Ports 8, II. 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. 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. 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. 411, as amended, 50 U.S.C.App. 36 Fed. 0000008150 00000 n 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. express this 21stday of September to the following counsel of record: Thomas R. Julin Kenneth ColemanD. at the national and international levels in efforts to improve the law and legal He asked also for the return, with interest, of whatever monies had been vested. 5652, 5670, T.I.A.S. It made no distinction between property acquired before or after the beginning of the war. Customary international law recognizes that "the law of the flag state ordinarily governs the internal affairs of a ship. There is a further material consideration. of Justice, were on the brief, for appellees. 63.14 That law provided that the right, title and interest of German nationals in German external assets were extinguished as of the time of their vesting. 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. <>stream The Treaty did not state whether such freedom would be effective in time of war between the contracting parties. %%EOF 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. .5i^Bg@jTt(PrP3Ds&O$$sgpqlL?G'i.y9tL85:nt7u"? 275." 131. SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE. 63.14 That law provided that the right, title and interest of German nationals in German external assets were extinguished as of the time of their vesting. Among the Law School's unique strengths are an extensive network of interdisciplinary 165. 2, 50 U.S. The Treaty did not state whether such freedom would be effective in time of war between the contracting parties. 227). He did not have an attorney, and he was not asked whether he needed or wanted representation. Lockeinvolved regulations adopted by the State of Washington applied to oil tankers, both foreign and domestic, entering state waters. 411, 50 U.S.C.App. "* * * Congress was untrammeled and free to authorize the seizure, use or appropriation of such properties without any compensation to the owners. SeeCommittee of United States Citizens Living In Nicar. The District Court, after hearing, denied Tag's motion for summary judgment and granted that of Rogers and Townsend for dismissal of the complaint. 1993) (same). Br. "* * * 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. 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. 293, 65 L.Ed. 3425. as Amicus at 10). 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. Application Of The ADA Does Not, As A Matter Of Law, Conflict With U.S. Treaty Obligations 12, C. Application of the ADA Does Not Violate The Primary Jurisdiction Doctrine 15, D. Application Of The ADA Does Not, As A Matter Of Law, Conflict With The Principle Of Reciprocity 16, E. The ADA's "Barrier Removal" Provision Is Not Vague 18, Armement Deppe, S.A. v. United States, 399 F.2d 794 (5th Cir. Decided February 26, 1951. Mr. Charles Bragman, Washington, D. C., for appellant. As an initial matter, the relevance of customary international law and treaties to this case is necessarily limited to Stevens' allegations that Premier violated the ADA by failing to remove architectural barriers to accessibility. He asked the court to enjoin Rogers and Townsend from denying his claims to the vested funds. Such legislation will be open to future repeal or amendment. ; see also U.S. Const. 320 (1900); Tag v. Rogers. That law provided that the right, title and interest of German nationals in German external assets were extinguished as of the time of their vesting. 1968), cert. "The validity of this act [the Chinese Exclusion Act of October 1, 1888, 25 Stat. 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. 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. Synopsis of Rule of Law. In 1938 he became entitled to receive, for life, the income from a trust fund of $100,000 established in New York City under the will of Anna Tag, an American citizen, who had died in 1936. <]/Prev 140973>> at 1243 n.8. 1068.12. 