Penn Undergraduate Law Journal
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
    • Pre-Law Corner
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Apply
    • FAQs
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
    • Pre-Law Corner
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Apply
    • FAQs

The Roundtable


Welcome to the Roundtable, a forum for incisive commentary and analysis
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.


INTERESTED IN wRITING FOR tHE rOUNDTABLE?

The Ambiguous Legal Role of States in American Foreign Policy

10/25/2017

0 Comments

 
Picture
By Justin Yang
Justin Yang is a junior at the University of Pennsylvania studying Politics, Philosophy, and Economics.


After President Trump announced he was planning to pull the United States out of the Paris climate accord, several states announced that they would defy the president and adhere to the accord themselves. In particular, California has tried to step up and fill the void the United States has left behind, meeting and striking climate deals with foreign governments like China. [1] In addition, a New York Times report revealed that governors are increasingly conducting the diplomacy they believe the Trump administration is neglecting: they are going abroad and meeting with foreign leaders, assuring them of America’s stance on climate change and trade. [2] All of these developments raise an interesting question: can a state conduct what appears to be foreign policy without the federal government?

The Constitution does not explicitly grant the power to conduct foreign policy in general to any particular institution, but it gives to the President power to negotiate treaties, to lead the armed forces, and to receive foreign ambassadors. [3] It also grants Congress the power to approve of treaties, the military budget, and the President’s nominee for the Secretary of State, as well as  the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and to declare war. [3] All this seems to imply that the federal government has the exclusive right to conduct foreign policy, a view that the Supreme Court has long held. In 1840, the Court held in Holmes v. Jennison that “it was one of the main objects of the constitution to make us, so far as regarded our foreign relations, one people, and one nation; and to cut off all communications between foreign governments, and the several state authorities.” [4]

In fact, states are explicitly not allowed to enter into any “Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation” with foreign nations, and cannot enter into any “Agreement or Compact” with a foreign nation without the consent of Congress. [3] But of course, the Tenth Amendment gives the states any power not granted to the federal government or not restricted by the Constitution, leaving open other areas of power that can have significant consequences for American foreign policy.

There are wide areas of permitted state law that can have an important impact on foreign relations. For example, many states have pension funds that they use to invest in nations across the world, including nations which may have questionable human rights records or a negative relationship with the United States – it would not be surprising if a pension fund held stocks from a Chinese company. [5] These pension funds can also hold a considerable sway in global financial markets, and states can use this influence in political ways. In the 1980s, thirty-two states enacted what are, in effect, sanctions against South Africa for its apartheid policy through partial or total divestments of companies doing business in South Africa and bans on new investments. [5] States like Rhode Island and New York have investment policies that require companies in Northern Ireland to follow the MacBride Principles, which protect the Catholic minority from employment discrimination. [5] All this can have the effect of changing America’s relationship with these countries, as well as influence their policy outcomes.

While states are perfectly entitled to, for example, create a pension fund and make the necessary investment decisions, their influence on foreign affairs seems to infringe on the federal government’s exclusive right in this area. Such an exclusive right logically means that any state law that impinges on foreign relations, even when there is no relevant federal policy, must be struck down as unconstitutional, and this is exactly what the Supreme Court has held in previous cases.

For example, in a 1968 case, Zschernig v. Miller, the Court invalidated an Oregon law preventing the inheritance of a deceased American without heirs from going to citizens of Communist countries. [5] Although the Justice Department’s amicus brief denied that the law would cause “undue interference” in U.S. foreign policy, the Court said that there will still be a “persistent and subtle” effect when other countries see state courts denying payments to citizens of Communist countries. [6] Even though inheritance law is under the purview of the states, any restraints on citizens of those Communist nations “must be provided by the Federal Government.” [6] Justice Stewart, in response to the Justice Department’s amicus brief, put it in even stronger terms in his concurrence: “[t]oday, we are told, Oregon’s statute does not conflict with the national interest. Tomorrow it may.” [5]

Of course, Zschernig does not elaborate a clear standard on when a state law is considered to impinge on foreign relations. In 1994, the Supreme Court ruled in Barclays v. Franchise Tax Board that a California corporate tax formula that included worldwide revenue did not violate the Foreign Commerce Clause, because Congress’ inaction in this area implicitly permitted state action. [5] This ruling shows just how unclear the line between state law and federal foreign policy is, and it left the lower courts grappling with how to establish such a line.

As states become ever bigger and more important economic actors on the global stage, it is inevitable that many of their actions will have an effect on American foreign affairs. The aforementioned deal between California and China was on establishing a shared cap and trade market on carbon emissions, something that can arguably violate the federal government’s right to conduct foreign policy. But globalization means that many aspects of state law that have long been considered to be under the states’ purview will bump up against the federal government’s exclusive right to conduct foreign policy; and as states become more connected to the world, more and more of their interests will be tied up with other countries, and they will begin to demand a voice on the global stage. This will surely create more state actions that can run contrary to federal policy, and it is imperative that a clear line be drawn to protect both the state and federal governments’ rights and interests.

