## Facts

- Massachusetts enacted a 1996 selective purchasing statute restricting state contracts with companies “doing business with Burma (Myanmar).”
- The statute required the Commonwealth to maintain a “restricted purchase list” and generally barred state entities from contracting with listed companies, subject to limited exceptions.
- “Doing business with Burma” was defined broadly to cover a wide range of commercial ties, including certain operations, subsidiaries, distribution arrangements, financial services, and provision of goods or services to the Burmese government.
- After Massachusetts acted, Congress enacted federal Burma legislation authorizing presidentially controlled sanctions, with exceptions and waiver authority to support national diplomatic objectives.
- The National Foreign Trade Council, representing U.S. businesses engaged in international trade, sued Massachusetts officials in federal court to enjoin enforcement of the state law.
- The district court held the law unconstitutional and enjoined its enforcement; Massachusetts appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Massachusetts’ selective purchasing restrictions constituted an unconstitutional state intrusion into the federal government’s foreign affairs power.
2. Whether the Massachusetts statute was preempted by federal Burma sanctions legislation and related federal measures under the Supremacy Clause.
3. Whether the statute violated the Foreign Commerce Clause by burdening or regulating foreign commerce in a manner requiring national uniformity.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed the injunction against enforcement of the Massachusetts statute.
- The court held the law unconstitutional because it interfered with the federal government’s foreign affairs power.
- The court also held the law violated the Foreign Commerce Clause.
- The court further concluded the state law conflicted with, and posed an obstacle to, the federal Burma sanctions framework due to its breadth and rigidity relative to federally controlled, flexible sanctions.

## Legal Principles

- The conduct of foreign relations is constitutionally committed to the national government; states may not enact measures with the purpose or effect of conducting independent foreign policy.
- State action that disrupts the federal government’s ability to speak with one voice in foreign affairs is constitutionally suspect, especially when it conflicts with federal diplomatic strategy and sanctioned flexibility.
- Under the Foreign Commerce Clause, state measures that materially burden or condition foreign commercial conduct may be invalid where they impede national uniformity in foreign trade and risk international friction.
- A state statute may be preempted when it stands as an obstacle to the objectives of federal law, including congressional schemes that rely on presidential discretion to calibrate sanctions as a diplomatic instrument.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit held that Massachusetts’ Burma selective purchasing law operated as an impermissible state foreign policy tool, conflicting with national control over foreign relations and foreign commerce, and it affirmed an injunction barring enforcement of the statute.


Nat'l Foreign Trade Council v. Natsios, 181 F.3d 38 (1st Cir. 1999)