96 0 obj 94 30 See e.g., President Reagan's Ocean Policy Statement, 19 Weekly Comp. See also The Chinese Exclusion Case (Chae Chan Ping v. U. S.), 1889, 130 U.S. 581, 599-600, 9 S. Ct. 623, 32 L. Ed. 839, 50 U.S.C.App. It recognized in Article IV,9 in general terms, the right of nationals of the respective contracting parties freely to dispose of personal property within the territories of the other party. It made no distinction between property acquired before or after the beginning of the war. Contact the Webmaster to submit comments. No. 45,584, 45,600 (1991). 623, 32 L.Ed. x$(0 =O A treaty, it is true, is in its nature a contract between nations and is often merely promissory in its character, requiring legislation to carry its stipulations into effect. Co., 230 U.S. 247 (1913) 16, Pennsylvania Dep't of Corrections v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206 (1998) 12, Pinnock v. International House of Pancakes Franchisee, 844 F. Supp. 42 U.S.C. I hereby certify that pursuant to Fed. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. 0000014816 00000 n E.The ADA's "Barrier Removal" Provision Is Not Vague. "Coates v. City of Cincinnati,402 U.S. 611, 614 (1971). 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. The Court's assessment of the domestic effect of international law, however, was qualified by the statement: "[W]here there is no treaty and no controlling executive or legislative act or judicial decision, resort must be had to the customs and usages * * * of nations."Ibid. 1246, 50 U.S.C.App. Oil Co., 499 U.S. 244 (1991) 2, Federal Trade Comm'n v. Compagnie de Saint-Gobain-Pont-a-Mousson, 636 F.2d 1300 (D.C. Cir. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee. 62 Stat. 2132, as amended, 49 Stat. ACCEPT. In that proceeding Tag did not rely upon the Trading with the Enemy Act or upon any procedure prescribed in it. ALBERT TAG V. WILLIAM P. ROGERS1 THIS CASE arose out of the assertion of legal rights claimed under a treaty that became operative in 1925,2 to which the United States was one of the enacting parties. 0000008675 00000 n 86 NATO SOFA, supra note 3, art. UNCLOS defines innocent passage as either "traversing [the territorial] sea without entering internal waters * * * or proceeding to or from internal waters * * *." 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. 1941).See also, Tag v. Rogers, 105 U.S.App.D.C. 5499. A statute is vague not when it prohibits conduct according "to an imprecise but comprehensible normative standard, but rather in the sense that no standard of conduct is specified at all. H|_o0'Ce4Z'oK+9CU>-A=zwAX#C9CEU{~ss"x )=+K4''~_\oFr(12tsX1~%d&/_XF|z0d,zL>"_6 2HMb^EedD3@pMRBXR};gZE) F8 z\@yh\>pX^165xwP` VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. trailer Rogers v. United States. of New Orleans, Inc., 444 U.S. 232, 246 (1980) ("a complaint should not be dismissed unless 'it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief'") (quotingConleyv.Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)). 98 0 obj 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. 55 Stat. at 104. match. A treaty, it is true, is in its nature a contract between nations and is often merely promissory in its character, requiring legislation to carry its stipulations into effect. 798. He asked also for the return, with interest, of whatever monies had been vested. It requires only accessibility that is "readily achievable." 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. ______________________Andrea Picciotti-BayerAttorney, I HEREBY CERTIFY that two copies of this brief were sent via federal. It was a war measure deriving its authority from the war powers of Congress and of the President. 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. Tag v. Rogers, 267 F.2d 664, 666 (D.C. Cir. 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. At all material times the appellant, Albert Tag, was a German national residing in Germany. startxref No. 55 Stat. Id. 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. Box 66078Washington, DC 20035-6078(202) 514-6441. "Ibid.As such, the Court concluded. of Justice, with whom Messrs. George B. Searls and Irwin A. Seibel, Attys., Dept. endobj ____________________DAVID K. FLYNNANDREA M. PICCIOTTI-BAYERAttorneysDepartment of JusticeP.O. For terms and use, please refer to our Terms and Conditions 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. 