World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Crosby v. Nat’l Foreign Trade Council

Article Id: WHEBN0028100954
Reproduction Date:

Title: Crosby v. Nat’l Foreign Trade Council  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: Federal preemption
Collection:
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Publication
Date:
 

Crosby v. Nat’l Foreign Trade Council

Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 22, 2000
Decided June 19, 2000
Full case name Stephen P. Crosby, Secretary of Administration and Finance of Massachusetts, et al., Petitioners
v.
National Foreign Trade Council
Citations 530 more)
120 S. Ct. 2288
Holding
The state Act is preempted, and its application unconstitutional, under the Supremacy Clause.
Court membership
Case opinions
Majority Souter, joined by Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer
Concurrence Scalia, joined by Thomas

Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363 (2000),[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States used the preemption doctrine to strike down the Massachusetts Burma Law, a law that effectively prohibited Massachusetts' governmental agencies from buying goods and services from companies conducting business with Myanmar (Burma) — essentially, a secondary boycott. The Massachusetts Burma Law was modeled after similar legislation that had targeted the apartheid regime of South Africa.

The Court reasoned that the United States Congress had passed a law imposing sanctions on Myanmar, and that the Massachusetts law "undermine[d] the intended purpose and 'natural effect' of at least three provisions of the federal Act, that is, its delegation of effective discretion to the President to control economic sanctions against Burma, its limitation of sanctions solely to United States persons and new investment, and its directive to the President to proceed diplomatically in developing a comprehensive, multilateral strategy towards Burma."

See also

Further reading

External links

  • 530 U.S. 363 Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com.
  • Summary of case from OYEZ


This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and USA.gov, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for USA.gov and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
 
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
 
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.
 



Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from World Library are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.