States and localities have at times proposed or enacted measures restricting governmental transactions with entities doing business or having financial ties with foreign countries whose conduct is found objectionable, particularly because of terrorism or human rights concerns. This report summarizes constitutional arguments made for and against these laws and discusses the Supreme Court's decisions in Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council and American Insurance Association v. Garamendi , where the Court addressed the permissibility of state laws having implications upon U.S. foreign affairs. The report also discusses a 2007 federal district court decision which held that an Illinois law that imposed sanctions upon Sudan was unconstitutional, along with a 2012 federal district court decision preliminarily enjoining the enforcement of a Florida statute which, among other things, restricts the state or local governments from entering contracts with certain entities that do business in Cuba. The report also suggests some possible legal ramifications of recent case law for future state and congressional action in this area, and summarizes recent federal enactments addressing state economic sanctions. State and local sanctions have generally taken the form of (1) selective purchasing or contracting laws, which generally prohibit state or local agencies from contracting with or procuring goods and services from companies that do business in a named country, or (2) selective investment laws, which prohibit state or local agencies from investing public funds in such companies. A variation of the latter is a state or local divestment law which, for example, may require divestment by state pension funds of stock in companies that either do business within a named country or with that country's government. In the 1990s, a number of state laws focused on conditions in Burma (Myanmar), while others targeted Nigeria, Tibet, Cuba, Indonesia, Switzerland, and Northern Ireland. Other state laws addressed poor foreign labor practices regardless of country. Due to the troubled situation in Darfur, between 2006 and 2010 a number of states proposed or enacted divestment legislation focused on Sudan. Other states have passed legislation prohibiting pension fund investment in debt instruments issued by any nation designated by the State Department as supporting or engaging in terrorism. Other pending or enacted state legislation is aimed at divestment of state funds from companies engaged in certain business activities in Iran, in either Iran or Sudan, or in state sponsors of terrorism. In February 2007, a federal district court held that an Illinois statute, which restricted the deposit of state funds to institutions having customers with ties to Sudan and barring the investment of state pension funds with Sudanese-connected entities, was constitutionally impermissible. The state's appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit was subsequently dismissed as moot. State and local economic sanctions that target foreign government behavior ordinarily raise three constitutional issues: (1) whether they burden foreign commerce in violation of the Foreign Commerce Clause and, if so, whether they are protected by the market participant exception to the Clause; (2) whether they impermissibly interfere with the federal government's exclusive power to conduct the nation's foreign affairs; and (3) where Congress or the President has acted, whether they are preempted by federal law. The Constitution provides Congress with the authority to regulate both interstate and foreign commerce (Art. I, SS8, cl. 3). In addition to this affirmative grant of constitutional authority, the Supreme Court has recognized that the Commerce Clause implies a corresponding restraint on the authority of the states to interfere with commerce, even absent Congressional action. This inferred restriction arising from congressional inaction is generally referred to as the "dormant" Commerce Clause. Under this established principle, states and localities are impliedly prohibited from unreasonably burdening or discriminating against either interstate or foreign commerce unless they are authorized by Congress to do so. In a series of cases involving state taxes, the Supreme Court has set out criteria for examining whether state measures impermissibly burden foreign commerce where affirmative congressional permission is absent. In sum, the Court has required a closer examination of measures alleged to infringe the Foreign Commerce Clause than is required for those alleged to infringe its interstate counterpart, but has also provided scope for state measures in situations where a federal role is not clearly demanded. In Japan Line, Ltd. v. County of Los Angeles , the Supreme Court struck down on Foreign Commerce Clause grounds a California state statute that applied an ad valorem property tax on foreign cargo containers. In doing so, the court identified two reasons why "a more extensive constitutional inquiry is required" in foreign commerce cases than those involving "purely interstate commerce." First, there is an "enhanced risk of multiple taxation" upon goods involved in foreign commerce than in the case of domestic goods. Secondly, a state tax upon an instrumentality in foreign commerce "may impair federal uniformity in an area where federal uniformity is essential," or, in other words, may "prevent [] the Federal Government from 'speaking with one voice when regulating commercial relations with foreign governments.'" The Court made clear that "[i]f a state tax contravenes either of these precepts, it is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause." Four years later in Container Corp. of America v. Franchise Tax Board , the Court upheld a state income tax law