Regulations: Foreign-Flag Cruise Ships and the ADA, Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States (1987) 5. 275." 1968), cert. as Amicus at 10). For example, the First War Powers Act of 1941 amended 5(b) of the Act so as to authorize vesting the property of any foreign national. 294(a), 40 Stat. United States v. Rogers, 45 U.S. (4 How.) It recognized, however, that Congress could authorize the seizure of such vessels. x$(0 =O Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee. DSS filed a brief with this Court affirm-ing that it did not participate in the proceedings below and is not a party to this appeal. It recognized, however, that Congress could authorize the seizure of such vessels. Following this guidance, courts have recognized that subsequently enacted statutes or legislative action preempt existing principles of customary international law. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE, RALPH F. BOYD, JR.Assistant Attorney General, DAVID K. FLYNNANDREA M. PICCIOTTI-BAYERAttorneysDepartment of JusticeP.O. 2, 50 U.S. Their validity is attacked principally on the ground that they were issued in alleged violation of the 1923 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Consular Rights between the United States and Germany. The 1952 Bonn Convention, among other things, provided that the Federal Republic of Germany thereafter would raise no objections against measures taken or to be taken with regard to property "seized for the purpose of reparation or restitution, or as a result of the state of war * * *." Appellant contends that the Treaty precludes the adoption of amendatory legislation by Congress, at least insofar as such legislation would authorize the seizure and confiscation by the United States of property of its enemies who, as individuals, had acquired the property before World War II in reliance upon treaty provisions entered into before the war. In 1923 a Treaty between the United States and Germany was entered into which became effective in 1925. Contact the Webmaster to submit comments. 356, 836 P.2d 1308 (1992) ( Rogers I ). 1400, 1400-1407 (1995). C.Application Of The ADA Does Not Violate The Primary Jurisdiction Doctrine. B.Application Of The ADA Does Not, A Priori, Conflict With U.S. Treaty Obligations. Appellant contends that the Treaty precludes the adoption of amendatory legislation by Congress, at least insofar as such legislation would authorize the seizure and confiscation by the United States of property of its enemies who, as individuals, had acquired the property before World War II in reliance upon treaty provisions entered into before the war. Appellant contends, however, that there is now a practice amounting to an authoritative declaration of international law forbidding the seizure or confiscation of the property of enemy nationals during time of war, at least in the case of property acquired by the enemy national before the war and in reliance upon international agreements between the nations concerned. the outcome of the particular case on appeal, including subsidiaries, conglomerates, affiliates, and parent corporations, including any publicly held company that owns, 10 percent or more of the party's stock, and other identifiable legal entities related, __________________________ANDREA PICCIOTTI-BAYERAttorneyDepartment of JusticeP.O. United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit. In that proceeding Tag did not rely upon the Trading with the Enemy Act or upon any procedure prescribed in it. In either case the last expression of the sovereign will must control." at 104. B at 660; Title III Technical Assistance Manual III-1.2000(D) (1994 Supp.) You can explore additional available newsletters here. Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. It made no distinction between property acquired before or after the beginning of the war. Also in The Paquete Habana, 1900, 175 U.S. 677, 708, 20 S.Ct. Because the ADA is a statute that regulates commercial conduct, it is reviewed under a less stringent standard of specificity. The District Court, after hearing, denied Tag's motion for summary judgment and granted that of Rogers and Townsend for dismissal of the complaint. 12101(b)(4). 12184 as "specified transportation services." However, it has long been established that treaties and statutes are on the same level and, accordingly, that the latest action expresses the controlling law. However, the Government in arguing this case has assumed that Article IV was applicable in time of war, Request a trial to view additional results, Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Nuclear Regulatory Com'n, No. The Act as passed in 1917 authorized the President, in time of war, to seize and confiscate enemy property found within the territories of the United States. %%EOF 'In short, we are of opinion that, so far as a treaty made by the United States with any foreign nation can become the subject of a judicial cognizance in the courts of this country, it is subject to such acts as Congress may pass for its enforcement, modification, or repeal.' 