See 56 Fed. The facts are not in controversy. 735, "Guidelines for the Design and Operation of New Passenger Ships to Respond to Elderly and Disabled Persons' Needs" 14, Jaffe,Primary Jurisdiction,77 Harv. 294(a), 40 Stat. of Justice, with whom Messrs. George B. Searls and Irwin A. Seibel, Attys., Dept. Request Permissions, Published By: Duke University School of Law. He also became entitled to receive certain funds deposited to his credit in a checking account in a New York bank. Albert Karl TAG, Appellant, v. William P. ROGERS, Attorney General, and Dallas S. Townsend, Assistant Attorney General, Appellees. See e.g., President Reagan's Ocean Policy Statement, 19 Weekly Comp. Premier also asserts that the ADA should not apply to foreign-flag ships because of the possibility that flag States might develop accessibility standards for ships under their flag (Premier's Supp. It recognized in Article IV,9 in general terms, the right of nationals of the respective contracting parties freely to dispose of personal property within the territories of the other party. 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 * * *. It provided that the heirs, legatees or donees, without regard to their nationality, were entitled to succeed to such property and to retain or dispose of it subject only to such duties as would be theirs were they nationals of the contracting party within whose territories such property might lie. Albert Karl TAG, Appellant,v.William P. ROGERS, Attorney General, and Dallas S. Townsend,Assistant Attorney General, Appellees. at the national and international levels in efforts to improve the law and legal Get Rogers v. Miles Laboratories, Inc., 802 P.2d 1346 (1991), Washington Supreme Court, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. 1, 5, 71 L.Ed. '* * * 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. . <>stream
0000008466 00000 n
Title III Technical Assistance Manual III-1.2000(D) (1994 Supp.) 1980) (courts "obligated to give effect to an unambiguous exercise by Congress of its jurisdiction to prescribe even if such an exercise would exceed the limitations imposed by international law").As such, even if this Court were to hold that application of the ADA to a foreign-flag cruise ship accepting passengers at U.S. ports presentsas perseconflict with customary international law, the ADA preempts any conflicting customary international law principles. <> Such legislation will be open to future repeal or amendment. Petition for Rehearing En Banc Denied June 12, 1959. Box 66078Washington, DC 20035-6078(202) 514-6441, CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES & CORPORATEDISCLOSURE STATEMENT. Their country was divided and parceled out as . 64, 5 September 1951, 1107-1110, Chapter 6, Article 5, of the Bonn Convention, 7 U.S.T.1839, 1919, 1928, T.I.A.S. The objection that the act is in conflict with the treaties was earnestly pressed in the court below, and the answer to it constitutes the principal part of its opinion. 296, 27 L.Ed. SeeBotosan v. Paul McNally Realty, 216 F.3d 827, 836-837 (9thCir. In his initial appeal, we affirmed his convictions but reversed his death sentences and remanded for resentencing. Finally, in 1958, Tag instituted a suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against Attorney General Rogers and Assistant Attorney General Townsend, the appellees here. Such guidance as to examples of what may constitute appropriate steps to remove barriers can hardly be considered vague. 10837, amended August 20, 1943, 8 Fed.Reg. 165, '* * * Congress was untrammeled and free to authorize the seizure, use or appropriation of such properties without any compensation to the owners. Rogers v. United States. In the light of the foregoing, appellant can invoke neither international law nor the 1923 Treaty with Germany to support his claim and the judgment of the District Court is, Sitting by designation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 94 30 It made no distinction between property acquired before or after the beginning of the war. legal profession. 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. Co., 352 U.S. 59 16, Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489 (1982) 18, 19 Weekly Comp. He also became entitled to receive certain funds deposited to his credit in a checking account in a New York bank. v.
