Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Irving Sarnoff v. John B. Connally, Secretary of the Treasury, Dorothy A. Elston, Treasurer of the United States

Irving Sarnoff v. John B. Connally, Sec’y of the Treasury, Dorothy A. Elston, Treasurer of the United States, 457 F.2d 809 (9th Cir. 1972)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1972-03-27
Topic
general

PER CURIAM: Appellants seek a judicial determination that the military assistance and foreign aid provisions of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, specifically 22 U.S.C. §§ 2318, 2360, and 2364, are an invalid delegation to the Executive of power to wage war without a congressional declaration of war, because of the disbursement of funds under these sections for military purposes in Southeast Asia. The conduct of foreign affairs is within the exclusive province of Congress and the Executive. Whether a plaintiff challenges the selective service system or the foreign aid and appropriations as- *810 peets of congressional cooperation in the present conflict, he presents a political question which we decline to adjudicate. See DaCosta v. Laird, 448 F.2d 1368 (2d Cir. 1971); Orlando v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Irving Sarnoff v. John B. Connally, Secretary of the Treasury, Dorothy A. Elston, Treasurer of the United States. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
12 opinions
SARNOFF v. CONNALLY,457 F.2d 809(9th Cir. 1972)
IRVING SARNOFF ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. JOHN B. CONNALLY, SECRETARY
OF THE TREASURY, DOROTHY A. ELSTON, TREASURER OF THE UNITED STATES,
DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.
No. 71-3049.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
March 27, 1972.
George T. Altman, Beverly Hills, Cal., for plaintiffs-appellants.

William D. Keller, U.S. Atty., Frederick M. Brosio, Jr., Carolyn M. Reynolds, Asst. U.S. Attys., Los Angeles, Cal., for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Before HAMLEY, BROWNING, and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] Appellants seek a judicial determination that the military assistance and foreign aid provisions of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, specifically22 U.S.C. § 2318, 2360, and 2364, are an invalid delegation to the Executive of power to wage war without a congressional declaration of war, because of the disbursement of funds under these sections for military purposes in Southeast Asia.

[2] The conduct of foreign affairs is within the exclusive province of Congress and the Executive. Whether a plaintiff challenges the selective service system or the foreign aid and appropriations aspectsPage 810of congressional cooperation in the present conflict, he presents a political question which we decline to adjudicate.SeeDaCosta v. Laird,448 F.2d 1368(2d Cir. 1971); Orlando v. Laird,443 F.2d 1039(2d Cir. 1971), cert. denied,404 U.S. 869, 92 S.Ct. 94, 30 L.Ed.2d 113 (1971); Simmons v. United States,406 F.2d 456, 460 (5th Cir. 1969), cert. denied,395 U.S. 982, 89 S.Ct. 2144, 23 L.Ed.2d 770 (1969); Luftig v. McNamara, 126 U.S.App.D.C. 4,373 F.2d 664(1967), cert. denied,387 U.S. 945, 87 S.Ct. 2078, 18 L.Ed.2d 1332 (1967).

[3] Dismissal of the complaint is affirmed.Page 811