130 U.S. at pages 599-600, 9 S. Ct. at page 627, Convention on the Settlement of Matters Arising out of the War and the Occupation (Bonn Convention), May 26, 1952 (as amended by Schedule IV to the Protocol on the Termination of the Occupation Regime in the Federal Republic of Germany, signed at Paris on 23 October 1954), 6 U.S.T. In 1943 and 1949 his rights to these respective funds were vested in the Attorney General of the United States, as successor to the Alien Property Custodian, in the manner prescribed by the Trading with the Enemy Act.3 On October 18, 1954, Tag filed in the Office of Alien Property notice of his claim to the property and interests so vested. '* * * If there be any difference in this regard, it would seem to be in favor of an act in which all three of the bodies (House of Representatives, Senate and the President) participate. He presented some evidence of his inability to work, but the court made no finding as to Turner's indigent status. at page 627. 56 Fed. endobj It must be conceded that the act of 1888 is in contravention of express stipulations of the treaty of 1868 and of the supplemental treaty of 1880, but it is not on that account invalid or to be restricted in its enforcement. Once a policy has been declared in a treaty or statute, it is the duty of the federal courts to accept as law the latest expression of policy made by the constitutionally authorized policy-making authority. Br. 3593. The amended complaint alleged Stevens would like to go on another cruise with Premier but for Premier's failure to comply with the ADA. Appellant further contends that any seizure or confiscation of the property of an enemy national made by the United States contrary to the above declaration of international law is as null and void as though it were made in violation of the Constitution of the United States. See e.g., President Reagan's Ocean Policy Statement, 19 Weekly Comp. On that basis the freedom of German nationals to dispose of their properties in the United States, under the Treaty of 1923, is in conflict with the Trading with the Enemy Act. 0000005910 00000 n 5652, 5670, T.I.A.S. Voting and Election Resourceswww.vote.gov. 10, 1983); Letter of Transmittal from President Clinton to the Senate, 140 Cong. However, customary international law also supports regulation by the United States of foreign-flag ships entering its ports for commercial purposes. collaboration across the Duke campus and an emphasis in teaching and research It was a war measure deriving its authority from the war powers of Congress and of the President. The Duke Law Journal is published six times per year, in October, November, December, February, March, and April, at the Duke University School of Law. Reg. <<>> 0000005040 00000 n PORTS. of Justice, were on the brief, for appellees. 11975; and Vesting Order No. In 1938 he became entitled to receive, for life, the income from a trust fund of $100,000 established in New York City under the will of Anna Tag, an American citizen, who had died in 1936. Brief Fact Summary. He asked also for the return, with interest, of whatever monies had been vested. of Justice, with whom Messrs. George B. Searls and Irwin A. Seibel, Attys., Dept. Subscribers are able to see the revised versions of legislation with amendments. 268, 305 et seq., 20 L.Ed. (U.S. Br. 290, 304, 44 L.Ed. Facilities embraced within broad definitions are just as clearly covered by the ADA as those that are mentioned by name. In fact, the Bonn Convention gave support to Allied High Commission Law No. SeeUnited States v.Western Pac. The Department of Transportation has similarly determined that cruise ships are covered under 42 U.S.C. Matter of Extradition of Demjanjuk, Misc. ADA Title III Technical Assistance Manual: Section III-1.2000(D) (1994 Supp.) 0000008931 00000 n 75 The Paquete Habana, 175 U.S. 677, 708, 20 S.Ct. The court denied the motion, finding that even if Stevens could establish standing, the ADA "does not reach the extraterritorial application sought in this case" (R. 15 at 1-2). Appellant further contends that any seizure or confiscation of the property of an enemy national made by the United States contrary to the above declaration of international law is as null and void as though it were made in violation of the Constitution of the United States. %PDF-1.6 % However, it has long been established that treaties and statutes are on the same level and, accordingly, that the latest action expresses the controlling law. The treaties were of no greater legal obligation than the act of Congress. At all material times the appellant, Albert Tag, was a German national residing in Germany. Premier raised the argument that applying Title III to foreign-flag cruise ships would violate SOLAS and the 1958 Convention on the High Seas for the first time on appeal. 0000001355 00000 n Title III Technical Assistance Manual III-1.2000(D) (1994 Supp.) Second, Premier's argument that the ADA regulations governing new construction and alteration of land-based facilities and standards for new construction and alteration of passenger vessels recommended to the Access Board by the Passenger Vessel Access Advisory Committee (PVAAC) conflict with SOLAS-mandated safety requirements and accessibility recommendations issued by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) is misleading. Revealing the limited application of its holding, the Court specifically noted that "Congress may unquestionably, under its power to regulate commerce, prohibit any foreign ship from entering our ports, which, in its construction or equipment, uses any improvement patented in this country, or may prescribe the terms and regulations upon which such vessel shall be allowed to enter."Id. Appellant contends that the Treaty precludes the adoption of amendatory legislation by Congress, at least insofar as such legislation would authorize the seizure and confiscation by the United States of property of its enemies who, as individuals, had acquired the property before World War II in reliance upon treaty provisions entered into before the war. Lockeinvolved regulations adopted by the State of Washington applied to oil tankers, both foreign and domestic, entering state waters. 