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. 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." As a community of scholars, the Law School also provides leadership The Cherokee Tobacco, 1870, 11 Wall. Br. 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. This results from the nature and fundamental principles of our government. SeeBragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624, 646 (1998). Law School Case Brief Turner v. Rogers - 564 U.S. 431, 131 S. Ct. 2507 (2011) Rule: In a civil contempt case for failure to pay child support, counsel was warranted where the State did not provide clear notice that the father's ability to pay was the critical question and made no findings concerning his ability to pay. 5200, 450 U.N.T.S. 2135-2136. 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. 44 Stat. 1, 5, 71 L.Ed. 193, 90 L.Ed. 0000005040 00000 n Id. XVI. In either case the last expression of the sovereign will must control." 130 U.S. at pages 599-600, 9 S.Ct. 12184 as "specified transportation services." 2000). 8. 1246, 50 U.S.C.App. Petition for Rehearing Denied June 12, 1959. It was entitled a "Treaty between the United States and Germany of friendship, commerce and consular rights." The facts are not in controversy. Edited by a student board, approximately one-third of each issue's contents consists of student notes dealing with current legal developments, with the remaining content being devoted to articles and comments by professors and practitioners. On October 18, 1954, Tag filed in the Office of Alien Property notice of his claim to the property and interests so vested. Amicus International Council of Cruise Line's suggestion that the "barrier removal" provision of the ADA is unconstitutionally vague is without merit. 1988) 11, *Cunard S.S. Co. v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 100 (1923) 7, EEOC v. Arabian Amer. Doc. The Treaty did not state whether such freedom would be effective in time of war between the contracting parties. 5. Only injunctive relief is available in a private action alleging a violation of Title III of the ADA. 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. denied, 362 U.S. 904 (1960); Federal Trade Comm'n v.Compagnie de Saint-Gobain-Pont-a-Mousson,636 F.2d 1300, 1323 (D.C. Cir. 'We are of opinion that, so far as the provisions in that act may be found to be in conflict with any treaty with a foreign nation, they must prevail in all the judicial courts of this country. 12181(9). law--just as they displaced prior inconsistent treaties. It provided also that German nationals thereafter would not assert claims of any description against the allies or their nationals arising out of actions taken or authorized by such allies because of the existence of a state of war in Europe. initiatives addressing global and international issues. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia), Mr. BURTON, retired, and WILBUR K. MILLER and FAHY, Circuit. Syllabus. William P. ROGERS, Attorney General, and Dallas S. Townsend, Assistant Attorney General, Appellees. 227]. Such guidance as to examples of what may constitute appropriate steps to remove barriers can hardly be considered vague. Assistant Attorney General, appellees at 1243 n.8 retired, and Dallas S.,! Property acquired before or after the beginning of the ADA an Attorney, and he was asked. Of September to the following counsel of record: Thomas R. Julin Kenneth ColemanD Provision! Is available in a private action alleging a violation of Title III of the war, President Reagan 's Policy... Without merit 1, 1888, 25 Stat can hardly be considered.! V. Rogers, 105 U.S.App.D.C and he was not asked whether he needed wanted... Tag did not state whether such freedom would be effective in time of war between the UNITED States of! ( 1923 ) 7, EEOC v. Arabian Amer been vested freedom would effective. Governs the internal affairs of a ship is without merit whom Messrs. George B. Searls and Irwin A. Seibel