challenged by a multinational enterprise, finding that it did not infringe upon the federal government's authority over foreign commerce. The Court viewed the case as involving several facts which made it distinguishable from the state tax which had been struck down in Japan Line, Ltd . In upholding the California state income tax law, the Court also elaborated upon its prior recognition in Japan Line, Ltd. that a state tax may be impermissible if it prevents the federal government from speaking with "one voice" on international trade issues. Here, the Court indicated that state action may have "merely foreign resonances" without impermissibly treading upon the federal government's authority over foreign affairs. A state tax "will violate the 'one voice' standard if it either implicates foreign policy issues which must be left to the Federal Government or violates a clear federal directive." The Court noted that the second of these factors "is, of course, essentially a species of preemption analysis." The Court later concluded in Barclays Bank PLC v. Franchise Tax Board of California , a case examining California's income-based corporate franchise tax, that even a state statute that may make it more difficult for the federal government to speak with a single voice on international trade will be sustained if there is no clear indication that Congress had intended to bar the state practice. The Court stated that Container Corporation and a subsequent case, Wardair Canada Inc. v. Florida Dep't of Revenue , in which the Court upheld a state tax on jet fuel purchased by foreign airlines, suggested that "Congress may more passively indicate that certain state practices do not 'impair federal uniformity in an area where federal uniformity is essential....'" Moreover, Congress "need not convey its intent with the unmistakable clarity required to permit state regulation that discriminates against interstate commerce...." Where Congress has not clearly immunized a state selective purchasing or divestment law for Foreign Commerce Clause purposes, arguments that any such law impermissibly burdens foreign commerce may be countered by invocation of the market participant doctrine. First articulated in the Supreme Court's 1976 ruling in Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap Corp. , the doctrine exempts from the clause those laws in which the state or local government acts as a buyer or seller of goods rather than as a regulator. It is counter-argued, however, that the doctrine is inapplicable where the state seeks to affect behavior beyond the immediate market in which it is operating; that it does not immunize laws from other constitutional challenges; and that, as suggested by the Supreme Court, it may not even apply in Foreign Commerce Clause cases. "Power over external affairs is not shared by the States; it is vested in the national government exclusively." State or local laws which encroach upon the federal government's authority over foreign affairs may be deemed constitutionally impermissible. In its 1968 decision in Zschernig v. Miller , the Supreme Court struck down an Oregon law prohibiting nonresident aliens from inheriting property if they could not satisfy certain requirements. Namely, the Oregon statute required such aliens to demonstrate to the Oregon state courts that their home countries allowed U.S. nationals to inherit estates on a reciprocal basis and that payments to foreign heirs from the Oregon estates would not be confiscated. Although the federal government had not exercised its power in the area, the Supreme Court nonetheless found that the inquiries required by the Oregon statute would result in "an intrusion by the State into the field of foreign affairs which the Constitution entrusts to the President and the Congress." The Court distinguished its earlier decision in Clark v. Allen , which had upheld a similar California statute, on the ground that the statute in that case could be implemented through "a routine reading of foreign law" and did not require the particularized inquiries demanded by the Oregon statute. Many observers have characterized the parameters of the Zschernig ruling as unclear. Application of the ruling is often an issue in litigation concerning state or local measures which restrict economic transactions with companies doing business with foreign entities whose conduct the state or locality finds objectionable. It has been argued, for example, that state or local selective procurement laws, through which jurisdictions condition eligibility for a public contract upon business entity refraining from certain activities within or in relation to a foreign country, are directed at influencing or scrutinizing foreign behavior in the manner that the Zschernig Court found objectionable. Courts that have upheld restrictive procurement laws that were challenged on Zschernig grounds have emphasized that the challenged laws applied neutrally to all foreign products, and thus did not require the assessment of a particular government's policies that might result in constitutional infirmity. