United States v. Pink
315 U.S. 203 (1942)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An international compact or executive agreement, such as the Litvinov Assignment, has a status superior to conflicting state law. State laws and policies must yield to the federal government's exclusive power in the field of international relations, as expressed through such agreements.
Facts:
- In 1907, the First Russian Insurance Co., a Russian corporation, established a branch in New York.
- As required by New York law, the company deposited assets with the state's Superintendent of Insurance to secure payment for claims arising from its U.S. business.
- In 1918 and 1919, the Russian Soviet government issued decrees nationalizing all insurance companies and confiscating their property, wherever located, including the assets of First Russian Insurance Co.
- The company's New York branch continued operating until 1925, when the Superintendent of Insurance took control of its assets for liquidation.
- After all domestic policyholders and creditors were paid, a surplus of over $1,000,000 remained.
- In 1931, the New York Court of Appeals ordered the Superintendent to distribute this surplus to foreign creditors and then to the corporation's directors.
- On November 16, 1933, the United States formally recognized the Soviet government.
- Contemporaneously with recognition, the Soviet government assigned its claims against American nationals to the United States via the 'Litvinov Assignment,' which included the nationalized assets of Russian companies located in the U.S.
Procedural Posture:
- In 1925, the New York Superintendent of Insurance initiated a liquidation proceeding for the First Russian Insurance Co. in the Supreme Court of New York, a state trial court.
- The New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, directed the distribution of surplus assets to foreign creditors.
- Following the Litvinov Assignment, the United States sued in federal court, but the U.S. Supreme Court directed the U.S. to pursue its claim in the state court proceeding.
- The United States then filed the current action in the Supreme Court of New York to recover the surplus funds.
- The New York trial court granted summary judgment for the Superintendent of Insurance (Pink) and dismissed the United States' complaint.
- The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, an intermediate appellate court, affirmed the dismissal.
- The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the lower courts' decisions, holding that its prior decision in a similar case (Moscow Fire Ins. Co.) was controlling.
- The United States petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
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 New York state law and public policy, which refuses to give extraterritorial effect to Soviet nationalization decrees, unconstitutionally infringe upon the federal government's exclusive power over foreign affairs when it conflicts with an executive agreement like the Litvinov Assignment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Douglas
Yes. New York's policy of refusing to enforce the Soviet nationalization decrees for assets in New York unconstitutionally interferes with federal power over foreign affairs because the Litvinov Assignment, as an international compact, is part of the supreme law of the land and overrides conflicting state law and policy. The President possesses the exclusive power to conduct foreign relations, and this power includes entering into executive agreements like the Litvinov Assignment as part of recognizing a foreign government. Such agreements have a similar dignity to a treaty and, under the Supremacy Clause, preempt any state law or policy that would interfere with their enforcement. New York's refusal to recognize the Soviet decrees collides with the federal policy of resolving claims and removing friction with the Soviet Union, an objective the Litvinov Assignment was designed to achieve. In matters of foreign policy, the nation must speak with a single voice, and state policies that create conflicting positions cannot be allowed to stand.
Dissenting - Chief Justice Stone
No. New York's policy does not unconstitutionally interfere with federal power, as the executive agreement does not automatically override the state's traditional authority to determine rights to property within its jurisdiction. The majority relies on non-binding dicta from United States v. Belmont, which explicitly reserved the question of adverse third-party claims. States have the constitutional authority to apply their own rules of law to property within their borders, and the refusal to give effect to foreign confiscatory decrees is a matter of comity, not a federal question. There is nothing in the text of the Litvinov Assignment or its surrounding diplomatic context to suggest an intent to override local law; the United States, as an assignee, should not acquire greater rights than its assignor, which would have had to collect its claim in conformity with local law. By elevating this executive agreement above state law without clear intent, the Court is improperly creating foreign policy rather than interpreting it.
Analysis:
This case significantly solidifies the President's authority in foreign affairs by establishing that executive agreements have the force of supreme federal law, capable of preempting contrary state law. The decision confirms the principle from United States v. Belmont and broadens its application, effectively placing executive agreements on par with treaties for purposes of the Supremacy Clause. This holding reinforces the concept that in matters of international relations, the federal government acts as a single entity, and states cannot maintain separate policies that might frustrate or interfere with national foreign policy objectives. The case remains a cornerstone of U.S. foreign relations law, underpinning the broad scope of presidential power to make international commitments without Senate ratification.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Pink