Summary of District Court Opinion
NFTC v. Baker, et al.

*  On November 4, 1998, Chief Judge Joseph L. Tauro of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts upheld the NFTC's challenge to the Massachusetts Burma Law because the law "impermissibly infringes on the federal government's power to regulate foreign affairs."

*  The Commonwealth opposed the NFTC's challenge, claiming first, that the NFTC did not have standing to bring its claims because no NFTC member was sufficiently injured by the statute, and second, that the statute was a constitutionally permissible exercise of the Commonwealth's procurement power.

*  Chief Judge Tauro rejected the Commonwealth's claim that the NFTC lacked standing to challenge the Massachusetts Burma Law because "NFTC members on the restricted purchase list cannot bid on Massachusetts contracts on an equal basis" with companies not on the restricted purchase list.

*  The Court then characterized the Commonwealth's efforts to defend the statute on the basis that "the Constitution permits certain state actions that indirectly affect foreign affairs" as "an attempt to confine the federal government's foreign relations power."

*  Instead, relying upon "constitutional provisions evidenc[ing] the Framers' intent to vest plenary power over foreign affairs in the federal government" and the Supreme Court's consistent recognition of "the exclusive role assigned to the federal government in the area of foreign affairs," the Court held that "the federal government has exclusive authority to conduct foreign affairs" and that "states and municipalities must yield to the federal government when their actions affect significant issues of foreign policy. . . . State interests, no matter how noble, do not trump the federal government's exclusive foreign affairs power."

*  In reaching this conclusion, the Court relied on the Commonwealth's admission that "the statute was enacted solely to sanction Myanmar for human rights violations and to change Myanmar's domestic policies." He also quoted the law's primary sponsor, Representative Byron Rushing, who indicated that the "identifiable goal [of the law] is, free democratic elections in Burma." Finally, the Court relied on an amicus brief filed by the European Union that stressed the law's interference with EU - U.S. relations.

*  The Court characterized Massachusetts' argument that the law does not violate the foreign affairs power because it "does not establish direct contact between Myanmar and the Commonwealth" as "irrelevant," holding that the law's "purpose of changing Burma's domestic policy" is an "unconstitutional infringement on the foreign affairs power of the federal government."

*  Chief Judge Tauro did not discuss in detail the NFTC's other challenges to the Massachusetts Burma Law, i.e. that the law (1) violates the Foreign Commerce Clause and (2) is preempted by federal law imposing sanctions on Burma, characterizing them as "not dispositive" because the law violates the federal government's foreign affairs power.

Click here to see the full text of the Order
and Memorandum of the District Court Decision

Home |  About Us |  Resources |  Press Releases |  Federal Activity & Legislation
State & Local Activity |  NFTC Lawsuit |  Contact Us |  Site Index