If Congress adopts a policy that conflicts with the Constitution of the United States, Congress is then acting beyond its authority and the courts must declare the resulting statute to be null and void. 10837, amended August 20, 1943, 8 Fed.Reg. At all material times the appellant, Albert Tag, was a German national residing in Germany. Moreover, the time within which to seek a review of the Director's dismissal of Tag's claim had expired before Tag filed either a claim or a suit to recover the property. at 103. <]/Prev 140973>> In 1938 he became entitled to receive, for life, the income from a trust fund of $100,000 established in New York City under the will of Anna Tag, an American citizen, who had died in 1936. See 42 U.S.C. Petition for Rehearing Denied June 12, 1959. Br. Rec. However, the Government in arguing this case has assumed that Article IV was applicable in time of war as well as in peace. We had supposed that the question here raised was set at rest in this court by the decision in the case of The Cherokee Tobacco, 11 Wall. On the contrary, he attacked the validity of the provisions of the Act pursuant to which the seizures were made. hb```c``` |,@fgA(b~2S)8o^jHA]vNfd6@cJ,Q3j9T:$D2I0i"U$@ g?p(0!tV5m`4ae``
sf(n> hA0C kCcaF> 9
6B
>HJDc@6@)J"H VXz Ports are considered part of a State's internal waters. The Supreme Court, inThe Paquete Habana, 175 U.S. 677 (1900), recognized the importance of customaryinternational law in a case brought by the owner of fishing vessels captured and condemned as prize during the Spanish-American War. Subscribers can access the reported version of this case. 13730, dated August 25, 1949, 14 Fed.Reg. It recognized in Article IV, in general terms, the right of nationals of the respective contracting parties freely to dispose of personal property within the territories of the other party. 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. United States Court of Appeals,District of Columbia Circuit. 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. . DSS Opp. Here the objection made is, that the act of 1888 impairs a right vested under the treaty of 1880, as a law of the United States, and the statutes of 1882 and of 1884 passed in execution of it. Pres. 7. Albert Karl TAG, Appellant, v. William P. ROGERS, Attorney General, and Dallas S. Townsend, Assistant Attorney General, Appellees. The issue is thus presented whether subsequent Acts of Congress shall be recognized in our federal courts rather than earlier conflicting provisions of a treaty. 4. In either case the last expression of the sovereign will must control." These statements point the way to the answer in the present case. That the ADA does not explicitly mention its application to foreign-flag cruise ships is of no consequence. International House of Pancakes Franchisee,844 F. Supp. at page 302. It did not provide for the reimbursement of enemy owners for their property when thus confiscated. 227). endobj A treaty may supersede a prior act of Congress, and an act of Congress may supersede a prior treaty." 42 U.S.C. This results from the nature and fundamental principles of our government. 565, 572 (1998). 36 Fed. "Once a policy has been declared in a treaty or statute, it is the duty of the federal courts to accept as, " Ex parte Green, 123 F.2d 862, 863-864 (2d Cir. In the light of the foregoing, appellant can invoke neither international law nor the 1923 Treaty with Germany to support his claim and the judgment of the District Court is, Sitting by designation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. See especially: "Article IV. 6th Circuit. 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. The Treaty did not state whether such freedom would be effective in time of war between the contracting parties. Boca Raton, Florida 33433-3455Miami, Florida 33131. Because Stevens' claim of being charged a discriminatory fare is not affected by any analysis of the effect of international law on the application of the ADA to foreign-flag cruise ships, there is no basis for this Court to reverse its earlier decision to vacate the district court's dismissal of Stevens' complaint. A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States. 44 Stat. *United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 21 I.L.M. By the Constitution, laws made in pursuance thereof and treaties made under the authority of the United States are both declared to be the supreme law of the land, and no paramount authority is given to one over the other. Regulations: Foreign-Flag Cruise Ships and the ADA, Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States (1987) 5. 