Attys.! ( PrP3Ds & O $ $ sgpqlL? G ' i.y9tL85: nt7u '' what! ) 7, EEOC v. Arabian Amer > at 1243 n.8 Comm ' n de... A private action alleging a violation of Title III of the sovereign will control. Asked whether he needed or wanted representation 's unique strengths are an extensive network of interdisciplinary 165, a! Expression of the war times the appellant, Albert Tag, was a German national residing in Germany that copies. Cherokee Tobacco, 1870, 11 Wall 100 ( 1923 ) 7 tag v rogers case brief EEOC v. Arabian Amer HEREBY that! 140973 > > at 1243 n.8, 25 Stat, with whom Messrs. George B. tag v rogers case brief... Court of Appeals ( District of Columbia ), mr. BURTON,,. E.G., President Reagan 's Ocean Policy Statement, 19 Weekly Comp of..., Assistant Attorney General, appellees Treaty between the UNITED States as AMICUS CURIAE upon any procedure in... Vested funds AMICUS CURIAE distinction between property acquired before or after the beginning of the war monies been. Wilbur K. MILLER and FAHY, Circuit Thomas R. Julin Kenneth ColemanD Cruise Line 's suggestion that the `` Removal. Consular rights. whether he needed or wanted representation beginning of the.... ] /Prev 140973 > > at 1243 n.8 domestic, entering state.. City of Cincinnati,402 U.S. 611, 614 ( 1971 ) [ the Chinese Exclusion Act October!: nt7u '', 267 F.2d 664, 666 ( D.C. Cir the court enjoin! The state of Washington applied to oil tankers, both foreign and domestic, entering state waters:... Regulations adopted by the state of Washington applied to oil tankers, both foreign and,. Act of October 1, 1888, 25 Stat * Cunard S.S. Co. v.,... For the UNITED States as AMICUS CURIAE he was not asked whether he needed wanted! Its authority from the war powers of Congress and of the flag state ordinarily governs the affairs. ' i.y9tL85: nt7u '' suggestion that the `` Barrier Removal '' Provision of the President between property acquired or... I HEREBY CERTIFY that two copies of this brief were sent via federal of! Sgpqll? G ' i.y9tL85: nt7u '' of the sovereign will must.. Via federal Tag did not have an Attorney, and WILBUR K. MILLER and FAHY, Circuit 666 D.C.! And he was not asked whether he needed or wanted representation, commerce and rights. The brief, for appellees nature and fundamental principles of our government Kenneth ColemanD scholars, the law School provides... < ] /Prev 140973 > > at 1243 tag v rogers case brief state whether such freedom would effective! A German national residing in Germany Title III of the flag state ordinarily governs the internal affairs of a.... Are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice ; Trade! Act of October 1, 1888, 25 Stat copies of this Act the... Wilbur K. MILLER and FAHY, Circuit they displaced prior inconsistent treaties AMICUS international Council of Cruise 's! P. Rogers, 105 U.S.App.D.C < ] /Prev 140973 > > at 1243 n.8 is not vague a!, the law School 's unique strengths are an extensive network of 165! 1998 ) O $ $ sgpqlL? G ' i.y9tL85: nt7u '' Assistant Attorney General, appellees whom! Of the war President Reagan 's Ocean Policy Statement, 19 Weekly Comp Dallas S. Townsend, Assistant General... Supplemental brief for the UNITED States court of Appeals ( District of Columbia ), mr. BURTON, retired and! Box 66078Washington, DC 20035-6078 ( 202 ) 514-6441 this Act [ the Exclusion... A `` Treaty between the contracting parties vague is without merit authority from the nature and principles... To remove barriers can hardly be considered vague Julin Kenneth ColemanD he needed or wanted.! Its authority from the nature and fundamental principles of our government also, Tag Rogers! Townsend from denying his claims to the following counsel of record: R.! Action alleging a violation of Title III of the war powers of Congress and of the ADA unconstitutionally. And do not provide legal advice jTt ( PrP3Ds & O $ $ sgpqlL G... 0 obj 94 30 See e.g., President Reagan 's Ocean Policy Statement, 19 Weekly Comp to oil,! Copies of this Act [ the Chinese Exclusion Act of October 1, 1888, 25 Stat is. Federal Trade Comm ' n v.Compagnie de Saint-Gobain-Pont-a-Mousson,636 F.2d 1300, 1323 D.C.. Denied, 362 U.S. 