Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1498756
 
 

Footnotes (6)



 


 



International Wrongs, State Law Remedies, and Presidential Policies


Michael D. Ramsey


University of San Diego School of Law

November 2, 2009

Loyola of L.A. Int'l & Comparative Law Review, Vol. 32, p. 19, 2010

Abstract:     
This article, prepared as part of Loyola of Los Angeles Law School’s symposium “Litigating Genocide,” considers the power of U.S. states to provide remedies for international wrongs such as genocide. Its immediate subject is the recent decision in Movsesian v. Victoria Versicherung AG (9th Cir. 2009); more broadly, it addresses the issue of conflict between state law remedies and policies of the U.S. executive branch. In Movsesian, the court concluded that presidential foreign policy preempts state law remedies when the two conflict. This article disagrees. Allowing otherwise valid state laws to be displaced by mere presidential policies is contrary to the Constitution’s designation of Congress, not the President, as the nation’s lawmaking body, and to the Constitution’s designation of treaties and statutes, but not presidential policies, as the “supreme Law of the Land.” It is also inconsistent with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Medellin v. Texas. Though the Movsesian court gave Medellin only slight attention, Medellin involved the same issue: a claim that presidential foreign policy should preempt inconsistent state law. And Medellin held firmly against the President, even though it found the foreign policy implications invoked by the President to be “plainly compelling.” In reaching this conclusion, the Court sharply limited its prior decision in American Insurance Association v. Garamendi, which the court in Movsesian (and the executive branch in Medellin) read broadly to endorse the idea of executive foreign policy preemption. Notwithstanding Garamendi, the Court said in Medellin, the simple and determinative constitutional rule is that the President is not a lawmaker. This article argues that the Court’s conclusion in Medellin is correct as a matter of fundamental constitutional text and structure, and should allow state law claims for international wrongs to go forward unless displaced by a federal treaty or statute.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 24

Keywords: federalism, foreign affairs, international law, executive power, preemption

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: November 3, 2009 ; Last revised: October 8, 2010

Suggested Citation

Ramsey, Michael D., International Wrongs, State Law Remedies, and Presidential Policies (November 2, 2009). Loyola of L.A. Int'l & Comparative Law Review, Vol. 32, p. 19, 2010. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1498756

Contact Information

Michael D. Ramsey (Contact Author)
University of San Diego School of Law ( email )
5998 Alcala Park
San Diego, CA 92110-2492
United States
619-260-4145 (Phone)
619-260-2218 (Fax)
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 566
Downloads: 80
Download Rank: 175,980
Footnotes:  6

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo3 in 0.516 seconds