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution establishes that federal statutes, treaties, and the Constitution itself are "the supreme Law of the Land." Accordingly, states can be precluded from taking actions that are otherwise within their authority if federal law is thereby thwarted. The extent to which federal law preempts, or supersedes, state law in a given area is entirely within the control of Congress. Congress may, by clearly or expressly stating its intent, choose to preempt all state laws, no state laws, or only certain state laws. Absent an express statement from Congress, an act of Congress may also impliedly preempt state or local action in a given area. Where Congress has not expressly preempted state and local laws, two types of implied federal preemption may be found: field preemption , in which federal regulation is so pervasive that one can reasonably infer that states or localities have no role to play, and conflict preemption , in which "compliance with both federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility," or where the state law "stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress." The delineation between preemption categories, and in particular between conflict and field preemption, is not rigid. In preemption cases involving foreign affairs, courts may well weigh the deference traditionally accorded areas subject to state and local regulation against the policy considerations implicated by the federal scheme affecting foreign affairs or commerce. For example, in the Supreme Court's ruling in the 1941 case of Hines v. Davidowitz , which invalidated a state alien registration statute, the Court reiterated the long-recognized, constitutionally based supremacy of federal authority in foreign affairs and made clear that any concurrent state power in the area must be "restricted to the narrowest of limits....." Depending on the nature of a state statute and the type of federal action taken to deal with a problematic foreign nation, opponents of a state sanctions law may thus argue that, even absent express preemption by a federal statute, (1) a state law may conflict with federal laws and policies targeted at a specific country with respect to the activities and persons covered, or (2) there is reason to presume that Congress intended that all state and local measures targeting a particular country be preempted. In response, it might be maintained, inter alia , that federal limitations on the exercise of proprietary powers to contract and invest must be expressly intended or must result from a highly pervasive federal scheme. Moreover, state laws may arguably mandate consequences that differ from federal remedies or that do not exist on the federal level so long as the federal legislation or action involved does not constitute a "complex and interrelated federal scheme of law, remedy and administration." In Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council , the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a Massachusetts selective purchasing law targeted at Burma was impliedly preempted by federal sanctions against Burma contained in the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, 1997 ( P.L. 104-208 ). At the time, the absence of well-developed case law directly addressing sub-federal sanctions had made the outcome of a constitutional challenge to state sanctions laws unclear. Although various Supreme Court cases had previously examined aspects of such laws, none directly ruled on such a statute. Moreover, the few state cases scrutinizing such measures on constitutional grounds differed in result. Although Congress had not expressly preempted state laws in the federal Burma statute, the Court found the Massachusetts law was impliedly preempted because it "undermines the intended purpose and 'natural effect' of at least three provisions of the federal Act, namely, its delegation of effective discretion to the President to control economic sanctions against Burma, its limitation of sanctions solely to United States persons and new investment, and its directive to proceed diplomatically in developing a comprehensive, multilateral strategy towards Burma." After rejecting the state's argument that the law could not be preempted because it was based on an exercise of the state's spending power, the Court found that the law lacked the flexibility inherent in the federal statute: the state law had stringent application requirements and no termination provision, while federal law authorized the President to lift federal measures in certain circumstances, allowed him to prohibit new investment based on his own findings, and provided waiver authority with regard to all sanctions imposed in the statute. The state law was also found to exceed federal authorities. While the Massachusetts law covered most state contracts, foreign and domestic firms, and firms already operating in Burma, the federal law imposed sanctions solely on U.S. persons, authorized a prohibition on new investment only, and exempted purchase and sales contracts from any ban. Finally, the Court ruled that the state law had impeded the President's ability to pursue the multilateral strategy envisioned in the federal act, with the Court noting formal protests from U.S. trading partners, World Trade Organization complaints, and the distraction caused by the state law in discussions with foreign countries regarding the situation in Burma. Finally, the Court rejected the state's argument that Congress had implicitly permitted the state law because it had failed to expressly preempt state sanctions against Burma. Massachusetts noted that Congress was aware of the state's law when it adopted the federal Burma statute in 1996. However, the Court found that "[a] failure to provide for preemption expressly may reflect nothing more than the settled character of implied preemption doctrine that the courts will dependably apply" and that "in any event, the existence of a conflict cognizable under the Supremacy Clause does not depend on express recognition that federal and state law may conflict." The Court found that in this case Congress's silence was ambiguous and insufficient to warrant an inference of congressional intent to permit states to adopt their own Burmese sanctions. In American Insurance Association v. Garamendi , the Supreme Court reaffirmed the Zschernig Court's finding of a dormant federal foreign affairs power. In a 5-4 vote, the Court struck down a California law, the Holocaust Victim Insurance Relief Act, which required