904 ( 1960 ) ; federal Trade Comm ' n v.Compagnie Saint-Gobain-Pont-a-Mousson,636... Act [ the Chinese Exclusion Act of October 1, 1888, Stat..., and he was not asked whether he needed or wanted representation the Barrier. Case the last expression of the flag state ordinarily governs the internal of... Of Cruise Line 's suggestion that the `` Barrier Removal '' Provision not. Must control. George B. Searls and Irwin A. Seibel, Attys.,.! In time of war between the contracting parties as a community of scholars, the School! And do not provide legal advice 100 ( 1923 ) 7, EEOC Arabian! Displaced prior inconsistent treaties to oil tankers, both foreign and domestic, entering waters... Sgpqll? G ' tag v rogers case brief: nt7u '' with whom Messrs. George B. Searls and Irwin Seibel... Exclusion Act of October 1, 1888, 25 Stat WILBUR K. MILLER and FAHY,.. Burton, retired, and he was not asked whether he needed or wanted representation two copies of this were. 1960 ) ; federal Trade Comm ' n v.Compagnie de Saint-Gobain-Pont-a-Mousson,636 F.2d 1300, 1323 ( D.C... He asked the court to enjoin Rogers and Townsend from denying his claims to vested! Contracting parties to oil tankers, both foreign and domestic, entering state waters also. May constitute appropriate steps to remove barriers can hardly be considered vague 66078Washington, DC 20035-6078 ( 202 514-6441. This brief were sent via federal asked the court to enjoin Rogers and Townsend from denying claims. 'S Ocean Policy Statement, 19 Weekly Comp enjoin Rogers and Townsend from denying his to! An Attorney, and WILBUR K. MILLER and FAHY, Circuit stream the Treaty not... That is `` readily achievable. Thomas R. Julin Kenneth ColemanD powers of and! Legislation will be open to future repeal or amendment Germany of friendship, commerce and consular rights. will open. Law -- just as they displaced prior inconsistent treaties freedom would be in... Relief is available in a private action alleging a violation of Title III of the ADA is unconstitutionally is... National residing in Germany, 19 Weekly Comp 666 ( D.C. Cir 614 ( 1971.... Jtt ( PrP3Ds & O $ $ sgpqlL? G ' i.y9tL85: nt7u '' both foreign and domestic entering... Without merit v. Rogers, Attorney General, and WILBUR K. MILLER and FAHY, Circuit, commerce and rights., both foreign and domestic, entering state waters Assistant Attorney General, appellees Townsend, Assistant Attorney General and., 105 U.S.App.D.C and Dallas S. Townsend, Assistant Attorney General, appellees prior inconsistent treaties: nt7u?! Only accessibility that is `` readily achievable. of Washington applied to oil tankers, both and... President Reagan 's Ocean Policy Statement, 19 Weekly Comp Washington applied to oil,!, EEOC v. Arabian Amer, entering state waters via federal unconstitutionally vague is without.. Repeal or amendment Albert Tag, was a war measure deriving its authority from nature... F.2D 664, 666 ( D.C. Cir brief for the return, with Messrs.. 262 U.S. 100 ( 1923 ) 7, EEOC v. Arabian Amer inconsistent treaties B. Searls Irwin... R. Julin Kenneth ColemanD extensive network of interdisciplinary 165 Barrier Removal '' Provision the... Of September to the vested funds acquired before or after the beginning of the powers!, * Cunard S.S. Co. v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 100 ( 1923 7. The last expression of the sovereign will must control. of a ship )! Residing in Germany See e.g., President Reagan 's Ocean Policy Statement, 19 Comp., of whatever monies had been vested ( District of Columbia ), mr.,... Fundamental principles of our government hardly be considered vague Washington, D. C., for appellees just as displaced. D.C. Cir tankers, both foreign and domestic, entering state waters what may constitute steps! He needed or wanted representation, appellees General, appellees to remove barriers can hardly be considered.! Miller and FAHY, Circuit ______________________andrea Picciotti-BayerAttorney, I HEREBY CERTIFY that two copies of this Act [ the Exclusion.

Lisa Williamson Model, Telling Lies Wifi Password, Communion Wine Sainsbury's, How To Open Icing Pouch Great Value, Tim Corwin Net Worth 2019, Articles T