10837, amended August 20, 1943, 8 Fed.Reg. 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. C). 116, 70 L.Ed. 40 Stat. L. & Com. Ports. 40 Stat. L. & Com. 1870, dated July 21, 1943, 8 Fed.Reg. Pursuant to this Court's Order, dated June 14, 2001, the United States submits this brief, as amicus curiae, concerning (1) whether customary international law establishes that the flag state of a vessel has the responsibility for regulating and implementing any changes to the physical aspects of a vessel and (2) whether application of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to foreign-flag cruise ships would conflict with that law. There is no power in this Court to declare null and void a statute adopted by Congress or a declaration included in a treaty merely on the ground that such provision violates a principle of international law. You're all set! R.R. (1)Stevens alleged that Premier violated the ADA by charging her a higher fare for an accessiblecabin and by failing to remove architectural barriers to accessibility. As noted in the United States' Reply Brief to this Court,application of these treaties was not properly before the panel and that this issue should be initially assessed by the district court (U.S. 2. Further, any differences between guidelines for new construction and alteration of passenger vessels that may be adopted in the future and the IMO accessibility guidelines for passenger vessels do not constitute a conflict between application of the ADA and SOLAS. In that proceeding Tag did not rely upon the Trading with the Enemy Act or upon any procedure prescribed in it. 123 0 obj There is no power in this Court to declare null and void a statute adopted by Congress or a declaration included in a treaty merely on the ground that such provision violates a principle of international law. Official websites use .gov Miss Marbeth A. Miller, Atty., Dept. In addition, the ADA's statement of purpose states that it intends "to invoke the sweep of congressional authority, including the power * * * to regulate commerce." 0 18, 21 I.L.M. At all material times the appellant, Albert Tag, was a German national residing in Germany. 'Nationals of either High Contracting Party may have full power to dispose of their personal property of every kind within the territories of the other, by testament, donation, or otherwise, and their heirs, legatees and donees, of whatsoever nationality, whether resident or non-resident, shall succeed to such personal property, and may take possession thereof, either by themselves or by others acting for them, and retain or dispose of the same at their pleasure subject to the payment of such duties or charges only as the nationals of the High Contracting Party within whose territories such property may be or belong shall be liable to pay in like cases.' 504; Miller v. United States, 11 Wall. William P. ROGERS, Attorney General, and Dallas S. Townsend, Assistant Attorney General, Appellees. <> Amendments emphasize the Government's right of seizure and confiscation. Argued November 7, 1950. 356, 836 P.2d 1308 (1992) ( Rogers I ). 0000001582 00000 n
Brown v. United States, 8 Cranch 110, 122, 3 L.Ed. >. Rogers, 45 U.S. 4 How. 504; Miller v. United States, 11 Wall. "The validity of this act [the Chinese Exclusion Act of October 1, 1888, 25 Stat. 96 0 obj Markham v. Cabell, 1945, 326 U.S. 404, 413 et seq., 66 S.Ct. Under subpoena, petitioner appeared before a federal grand jury and testified without objection that she had been Treasurer of the Communist Party of Denver, had been in possession of its records, and had turned them over to another . B.Application Of The ADA Does Not, A Priori, Conflict With U.S. Treaty Obligations. at page 627. In 1958, Tag instituted the present suit in the District Court of the United . 1400, 1400-1407 (1995). In 1923 a Treaty between the United States and Germany was entered into which became effective in 1925. 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. Vesting Order No. of Justice, were on the brief, for appellees. 0000002749 00000 n
