Also known as: foreign affairs power · foreign relations powers
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
The constitutional authority vested in the President to conduct the foreign relations of the United States. This authority includes the power to settle claims of United States nationals against foreign governments through executive agreements when Congress has at least implicitly approved the practice through statutes or longstanding acquiescence.
Fulton Shipping and two other U.S. energy companies sued Noravia in federal court after Noravia seized their offshore drilling assets. The President concluded an executive agreement with Noravia that channeled all such claims to an international compensation commission. Congress had long authorized similar settlements and raised no objection. The district court stayed the suits and directed the companies to the commission.
Francois Fortier, born in Jerusalem, sought to have his U.S. passport list Israel as his place of birth under a federal statute. The President directed the State Department to list only Jerusalem. Fortier sued, claiming the statute controlled. The Supreme Court held that the President alone decides formal recognition of foreign sovereigns.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Faith Fitzgerald, convicted before the Sex Offender Registration Act, challenged the Attorney General's authority to apply the registration requirement to pre-Act offenders. She argued the delegation violated separation of powers. The Court upheld the delegation because the foreign-affairs context of the underlying treaty power supported broad executive discretion.
Ferrum Metals and other insurers challenged a California statute requiring disclosure of Holocaust-era policies. The President had negotiated executive agreements with Germany and other nations to resolve such claims through an international foundation. The Court held the state law was preempted because it interfered with the President's conduct of foreign affairs.
Farah Fox sued the State Department after it refused to list Israel on her passport despite a statute directing that listing. The government moved to dismiss on political-question grounds. The Supreme Court held the case presented a justiciable question about the scope of executive power over recognition.
Frontier Capital and other employers challenged an Arizona statute requiring employers to verify workers' immigration status through a federal database. The President had entered executive agreements with Mexico and other nations on immigration enforcement. The Court held the state law was not preempted because it complemented rather than conflicted with federal foreign-affairs objectives.
The President may settle such claims when Congress has at least implicitly approved the practice through statutes or a history of acquiescence. The agreement then provides a valid basis for federal courts to suspend or dismiss related suits.
Supporting sources
No. Courts require a pattern of congressional acquiescence shown by statutes facilitating similar settlements or consistent non-objection over time. Mere inaction without that background is insufficient.
Supporting sources
No. When the President acts with congressional acquiescence in foreign affairs, state laws that conflict with or undermine the agreement are preempted.
Supporting sources
The agreement may still be valid if the historical pattern of congressional acquiescence in comparable claim settlements is sufficiently established. Specificity to the exact claim is not required.
Supporting sources
…it would be necessary to determine that any discovery and other preliminary matters would not themselves intrude on the foreign affairs power of the Executive. In all events, it is appropriate to make this further observation. There are numerous instances in which the statements and actions of Government officials are not…