Dames_&_Moore_v._Regan

<i>Dames & Moore v. Regan</i>

Dames & Moore v. Regan

1981 United States Supreme Court case

Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654 (1981), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with President Jimmy Carter's Executive Order 12170, which froze Iranian assets in the United States on November 14, 1979, in response to the Iran hostage crisis, which began on November 4, 1979.

Quick Facts Dames & Moore v. Regan, Argued June 24, 1981 Decided July 2, 1981 ...

Background

After the inauguration of Ronald Reagan on January 20, 1981, the Reagan administration agreed with Iran to terminate legal proceedings in US courts involving claims by US nationals against Iran, to nullify attachments against Iranian property entered by US courts to secure any judgments against Iran, and to transfer such claims from US courts to a new arbitration tribunal. The agreements were implemented by executive orders.

Holding

In an 8–1 decision, the opinion of the court was delivered by Justice William H. Rehnquist, which upheld the actions by the Carter administration and "dismissed a $3 million lawsuit from private firm Dames & Moore against Treasury Secretary Don Regan, filed to recover a debt incurred by the Shah of Iran's government."[1] The Court found that the administration's actions were authorized by law by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Supreme Court also approved the suspension of claims filed in US courts even though no specific statutory provision authorized that step. In so doing, the Court relied on inferences drawn from related legislation, a history of congressional acquiescence in executive claims settlement practices, and past decisions recognizing broad executive authority. The Court also "substantially refined the applicable test" of the seminal 1952 case of Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer[2] and cemented Justice Robert H. Jackson's concurring opinion in that case as "canonical".[3]

Rehnquist wrote the opinion in this "highly complex and historic case" in eight days.[4]

Reaction

This decision has been criticized for taking "an exceptionally deferential view of executive power,"[5] particularly by relying on inferences from statutes that do not directly deal with certain subjects at hand and especially on legislative acquiescence in executive activity.

After Rehnquist's death, Justice John Paul Stevens cited Dames & Moore as one of his two favorite Rehnquist opinions, along with Leo Sheep Co. v. U.S.[4]

See also

References

  1. [1]
    Wohlsetter, John (2011-03-02) Hostage Hell is a Civilized Country's Dilemma, Human Events.
  2. [2]
    McCarthy, Andrew (2010-02-04) ‘Merely Organized to Convict’, National Review.
  3. [3]
    Griffin, Stephen (2008-10-10) A "Domestic" Case? Mysteries of Youngstown, Balkinization.
  4. [4]
    Denniston, Lyle (2009-12-10) WHR enters Court’s pantheon, SCOTUSblog.
  5. [5]
    Liptak, Adam and Purdum, Todd (2005-07-31) As Clerk for Rehnquist, Nominee Stood Out for Conservative Rigor, The New York Times.

Further reading

  • Gifford, Donald G. (2010). Suing the Tobacco and Lead Pigment Industries: Government Litigation as Public Health Prescription. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. ISBN 978-0-472-11714-7.
  • D'Arcy, Rebecca A. (2003). "The Legacy of Dames & Moore v. Regan: The Twilight Zone of Concurrent Authority Between the Executive and Congress". Notre Dame L. Rev. 79 (1): 291–326.
  • Marks, Lee R.; Grabow, John C. (1982). "President's Foreign Economic Powers After Dames & Moore v. Regan: Legislation by Acquiescence". Cornell Law Review. 68 (1): 68–103.
Share this article:

This article uses material from the Wikipedia article Dames_&_Moore_v._Regan, and is written by contributors. Text is available under a CC BY-SA 4.0 International License; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.