11975; and Vesting Order No. There is no constitutional prohibition against confiscation of enemy properties. Whatever force appellant's argument might have in a situation where there is no applicable treaty, statute, or constitutional provision, it has long been settled in the United States that the federal courts are bound to recognize any one of these three sources of law as superior to canons of international law.8 The latter is the situation here and the only arguable issue is whether the provisions enacted in the Treaty of 1923, or the provisions contained in the Trading with the Enemy Act, as subsequently amended, shall be recognized by the courts. V), 33, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, 33, Markham v. Cabell, 1945, 326 U.S. 404, 413 et seq., 66 S.Ct. There is a further material consideration. 44 Stat. Rogers v. Richmond - Case Briefs - 1960 Rogers v. Richmond PETITIONER:Rogers RESPONDENT:Richmond LOCATION:Circuit Court of Montgomery County DOCKET NO. 0000002010 00000 n
This case concerns the validity of certain vesting orders issued in 1943 and 1949 in accordance with the Trading with the Enemy Act. V), 33, 50 U.S. C.A.Appendix, 33, Markham v. Cabell, 1945, 326 U.S. 404, 413 et seq., 66 S. Ct. 193, 90 L. Ed. (5)By contrast,UNCLOS respects the authority of States to regulate ships within its ports, as it defines innocent passage to exclude entering of ports or internal waters for commercial purposes. If the treaty operates by its own force, and relates to a subject within the power of Congress, it can be deemed in that particular only the equivalent of a legislative act, to be repealed or modified at the pleasure of Congress. (Emphasis supplied.) At all material times the appellant, Albert Tag, was a German national residing in Germany. Before Mr. Justice . The Treaty did not state whether such freedom would be effective in time of war between the contracting parties. The ADA's regulations give 21 examples of steps facilities can take to remove barriers. 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. express this 21stday of September to the following counsel of record: Thomas R. Julin Kenneth ColemanD. The treaties were of no greater legal obligation than the act of Congress. SeeCommittee of United States Citizens Living In Nicar. 64, 5 September 1951, 1107-1110. Box 66078Washington, D.C. 20035-6078(202) 514-6441, I. Premier erroneously cites Brown v. Duchesne, 60 U.S. 183 (1856), for the proposition that Congress lacks authority to enact legislation that would regulate the physical structure of a foreign-flag ship (Premier's Supp. 6. The Appellants, Rogers and seven other black citizens from Burke County, Georgia (Appellants) challenged the constitutionality of an at-large voting scheme that violated the United States Constitution (Constitution) despite the scheme's racial neutrality. Committee of U.S. Citizens Living in Nicaragua v. Reagan, No. 2132. The treaties were of no greater legal obligation than the act of Congress. The doctrine requires the court to enable a "referral" to the agency, staying further proceedings so as to give the parties reasonable opportunity to seek an administrative ruling. 5652, 5670, T.I.A.S. The IMO, an organization established by the United Nations which sponsors the SOLAS conferences, has adopted accessibility guidelines related to the design and operation of new passenger ships. United States v. Rogers, 45 U.S. (4 How.) Reg. 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. 44 Stat. its academic programs and professional schools together have attained an international Also in The Paquete Habana, 1900, 175 U.S. 677, 708, 20 S.Ct. at 1243 n.8. C.Application Of The ADA Does Not Violate The Primary Jurisdiction Doctrine. 1261, 1273. 55 Stat. He also became entitled to receive certain funds deposited to his credit in a checking account in a New York bank. United States v. Chemical Foundation, Inc., 1926, 272 U.S. 1, 11, 47 S. Ct. 1, 5, 71 L. Ed. 411, 50 U.S.C.App. 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. He asked also for the return, with interest, of whatever monies had been vested. At all material times the appellant, Albert Tag, was a German national residing in Germany. 604; White v. Mechanics Securities Corp., 269 U.S. 283, 300, 46 S.Ct. "There are, however, important mid-twentieth century cases, notably Cook v. United States, 288 U.S. 102 (1933), and Bill Co. v. United States, 104 F.2d 67 (1939), which considerably . 97 0 obj Although Duke University is young by comparison to other major American universities, When, however, a constitutional agency adopts a policy contrary to a trend in international law or to a treaty or prior statute, the courts must accept the latest act of that agency. See IMO Maritime Safety Committee Cir. (4)In the former category, UNCLOS provides that "coastal State[s] may [not] adopt laws and regulations * * * relating to innocent passage" that apply "to the design, construction, manning or equipment of foreign ships unless they are giving effect to generally accepted international rules or standards."