Notes and Questions
1. After Garamendi, what sorts of international relations may U.S.
states practice without fear of preemption? How can state and local officials
determine whether their policies conflict with federal policy?
2. Does the slow pace of proceedings under the German Foundation
agreement provide a justification for California’s actions? Are the
objections of the State Department and foreign governments a sufficient
ground for preemption in the absence of federal law?
3. In December 2007, President George W. Bush signed the Sudan
Accountability and Divestment Act, whose main provision states, “[A]
State or local government may adopt and enforce measures … to divest [its]
assets from, or prohibit investment of [its assets] in, persons that [it]
determines … are conducting or have direct investments in business
operations … [in Sudan concerning] power production activities, mineral
extraction activities, oil-related activities, or the production of military
equipment.” States must provide targets of sanctions with notice and an
opportunity to comment and to limit sanctions to those involved in the
industries noted; it also urges states to take all efforts to avoid erroneously
targeting persons. About two dozen states have such sanctions. How should
the Supreme Court rule if the President objected to one of the state or local
Sudan divestment laws?
