Dames and Moore v. Regan
"Dames and Moore v. Regan" is a significant Supreme Court case stemming from the political turmoil surrounding the Iran hostage crisis of 1979. In response to the situation, President Jimmy Carter implemented several executive orders aimed at facilitating the release of American hostages held in Iran before he left office in January 1981. These orders included ending legal actions by U.S. citizens against Iran and transferring claims to an arbitration panel, despite the lack of clear statutory authority for some of these actions. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld these executive actions, emphasizing the broad powers granted to the executive branch in matters of foreign affairs, drawing on historical congressional practices and previous court rulings. However, this decision sparked debate regarding the extent of executive power, particularly in relation to foreign policy decisions that could override established legal processes. The case remains a pivotal example of the tension between executive authority and legal accountability in the context of international relations.
Dames and Moore v. Regan
Date: July 2, 1981
Citation: 453 U.S. 654
Issue: Presidential powers
Significance: The Supreme Court upheld actions taken by President Jimmy Carter during the Iran hostage crisis, expanding the U.S. president’s broad power to act in foreign affairs.
U.S. embassy personnel in Iran were taken captive in 1979 and held hostage by Iranians. To resolve the crisis before leaving office in January, 1981, President Jimmy Carter signed several executive orders implementing certain actions that met a number of Iranian conditions in return for release of the hostages. The actions included ending legal actions of U.S. citizens and nationals against Iran, voiding attachments against Iranian property in U.S. courts to satisfy judgments against Iran, and transfer of such claims to a new arbitration panel. The Supreme Court upheld these actions even when it was impossible to show that they were authorized by law. Some actions were covered by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, but others lacked statutory authority. However, the Court relied on past congressional practice and court decisions granting broad executive authority in foreign affairs. The decision was criticized for granting the executive branch extremely broad powers in foreign affairs.
