Case
United States v. Belmont - 301 U.S. 324, 57 S. Ct. 758 (1937)
Facts
The United States signed an agreement with the Soviet Union in 1933 regarding the operation of their businesses. In the current case, Russian metal company had deposited some money in an American bank before the start of the Russian Revolution. After the revolution, the company was nationalized and it attempted to reclaim the money that it had deposited in the US. The bank in question refused to release the money as per the laws of New York.
Issue
Did the agreement between the two nations compel the bank to release the assets in question?
Holding
The judges held that the US bank was comled to release the assets of the Russian company as per the agreement between the US and Russia.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Majority Opinion Reasoning
The majority reasoned that even though the two countries were yet to implement their formal treaties as diplomatic agreements, the US government still allowed to seek the assets in question on behalf of the Russian company.
Rule
The conduct of diplomatic relations with foreign countries are committed by the US Constitution to the government. Therefore, the propriety of the actions to be taken by the government regarding such relations cannot be subjected to judicial decision or inquiry.
Application
According to Justice Sutherland, different treaties existed which did not require the approval of the Senate. In addition, such treaties overrode the statutes that had been passed by the state. It meant that the US government could exercise its powers without regarding the state policies and laws.
Concurring Opinion Reasoning
Justice Brandeis and Justice Cardozo concurred with the opinion by stating that even though pacts between the US and other independent states were signed with the view of public welfare, there were those that may not require the involvement of the Senate.
Dissenting Opinion
Justice Stones stated that even though he agreed with the results, he was unable to follow the path through which it was arrived at. Furthermore, it was not easy to determine the process through which the state would come up with laws that are inconsistent with those of the federal government.