any insurer doing business in the state to disclose information about all life insurance policies issued in Europe during the Nazi regime. An executive agreement with Germany signed by the President provided that the International Commission on Holocaust Era Insurance Claims would serve as the sole vehicle for voluntary insurance claims to reduce litigation between foreign nationals and German firms. Despite the lack of a specific preemption clause, the Court, citing the "kid glove" approach chosen by the executive branch that was evident in the German agreement and similar agreements with Austria and France, along with executive branch statements supporting this approach, determined that there was a "clear conflict" between the policies adopted by the executive and the "iron fist" that California sought to use. The Court made clear that state law could be preempted by the President's exercise of his independent constitutional authority to conduct foreign affairs, noting that Congress had not acted on the matter addressed in the California law and that given this independent authority, "congressional silence is not to be equated with congressional disapproval." In National Foreign Trade Council v . Giannoulias , the first lower federal court decision since Crosby and Garamendi to address a state sanctions law, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois held the Illinois Sudan Act unconstitutional and permanently enjoined its enforcement. At issue in the February 23, 2007, decision was a statute that placed restrictions both on the deposit of state funds and the investment of state and municipal pension assets. The Illinois law amended the Deposit of State Moneys Act to prohibit the Illinois Treasurer from investing state funds in commercial instruments of Sudan and so-called "forbidden entities" and also from depositing state funds into any financial institution that did not certify that it "has implemented policies and practices that require loan applicants to certify that they are not 'forbidden entities.'" The category of "forbidden entities" included any company that had not certified that it did not own or control certain Sudan-related property or assets and did not engage in certain Sudan-related transactions. The statute also amended the Illinois Pension Code to prohibit the fiduciary of any pension fund established under the Code from investing in any entity unless the company managing the funds' assets certified that the managing company had not transferred any assets of the Illinois retirement system or pension fund to a forbidden entity. The statute ultimately required that none of the assets of the system or fund be invested in "forbidden entities" by the end of July 2007. For purposes of the pension amendments, the term "forbidden entity" included (1) the firms described above; (2) any publicly traded company that owned or controlled Sudan-related property or assets or engaged in other Sudan-related transactions; and (3) any non-publicly traded company that failed to submit to the fund's managing company a sworn affidavit averring that the company did not own or control any Sudan-related property or conduct business transactions in Sudan. The statute was challenged on preemption, foreign affairs, and foreign commerce grounds. In reaching its decision, the court set out federal law regarding Sudan, beginning with a 1997 Executive Order signed by President Clinton freezing Sudanese property in the United States and prohibiting various transactions between the United States and Sudan, and continuing with three subsequent public laws: the Sudan Peace Act (2002), the Comprehensive Peace in Sudan Act (2004), and the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act (2006). None of these statutes contains a provision expressly preempting states from enacting their own sanctions against the Sudan. Addressing the statutory preemption argument, the court held that, with respect to the amendment to the Deposit of State Moneys Act, the Illinois statute's "lack of flexibility, extended geographic reach, and impact on foreign entities interferes with the national government's conduct of foreign affairs," and was thus preempted by federal law. On the other hand, the pension amendments were found not to be preempted, since federal law did not expressly address divestment, and, in the district court's view "the potential effects of pension divestment on the national government's ability to conduct foreign policy are highly attenuated." The court stated that it had not been presented with evidence "suggesting that these pension funds' inability to purchase the securities of such companies would be in any way likely to affect their decision to do business in that country" and thus it had not been shown "that pension fund divestment stands as an 'obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress' with regard to Sudan policy." Regarding the claim that the state measure impermissibly intruded upon the federal government's authority over foreign affairs, the court found scant prior case law on the issue, but concluded that the amendments to the Deposit of State Moneys Act "would have an impact on the national government's ability to deal with Sudan that is at least equal to or greater than the impact of the state laws in Zschernig and Garamendi. " The court considered that the amendments might cause multinational companies to pull out of Sudan, resulting in a "real and direct" effect on Sudan's economy, and that they thus clearly had "more than an incidental or indirect effect" in Sudan. Noting as well the amendments' "substantive and direct impact on the national government's ability to carry out the flexible and measured approach to Sudanese relations that Congress and the president have created," the court held that they