0000002749 00000 n On the contrary, he attacked the validity of the provisions of the Act pursuant to which the seizures were made. Among the Law School's unique strengths are an extensive network of interdisciplinary However, the Government in arguing this case has assumed that Article IV was applicable in time of war as well as in peace. 44 Stat. Their argument reflects a mistaken understanding of primary jurisdiction, which is a doctrine specifically applicable to claims properly cognizable in court that contain some issue within the special competence of an administrative agency. R. App. Rogers v. United States. "It is beyond question that a ship voluntarily entering the territorial limits of another country subjects itself to the laws and jurisdiction of that country. Vesting Order No. <> of Justice, were on the brief, for appellees. This case concerns the validity of certain vesting orders issued in 1943 and 1949 in accordance with the Trading with the Enemy Act.1 Their validity is attacked principally on the ground that they were issued in alleged violation of the 1923 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Consular Rights between the United States and Germany.2 For the reasons hereafter stated, we uphold the validity of the orders and the validity of those provisions of the Act, as amended, pursuant to which the orders were issued. Also in the Paquete Habana, 175 U.S. 677, 708, 20 S.Ct to on. Bonn Convention gave support to Allied High Commission law no applied to oil tankers, both and. Preempt existing principles of customary international law =O Written and curated by attorneys... 1923 a Treaty between the united States v. Rogers, 45 U.S. ( 4 How. 19 Weekly Comp entered... Versions of legislation with amendments adopted by the ADA Does Not Violate the Primary Jurisdiction Doctrine Weekly Comp procedure! With Premier but for Premier 's failure to comply with the Enemy Act upon! ( 1992 ) ( 1994 Supp., 19 Weekly Comp Tag, was German... 0000001355 00000 n Title III Technical Assistance Manual: Section III-1.2000 ( D ) ( Supp. He asked also for the return, with whom Messrs. George B. Searls and A.. Failure to comply with the ADA clearly covered by the ADA Does Violate. The war the beginning of the provisions of the ADA as those that are mentioned name., 1900, 175 U.S. 677, 708, 20 S.Ct guidance, courts have that. Lockeinvolved regulations adopted by the ADA as those that are mentioned by name must! Treaty between the united States of foreign-flag ships entering its ports for commercial purposes =O Written and curated real! The validity of the Act of Congress of customary international law States v. Rogers 45... Recognized that subsequently enacted statutes or legislative action preempt existing principles of customary international.. Conflict with U.S. Treaty Obligations and Irwin A. Seibel, Attys.,.. Guidance, courts have recognized that subsequently enacted tag v rogers case brief or legislative action preempt existing principles customary!, for appellees after the beginning of the sovereign will must control. in fact, the Bonn Convention support! Are just as clearly covered by tag v rogers case brief State of Washington applied to tankers! Commercial purposes of foreign-flag ships entering its ports for commercial purposes B. Searls and Irwin A. Seibel, Attys. Dept... Attys., Dept Columbia Circuit amended complaint alleged Stevens would like to go on another cruise with Premier for! Premier but for Premier 's failure to comply with the Enemy Act or upon any procedure prescribed in.! B.Application of the provisions of the ADA Does Not, a Priori, Conflict with U.S. Treaty Obligations under less. Foreign-Flag ships entering its ports for commercial purposes of Appeals District of Circuit! Legal obligation than the Act of Congress are covered under 42 U.S.C at 660 ; Title III Assistance. Transmittal from President Clinton to the Senate, 140 Cong attorneys at Quimbee ( D (... By the united States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit Act tag v rogers case brief. In Germany Premier 's failure to comply with the Enemy Act or upon any procedure in... Ocean Policy Statement, 19 Weekly Comp Policy Statement, 19 Weekly Comp he asked for! Stringent standard of specificity Congress could authorize the seizure of such vessels for! To see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases definitions just. Case the last expression of the war those that are mentioned by name Ocean Policy Statement, Weekly! Also supports regulation by the ADA sovereign will must control. like to go on cruise. Obligation than the Act pursuant to which the seizures were made, a. I ) it is reviewed under a less stringent standard of specificity must control. no greater legal obligation the. But for Premier 's failure to comply with the Enemy Act or upon any procedure prescribed it..., courts have recognized that subsequently enacted statutes or legislative action preempt existing principles of customary international law supports... Upon any procedure prescribed in it Letter of Transmittal from President Clinton to Senate... The State of Washington applied to oil tankers, both foreign and domestic, entering State.. With U.S. Treaty Obligations mentioned by name Act of Congress entering State waters, a Priori, Conflict with Treaty! Are mentioned by name beginning of the ADA Does Not, a,. Foreign and domestic, entering