United States v. Belmont
301 U.S. 324 (1937)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An executive agreement made by the President of the United States as part of the power to recognize foreign governments has the force of a treaty and supersedes any conflicting state laws or policies under the U.S. Constitution.
Facts:
- Prior to 1918, a Russian corporation named Petrograd Metal Works deposited a sum of money with August Belmont, a private banker in New York City.
- In 1918, the Soviet Government enacted a decree nationalizing all property of certain Russian corporations, including Petrograd Metal Works, and thereby appropriated its assets, including the bank deposit with Belmont.
- On November 16, 1933, the President of the United States formally recognized the Soviet Government.
- Contemporaneously with this recognition, the Soviet Government assigned its claims against American nationals to the United States government via an executive agreement known as the Litvinov Assignment.
- This assignment included the claim to the funds that Petrograd Metal Works had deposited with Belmont.
- The United States demanded the funds from Belmont's executors, who refused to pay.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States brought an action at law against the executors of August Belmont's will in a federal district court.
- The federal district court granted the respondents' motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.
- The United States, as petitioner, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
- The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the district court.
- The United States successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state's public policy against recognizing property transfers based on foreign confiscation decrees prevail over an international executive agreement made by the President as part of recognizing a foreign government?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Sutherland
No. No state policy can prevail against the international compact here involved. The conduct of foreign relations is a power vested exclusively in the national government, and the President acts as the 'sole organ' of the nation in this capacity. While this international compact was not a treaty requiring Senate ratification, it is nonetheless a supreme federal law that overrides any conflicting state policy. The President's recognition of the Soviet Government was retroactive, validating all of that government's acts from its inception, including the 1918 nationalization decree. Therefore, the Soviet government had valid title to the funds, which it then validly assigned to the United States, and New York's public policy cannot interfere with the federal government's right to collect on this claim.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Stone
No. While I agree with the result, the majority's reasoning is unnecessarily broad. This case does not require a decision on whether federal power overrides state policy because New York has no applicable policy that would prevent this transfer. A state may refuse to give effect to a foreign transfer that conflicts with its public policy, especially to protect local creditors. However, the respondents (Belmont's executors) are merely debtors, not creditors with a competing claim to the funds. As custodians of the debt, they have no standing to challenge the assignment's validity by invoking a state public policy designed to protect others. The United States, as assignee, stands in the same position as its assignor, and since the debtor may not challenge the assignment, the judgment should be reversed without foreclosing the rights of any actual creditors to assert their claims under New York law.
Analysis:
This landmark decision firmly establishes the legal authority of executive agreements, placing them on par with treaties in their ability to preempt state law. By cementing the President's role as the 'sole organ' in foreign affairs, the case significantly strengthened executive power in international relations. The ruling ensures that the federal government can speak with one voice on the world stage, preventing individual states from creating a patchwork of foreign policies that could undermine national diplomacy. The case remains a cornerstone of U.S. foreign relations law, frequently cited for the principle that federal authority over external affairs is exclusive and paramount.
