Government: the President has veto power over parliamentary decisions, although this power can be overruled by a majority vote in the Parliament.

A head of state is the public persona who officially embodies a state in its unity and legitimacy. Depending on the country's form of government and separation of powers, the head of state may be a ceremonial figurehead or concurrently the head of government and more.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Politics of Russia</span> Political system of Russia

The politics of Russia take place in the framework of the federal semi-presidential republic of Russia. According to the Constitution of Russia, the President of Russia is head of state, and of a multi-party system with executive power exercised by the government, headed by the Prime Minister, who is appointed by the President with the parliament's approval. Legislative power is vested in the two houses of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, while the President and the government issue numerous legally binding by-laws. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of 1991, Russia has seen serious challenges in its efforts to forge a political system to follow nearly seventy-five years of Soviet governance. For instance, leading figures in the legislative and executive branches have put forth opposing views of Russia's political direction and the governmental instruments that should be used to follow it. That conflict reached a climax in September and October 1993, when President Boris Yeltsin used military force to dissolve the parliament and called for new legislative elections. This event marked the end of Russia's first constitutional period, which was defined by the much-amended constitution adopted by the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic in 1978. A new constitution, creating a strong presidency, was approved by referendum in December 1993.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Republics of the Soviet Union</span> Top-level political division of the Soviet Union

The Republics of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics or the Union Republics were national-based administrative units of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). The Soviet Union was formed in 1922 by a treaty between the Soviet republics of Byelorussia, Russia, Transcaucasia, and Ukraine, by which they became its constituent republics.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federal government of the United States</span> National government of the United States

The federal government of the United States is the national government of the United States, a federal republic located primarily in North America, composed of 50 states, five major self-governing territories, several island possessions, and the federal district and national capital of Washington, D.C., where most of the federal government is based.

Ratification is a principal's approval of an act of its agent that lacked the authority to bind the principal legally. Ratification defines the international act in which a state indicates its consent to be bound to a treaty if the parties intended to show their consent by such an act. 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">Maxim Litvinov</span> Soviet diplomat and foreign minister (1876–1951)

Maxim Maximovich Litvinov was a Russian revolutionary and prominent Soviet statesman and diplomat who served as People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs from 1930 to 1939.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitution of Russia</span> Principles, institutions and law of political governance in Russia

The Constitution of the Russian Federation was adopted by national referendum on 12 December 1993. Russia's constitution came into force on 25 December 1993, at the moment of its official publication, and abolished the Soviet system of government. The current Constitution is the second most long-lived in the history of Russia, behind the Constitution of 1936.

<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.

An executive agreement is an agreement between the heads of government of two or more nations that has not been ratified by the legislature as treaties are ratified. Executive agreements are considered politically binding to distinguish them from treaties which are legally binding.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitution of Belarus</span> Supreme law of Belarus

The Constitution of the Republic of Belarus is the ultimate law of Belarus. The Constitution is composed of a preamble and nine sections divided into 146 articles.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bricker Amendment</span> Proposed bill to amend US Constitution

The Bricker Amendment is the collective name of a number of slightly different proposed amendments to the United States Constitution considered by the United States Senate in the 1950s. None of these amendments ever passed Congress. Each of them would require explicit congressional approval, especially for executive agreements that did not require the Senate's two-thirds approval for treaty. They are named for their sponsor, conservative Republican Senator John W. Bricker of Ohio, who distrusted the exclusive powers of the president to involve America beyond the wishes of Congress.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Government of Russia</span> Federal administrative apparatus of the Eurasian country

The government of Russia is the federal executive body of state power of the Russian Federation. The members of the government are the prime minister, the deputy prime ministers, and the federal ministers. It has its legal basis in the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the federal constitutional law "On the Government of the Russian Federation". The Apparatus of the Government of Russia is a governmental body which administrates the activities of the government.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">State continuity of the Baltic states</span> Legal continuity of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania

