Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Dame & Moore v. Regan

Supreme Court of the United States · 1981 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawSeparation of PowersExecutive PowerForeign AffairsIEEPAHostage Actexecutive agreementIran hostages

Facts

After the seizure of the American Embassy in Tehran and the taking of hostages, President Carter declared a national emergency under IEEPA and blocked Iranian property subject to United States jurisdiction. Treasury regulations allowed certain judicial proceedings and prejudgment attachments against Iranian assets, but made attachments null and void unless licensed and made licenses revocable at any time. Dames & Moore sued Iran and related entities, obtained prejudgment attachments, and later obtained a judgment against some Iranian defendants. After the Algiers Accords securing the hostages' release, Executive Orders nullified post-freeze attachments, directed transfer of Iranian assets, and suspended claims that could be presented to the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal.

Issue

Whether the President had authority to nullify petitioner's attachments on Iranian assets, order transfer of those assets, and suspend petitioner's claims pending in United States courts in order to implement the executive agreement with Iran. The case also presented whether any immediate takings challenge was ripe and whether a Tucker Act remedy would be available if a taking later occurred.

Rule

When the President acts pursuant to specific congressional authorization, his action receives the strongest presumption of validity under Youngstown. Even absent specific statutory authorization, presidential action in foreign affairs may be sustained where related statutes show congressional acceptance of broad executive discretion and where there is a longstanding, known, and acquiesced-in executive practice, such as settlement of claims by executive agreement, so long as Congress has not indicated contrary intent.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

After a declared foreign-affairs emergency involving the Republic of Arkania, the President blocks Arkanian assets in the United States under a statute authorizing him to regulate, nullify, and direct transfers of foreign property. Treasury rules state that any attachment is void unless licensed, and all licenses are revocable at any time. Nina Patel obtains a prejudgment attachment in Chicago against funds held by an Arkanian state bank, and six months later the President revokes the license, nullifies post-freeze attachments, and orders the funds transferred to complete a diplomatic settlement.

If Nina challenges the nullification of her attachment, which is the strongest argument for upholding the President's action?

Explanation. The majority held that IEEPA's plain language broadly authorized the President to nullify attachments and direct transfer of blocked foreign assets. It also emphasized that attachments permitted only by revocable license were contingent and subordinate to later presidential action. That places the President in Youngstown category one, with the strongest presumption of validity.