## Facts

- Bolivia and Paraguay were engaged in armed conflict during the Chaco War, and foreign arms sales were viewed as affecting prospects for peace.
- Congress enacted a Joint Resolution (May 28, 1934) authorizing the President, upon making specified determinations and issuing a proclamation, to prohibit arms and munitions sales from the United States to the belligerents, subject to presidential limitations and exceptions.
- President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued a proclamation on May 28, 1934, triggering the statutory prohibition, and later issued a proclamation on November 14, 1935, revoking the earlier proclamation.
- Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation and others were indicted for conspiracy beginning May 29, 1934, to sell fifteen machine guns to Bolivia in violation of the Joint Resolution and the May 1934 proclamation.
- The district court sustained a demurrer to the indictment, concluding the Joint Resolution unconstitutionally delegated legislative power to the President.

## Issues

1. Whether the Joint Resolution unconstitutionally delegated legislative power to the President under the nondelegation doctrine.
2. Whether the President was required to make formal, detailed findings of fact to support the proclamation triggering the embargo.
3. Whether the later revocation of the proclamation eliminated criminal liability for violations committed while the proclamation was in force.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the judgment sustaining the demurrer and reinstated the indictment.
- The Court held that the Joint Resolution did not constitute an unconstitutional delegation in the context of foreign affairs.
- The Court held that the proclamation need not contain formal findings beyond the President’s determination specified by the Joint Resolution.
- The Court held that revocation of the proclamation operated prospectively and did not negate liability for offenses committed while the embargo was effective.
- Justice McReynolds dissented; Justice Stone did not participate.

## Legal Principles

- Federal authority in foreign affairs is treated as different in origin and operation from domestic regulatory power, and is not confined in the same way by an enumerated-powers framing applicable to internal matters.
- Congress may confer broader discretion on the President in external-relations matters than would ordinarily be acceptable for domestic legislation, including conditional legislation that becomes operative upon presidential determination.
- The President is recognized as the nation’s representative in international relations and may rely on diplomatic channels and confidential information when making foreign-affairs judgments committed to the executive.
- Absent a statutory requirement, a presidential proclamation triggering a foreign-affairs restriction need not include detailed, formal findings of fact.
- Repeal or revocation of a foreign-affairs restriction generally ends its operation going forward but does not retroactively extinguish criminal liability incurred while the restriction was in force.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld Congress’s authorization for the President to impose an arms embargo by proclamation and sustained the indictment, reasoning that foreign-affairs delegations permit broader executive discretion, do not require formal findings unless mandated, and are not nullified retroactively by a later revocation.


United States v. Curtiss-Wright Exp. Corp., 299 U.S. 304 (1936)