The three Baltic countries, or the Baltic states – Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania – are held to have continued as legal entities under international law while under the Soviet occupation from 1940 to 1991, as well as during the German occupation in 1941–1944/1945. The prevailing opinion accepts the Baltic thesis of illegal occupation and the actions of the USSR are regarded as contrary to international law in general and to the bilateral treaties between the USSR and the three Baltic countries in particular.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Head of the Republic of Adygea</span> Highest official of the Republic of Adygea

The Head of the Republic of Adygea is a head of Adygea, federal subject of Russia. Until May 2011, the position was called the President of the Republic of Adygea. This list start from the Soviet-era until the current form.

United States v. Pink, 315 U.S. 203 (1942), was a United States Supreme Court decision related to the Litvinov Assignment, wherein the US government recognised Soviet Russia as the successor of the previous Russian government. The United States sued Louis H. Pink, the Superintendent of Insurance of the State of New York, for claims regarding the First Russian Insurance Company.

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.

Madsen v. Women's Health Center, Inc., 512 U.S. 753 (1994), is a United States Supreme Court case where Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of an injunction entered by a Florida state court which prohibits antiabortion protesters from demonstrating in certain places, and in various ways outside of a health clinic that performs abortions.

Bank Markazi v. Peterson, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case that found that a law which only applied to a specific case, identified by docket number, and eliminated all of the defenses one party had raised does not violate the separation of powers in the United States Constitution between the legislative (Congress) and judicial branches of government. The plaintiffs, in the case had initially obtained judgments against Iran for its role in supporting state-sponsored terrorism, particularly the 1983 Beirut barracks bombings and 1996 Khobar Towers bombing, and sought execution against a bank account in New York held, through European intermediaries, on behalf of Bank Markazi, the Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The plaintiffs obtained court orders preventing the transfer of funds from the account in 2008 and initiated their lawsuit in 2010. Bank Markazi raised several defenses, including that the account was not an asset of the bank, but rather an asset of its European intermediary, under both New York state property law and §201(a) of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act. In response to concerns that existing laws were insufficient for the account to be used to settle the judgments, Congress added an amendment to a 2012 bill, codified after enactment as 22 U.S.C. § 8772, that identified the pending lawsuit by docket number, applied only to the assets in the identified case, and effectively abrogated every legal basis available to Bank Markazi to prevent the plaintiffs from executing their claims against the account. Bank Markazi then argued that § 8772 was an unconstitutional breach of the separation of power between the legislative and judicial branches of government, because it effectively directed a particular result in a single case without changing the generally applicable law. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and, on appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit both upheld the constitutionality of § 8772 and cleared the way for the plaintiffs to execute their judgments against the account, which held about $1.75 billion in cash.

References

  1. 1 2 3 United States v. Belmont, 301 U.S. 324, 325-26 (1937).
  2. Belmont, 301 U.S. at 33032.
  3. 1 2 Nebolsine, "The Recovery of the Foreign Assets," 1130.
  4. Nebolsine, "The Recovery of the Foreign Assets," 1132.
  5. 1 2 Nebolsine, "The Recovery of the Foreign Assets," 1133.
  6. 1 2 Millett, "The Constitutionality of Executive Agreements," 1.
  7. 1 2 Millett, "The Constitutionality of Executive Agreements," 2.
  8. Belmont, 301 U.S. at 326.
  9. Millett, "The Constitutionality of Executive Agreements," 4.
  10. 1 2 Belmont, 301 U.S. at 333.
  11. United States v. Belmont, 85F.2d542, 544 ( 2d Cir. 1936).
  12. Belmont, 301 U.S. at 327, 330, 332.
  13. Belmont, 301 U.S. at 330.
  14. 1 2 3 Belmont, 301 U.S. at 332.
  15. Belmont, 301 U.S. at 333 (Stone, J., concurring).
  16. Belmont, 301 U.S. at 336 (Stone, J., concurring).

Sources