From Surf Wiki (app.surf) — the open knowledge base
Dames & Moore v. Regan
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Litigants | Dames & Moore v. Regan |
| ArgueDate | June 24 |
| ArgueYear | 1981 |
| DecideDate | July 2 |
| DecideYear | 1981 |
| FullName | Dames & Moore v. Donald T. Regan, Secretary of the Treasury, et al. |
| USVol | 453 |
| USPage | 654 |
| ParallelCitations | 101 S. Ct. 2972; 69 L. Ed. 2d 918 |
| Holding | Executive orders dissolving judgments and suspending pending civil claims against Iranian government were constitutional. |
| Majority | Rehnquist |
| JoinMajority | Burger, Brennan, Stewart, White, Marshall, Blackmun; Powell (all but n. 6); Stevens (all but Part V) |
| Concurrence | Stevens (in part) |
| Concurrence/Dissent | Powell |
| LawsApplied | IEEPA, |
| Concurrence/Dissent = Powell | JoinConcurrence/Dissent = Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654 (1981), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with President Jimmy Carter's Executive Order 12170, which froze Iranian assets in the United States on November 14, 1979, in response to the Iran hostage crisis, which began on November 4, 1979.
Background
After the inauguration of Ronald Reagan on January 20, 1981, the Reagan administration agreed with Iran to terminate legal proceedings in US courts involving claims by US nationals against Iran, to nullify attachments against Iranian property entered by US courts to secure any judgments against Iran, and to transfer such claims from US courts to a new arbitration tribunal. The agreements were implemented by executive orders.
Holding
In an 8–1 decision, the opinion of the court was delivered by Justice William H. Rehnquist, which upheld the actions by the Carter administration and "dismissed a $3 million lawsuit from private firm Dames & Moore against Treasury Secretary Don Regan, filed to recover a debt incurred by the Shah of Iran's government." The Court found that the administration's actions were authorized by law by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Supreme Court also approved the suspension of claims already filed in US courts even though no specific statutory provision authorized that step. In so doing, the Court relied on inferences drawn from related legislation, a history of congressional acquiescence in executive claims settlement practices, and past decisions recognizing broad executive authority. The Court also "substantially refined the applicable test" of the seminal 1952 case of Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer and cemented Justice Robert H. Jackson's concurring opinion in that case as "canonical".
Rehnquist wrote the opinion in this "highly complex and historic case" in eight days.
Reaction
This decision has been criticized for taking "an exceptionally deferential view of executive power," particularly by relying on inferences from statutes that do not directly deal with certain subjects at hand and especially on legislative acquiescence in executive activity.
After Rehnquist's death, Justice John Paul Stevens cited Dames & Moore as one of his two favorite Rehnquist opinions, along with Leo Sheep Co. v. U.S.
References
References
- Wohlsetter, John (2011-03-02) [https://web.archive.org/web/20110304051834/http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=42074 Hostage Hell is a Civilized Country's Dilemma], ''[[Human Events]]''.
- [[Andrew C. McCarthy. McCarthy, Andrew]] (2010-02-04) [http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/print/229076 ‘Merely Organized to Convict’], ''[[National Review]]''.
- Griffin, Stephen (2008-10-10) [https://balkin.blogspot.com/2008/10/domestic-case-mysteries-of-youngstown.html A "Domestic" Case? Mysteries of Youngstown] {{Webarchive. link. (April 9, 2011 , ''[[Balkinization (blog)). Balkinization]]''.
- [[Lyle Denniston. Denniston, Lyle]] (2009-12-10) [http://www.scotusblog.com/2009/12/whr-enters-courts-pantheon/ WHR enters Court’s pantheon], ''[[SCOTUSblog]]''.
- [[Adam Liptak. Liptak, Adam]] and [[Todd Purdum
This article was imported from Wikipedia and is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Content has been adapted to SurfDoc format. Original contributors can be found on the article history page.
Ask Mako anything about Dames & Moore v. Regan — get instant answers, deeper analysis, and related topics.
Research with MakoFree with your Surf account
Create a free account to save articles, ask Mako questions, and organize your research.
Sign up freeThis content may have been generated or modified by AI. CloudSurf Software LLC is not responsible for the accuracy, completeness, or reliability of AI-generated content. Always verify important information from primary sources.
Report