[1] “China and California sign deal to work on climate change without Trump.” The Guardian, June 6, 2017. Accessed July 16, 2017. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/07/china-and-california-sign-deal-to-work-on-climate-change-without-trump
[2] Burns, Alexander. “Going Around Trump, Governors Embark on Their Own Diplomatic Missions.” New York Times, July 15, 2017. Accessed July 16, 2017. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/15/us/trump-governors-diplomatic-missions.html
[3] “The Constitution of the United States.” United States National Archives. Accessed July 16, 2017. https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript
[4] “Holmes v. Jennison.” Justia. Accessed July 16, 2017. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/39/540/case.html
[5] Head, Carol E. “The Dormant Foreign Affairs Power: Constitutional Implications for State and Local Investment Restrictions Impacting Foreign Countries.” Boston College Law Review 42 (December 2000): 123-172. Accessed July 16, 2017. https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/schools/law/lawreviews/journals/bclawr/42_1/03_FMS.htm
​[6] “State Laws Affecting Foreign Relations – Dormant Federal Power and Preemption.” Justia. Accessed July 16, 2017. http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/26-dormant-foreign-relations.html

Photo Credit: Flickr User The White House  

The opinions and views expressed through this publication are the opinions of the designated authors and do not reflect the opinions or views of the Penn Undergraduate Law Journal, our staff, or our clients.
0 Comments

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.


    Categories

    All
    Akshita Tiwary
    Alana Bess
    Alana Mattei
    Albert Manfredi
    Alexander Saeedy
    Alexandra Aaron
    Alexandra Kanan
    Alice Giannini
    Alicia Augustin
    Alicia Kysar
    Ally Kalishman
    Ally Margolis
    Alya Abbassian
    Anika Prakash
    Anna Schwartz
    Ashley Kim
    Astha Pandey
    Audrey Pan
    Benjamin Ng'aru
    Brónach Rafferty
    Bryce Klehm
    Cary Holley
    Christina Gunzenhauser
    Christine Mitchell
    Christopher Brown
    Clarissa Alvarez
    Cole Borlee
    Connor Gallagher
    Dan Spinelli
    Dan Zhang
    David Katz
    Davis Berlind
    Derek Willie
    Dhilan Lavu
    Edgar Palomino
    Edna Simbi
    Ella Sohn
    Emma Davies
    Esther Lee
    Evelyn Bond
    Filzah Belal
    Frank Geng
    Gabriel Maliha
    Georgia Ray
    Graham Reynolds
    Habib Olapade
    Hailie Goldsmith
    Haley Son
    Harshit Rai
    Henry Lininger
    Hetal Doshi
    Iris Zhang
    Irtaza Ali
    Isabela Baghdady
    Ishita Chakrabarty
    Jack Burgess
    Jessica "Lulu" Lipman
    Joe Anderson
    Jonathan Lahdo
    Jonathan Stahl
    Joseph Squillaro
    Justin Yang
    Kaitlyn Rentala
    Kanishka Bhukya
    Katie Kaufman
    Kelly Liang
    Keshav Sharma
    Ketaki Gujar
    Lauren Pak
    Lavi Ben Dor
    Libby Rozbruch
    Lindsey Li
    Luis Bravo
    Lyndsey Reeve
    Madeline Decker
    Maja Cvjetanovic
    Maliha Farrooz
    Marco DiLeonardo
    Margaret Lu
    Matthew Caulfield
    Michael Keshmiri
    Mina Nur Basmaci
    Muskan Mumtaz
    Natalie Peelish
    Natasha Darlington
    Natasha Kang
    Nayeon Kim
    Nicholas Parsons
    Nicholas Williams
    Nicole Greenstein
    Nihal Sahu
    Omar Khoury
    Owen Voutsinas Klose
    Owen Voutsinas-Klose
    Pheby Liu
    Rachel Bina
    Rachel Gu
    Rachel Pomerantz
    Rebecca Heilweil
    Regina Salmons
    Sajan Srivastava
    Sandeep Suresh
    Sanjay Dureseti
    Sarah Simon
    Saranya Das Sharma
    Saranya Sharma
    Sasha Bryski
    Saxon Bryant
    Sean Foley
    Sebastian Bates
    Serena Camici
    Shahana Banerjee
    Shannon Alvino
    Shiven Sharma
    Siddarth Sethi
    Sneha Parthasarathy
    Sneha Sharma
    Sophie Lovering
    Steven Jacobson
    Suaida Firoze
    Suprateek Neogi
    Takane Shoji
    Tanner Bowen
    Taryn MacKinney
    Thomas Cribbins
    Todd Costa
    Tyler Larkworthy
    Vatsal Patel
    Vikram Balasubramanian
    Vishwajeet Deshmukh
    Wajeeha Ahmad
    Yeonhwa Lee

    Archives

    March 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    September 2022
    June 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    November 2014
    October 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013

Picture
Picture
​