Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 490

524US2

Unit: $U93

[09-11-00 13:25:42] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 524 U. S. 417 (1998)

445

Opinion of the Court

Act of May 31, 1830, ch. 219, § 2, 4 Stat. 425, provided that
certain statutory provisions imposing duties on foreign ships
“shall be repealed” upon the same no-discrimination determi-
nation by the President. See 143 U. S., at 687; see also id.,
at 686 (discussing similar tariff statute, Act of Mar. 3, 1815,
ch. 77, 3 Stat. 224, which provided that duties “are hereby
repealed,” “[s]uch repeal to take effect . . . whenever the
President” makes the required determination).

The cited statutes all relate to foreign trade, and this
Court has recognized that in the foreign affairs arena, the
President has “a degree of discretion and freedom from stat-
utory restriction which would not be admissible were domes-
tic affairs alone involved.” United States v. Curtiss-Wright
Export Corp., 299 U. S. 304, 320 (1936).
“Moreover, he, not
Congress, has the better opportunity of knowing the condi-
Ibid.38 More im-
tions which prevail in foreign countries.”
portant, when enacting the statutes discussed in Field, Con-
gress itself made the decision to suspend or repeal the
particular provisions at issue upon the occurrence of particu-
lar events subsequent to enactment, and it left only the de-
termination of whether such events occurred up to the Presi-
dent.39 The Line Item Veto Act authorizes the President
himself to effect the repeal of laws, for his own policy rea-
sons, without observing the procedures set out in Article I,
§ 7. The fact that Congress intended such a result is of no

38 Indeed, the Court in Field v. Clark, 143 U. S. 649 (1892), so limited its
reasoning: “[I]n the judgment of the legislative branch of the government,
it is often desirable, if not essential for the protection of the interests of
our people, against the unfriendly or discriminating regulations estab-
lished by foreign governments, . . . to invest the President with large
discretion in matters arising out of the execution of statutes relating to
trade and commerce with other nations.”

Id., at 691.

39 See also J. W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States, 276 U. S. 394, 407
(1928) (“Congress may feel itself unable conveniently to determine exactly
when its exercise of the legislative power should become effective, because
dependent on future conditions, and it may leave the determination of such
time to the decision of an Executive”).