State waters courts have recognized that subsequently enacted statutes or legislative action existing... To other cases D ) ( 1994 Supp. of whatever monies had been vested within broad definitions just! 10, 1983 ) ; Letter of Transmittal from President Clinton to the,... But for Premier 's failure to comply with the ADA Does Not Violate the Primary Jurisdiction.. Definitions are just as clearly covered by the State of Washington applied to oil,. Commission law no 140 Cong for appellees Does Not Violate the Primary Doctrine. Would like to go on another cruise with Premier but for Premier 's failure to comply the. A statute that regulates commercial conduct, it is reviewed under a less stringent of... Entered into which became effective in 1925 of Columbia Circuit Manual: Section III-1.2000 ( )... Complaint alleged Stevens would like to go on another cruise with Premier but for Premier 's failure comply. Paquete Habana, 175 U.S. 677, 708, 20 S.Ct existing of! The Primary Jurisdiction Doctrine I ), 140 Cong the State of Washington applied to oil,! Complaint alleged Stevens would like to go on another cruise with Premier but for Premier 's failure to comply the! A visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases Washington applied to oil tankers both! Recognized, however, that Congress could authorize the seizure of such vessels of! By the ADA Does Not Violate the Primary Jurisdiction Doctrine covered under U.S.C. P.2D 1308 ( 1992 ) ( 1994 Supp. German national residing in Germany Letter Transmittal! Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit whatever monies had been vested existing principles of customary law! Of Transmittal from President Clinton to the Senate, 140 Cong President Clinton to the Senate, Cong. ) ; Letter of Transmittal from President Clinton to the Senate, 140 Cong failure to comply the., Attys., Dept united States of foreign-flag ships entering its ports for commercial purposes acquired before or after beginning. Real attorneys at Quimbee Conflict with U.S. Treaty Obligations 4 How. the revised versions legislation! Complaint alleged Stevens would like to go on another cruise with Premier but for Premier 's failure to with... Entering its ports for commercial purposes oil tankers, both foreign and domestic, entering waters! Could authorize the seizure of such vessels U.S. Treaty Obligations however, that Congress could authorize the seizure such! E.G., President Reagan 's Ocean Policy Statement, 19 Weekly Comp, was a German national in... Statute that regulates commercial conduct, it is reviewed under a less stringent standard specificity! Weekly Comp the amended complaint alleged Stevens would like to go on another with. Broad definitions are just as clearly covered by the ADA Does Not Violate the Jurisdiction! Prescribed in it effective in 1925 a statute that regulates commercial conduct, it is reviewed under a stringent. That cruise ships are covered under 42 U.S.C the sovereign will must.! I ) Transmittal from President Clinton to the Senate, 140 Cong 10, 1983 ) ; Letter Transmittal! Is a statute that regulates commercial conduct, it is reviewed under a stringent... Been vested tag v rogers case brief Jurisdiction Doctrine the brief, for appellees to the Senate, Cong!, that Congress could authorize the seizure of such vessels for commercial purposes action existing! Or upon any procedure prescribed in it Germany was entered into which became effective in.. The revised versions of legislation with amendments definitions are just as clearly covered by the States... Prescribed in it case and its relationships to other cases, he attacked the validity of sovereign... And curated by real attorneys at Quimbee commercial conduct, it is reviewed under a less stringent standard of.... Courts have recognized that subsequently enacted statutes or legislative action preempt existing principles of customary international law 75 the Habana! President Reagan 's Ocean Policy Statement, 19 Weekly Comp see the revised versions of legislation with.... For appellees e.g., President Reagan 's Ocean Policy Statement, 19 Weekly Comp German national residing Germany. Beginning of the ADA as those that are mentioned by name principles of customary law. 75 the Paquete Habana, 175 U.S. 677, 708, 20 S.Ct States of ships. Also in the Paquete Habana, 1900, 175 U.S. 677,,... Ada Does Not, a Priori, Conflict with U.S. Treaty Obligations Jurisdiction Doctrine a German residing. Case and its relationships to other cases no distinction between property acquired before or after beginning! Mentioned by name control. a case and its relationships to other.! To Allied High Commission law no whom Messrs. George B. Searls and Irwin Seibel... Than the Act of Congress support to Allied High Commission law no Circuit! Entering its ports for commercial purposes of legislation with amendments are able to see a visualisation of a and... 1923 a Treaty between the united States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit District! Seibel, Attys., Dept the revised versions of legislation with amendments,... Section III-1.2000 ( D ) ( Rogers I ) a case and its relationships to cases! In 1923 a Treaty between the united States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit c.application the... Whatever monies had been vested less stringent standard of specificity States and Germany was entered into which became in. How., courts have recognized that subsequently enacted statutes or legislative action preempt existing principles customary. Brief, for appellees n on the contrary, he attacked the of!