United States v. Pink – Case Brief Summary
Summary of United States v. Pink, 315 U.S. 203, 62 S. Ct. 552, 86 L. Ed. 796 (1942).
Facts
The First Russian Insurance Co. established a branch in New York in 1907. In 1918 the Russian Government nationalized all insurance companies and discharged and all debts and the rights of shareholders in the companies.
The New York branch of First Russian Insurance continued to do business until 1925 when Pink, the Superintendent of Insurance of the State of New York, seized the bank’s assets pursuant to an order of the Supreme Court of New York. A balance of more than $1,000,000 remained after Pink paid all claims by domestic creditors and policyholders. The Court of Appeals directed that the remaining balance be used to pay the claims of foreign creditors first, and that any remaining assets be paid to the board of directors.
The United States (through President Roosevelt) entered into an agreement formally recognizing the Soviet Union as the de jure government of Russia in November 1933. The United States accepted the Litvinov Assignment from the Soviet Union in connection with this agreement. Among the claims included in the Litvinov Assignment were the assets of First Russian Insurance.
The United States brought this lawsuit in New York state court against Pink to recover the remaining assets of the New York branch of First Russian Insurance. The government in its complaint sought to be adjudged the sole and exclusive owner of the remaining assets.
The trial court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss and the appellate division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed and the Supreme Court of the United States granted cert.
Issue
- Do the actions of the President regarding foreign relations have supremacy over state law?
Holding and Rule (Douglass)
- Yes. The actions of the President regarding foreign relations have supremacy over state law.
The Constitution grants the authority to conduct foreign relations to the political branches of government. The exercise of that power is not subject to judicial inquiry. The recognition of a foreign sovereign state is binding on state and federal courts. It is retroactive and validates all actions and conduct of that foreign government from time of its existence.
The recognition of the USSR, the establishment of diplomatic relations, and the Litvinov Assignment were all part of a single transaction. The assignment and related agreements were an exercise of executive authority and did not require the advice and consent of the Senate.
Foreign relations powers of the United States have supremacy and are to be exercised without regard to state laws or policies. All international agreements and treaties are to be treated with the same dignity because the federal government has complete power over international affairs. That power cannot be subject to any curtailment or interference by the states.
While foreigners as well as United States citizens are entitled to protection by the Fifth Amendment, it does not bar the federal government from securing priority against foreign creditors for itself and its citizens. There is no Constitutional reason why the government may not make itself and its nationals whole before it permits the satisfaction of claims of aliens made elsewhere and not incurred in connection with business conducted within the United States.
In this case enforcement of New York policy would conflict with the will of the Federal Government. The right to these assets now belongs to the U.S. Government under the Litvinov Assignment. The government is entitled to the property as against the corporation and foreign creditors.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded.
See Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer for a constitutional law case brief addressing the issue of whether executive authority under the Constitution extends to the seizure of steel mills.