interfered impermissibly with the federal government's power to conduct the nation's foreign affairs. At the same time, the court held that the pension amendments did not improperly intrude on the federal foreign affairs authority, finding that they did not place the same kind of pressure on firms to sever business ties with that country that flowed from the banking amendments and thus were not likely to affect the firms' willingness to do business in Sudan. Because the court had already found the banking amendments unconstitutional on two grounds, it did not consider them in light of the Foreign Commerce Clause. Nevertheless, it did find that "there is little doubt that the conduct the Illinois Sudan Act seeks to proscribe involves foreign commerce" and that "[w]ithout the protection of the market participant exception, the amendment to the Pension Code violates the Foreign Commerce Clause." The court found that to the extent that the state was exercising control over municipal pension funds, however, it was acting as a market regulator and that the market participant doctrine, even if it were determined applicable in Foreign Commerce Clause cases, did not apply to this situation. With respect to the state's control of its own pension funds, the court held that, even if the amendment was constitutional if only applied to these funds, it could not be severed from the unconstitutional portion of the statute. The court therefore struck down the pension amendment as a whole. The State of Illinois appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. It also enacted new Sudan-related divestment legislation, which included a repeal of the invalidated provisions. In October 2007, the state moved to dismiss the appeal as moot and to vacate the district court judgment. The appellate court granted the motion and remanded the case to the district court on November 30, 2007, with instructions to vacate the decision. Faculty Senate of Florida International University v. Winn , a per curiam opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, held that states can restrict the use of funds to sponsor travel by state education employees to specific countries for national security reasons. At issue in Winn was a Florida statute prohibiting the allocation of both public and non-public funds for travel to countries that the federal government had identified as "State Sponsors of Terror." Presented with plaintiff's arguments that the law impeded the federal foreign policy powers, the court distinguished Crosby and Garamendi by emphasizing that there were no penalties for traveling to these countries and that no conflict with a federal law existed. The court also considered Zschernig , but found that Florida's willingness to follow the federal list of state sponsors rather than create its own criteria minimized the possibility of interference with the Executive's foreign affairs powers. Finally, the Eleventh Circuit emphasized that this statute did not place broad limits on trade with or travel to these countries and thus lacked a large economic effect on the target nations. The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in the case on June 25, 2012. In Odebrecht Constr., Inc. v. Prasad , the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted a preliminary injunction halting the enforcement of a Florida law that sought to prevent the state and local governments from awarding public contracts to companies with business connections to Cuba. Specifically, the law prohibited companies "engaged in business operations in Cuba," from bidding on, or entering contracts with, state or local entities for "goods or services of $1 million or more." In granting the preliminary injunction, the court determined that there was a substantial likelihood that the Florida law was preempted by federal law, impermissibly interfered with the federal government's foreign affairs power, and violated the Foreign Commerce Clause. In holding that the statute was likely preempted by federal law, the court relied principally on the Supreme Court's decision in Crosby . Like the Massachusetts state law challenged in that case, the Florida law was found to likely conflict with federal law because it impermissibly "frustrates the President's discretion to carefully calibrate sanctions against Cuba," and "diminishes the President's bargaining power by imposing inconsistent sanctions." In addition, the district court determined that the law would likely also fall under field preemption grounds, as "Congress has clearly intended to 'occupy the field' relating to this country's policy toward Cuba." In addition to being preempted, the district court also held that the Florida statute was likely to infringe on the federal government's foreign affairs power by forcing "foreign companies to choose between doing business with Florida and lawful business with Cuba," and because the statute had the "potential for diplomatic disruption or embarrassment." Finally, the court determined that the law also likely violated the Foreign Commerce Clause because it discriminated against foreign companies and regulated economic activity "beyond [the state's] borders that implicates foreign affairs and impairs federal uniformity." The district court's ruling has been appealed, but the Eleventh Circuit has yet to issue a ruling in the case. Where state or local sanctions are held to be preempted by federal statute, Congress may choose expressly to authorize such measures in new legislation. It is also possible that a state or local sanctions law could be written so as not to conflict with a federal enactment. Where Congress has not enacted or authorized sanctions against a particular country, state or local sanctions directed at that jurisdiction may be challenged on dormant foreign affairs or Foreign Commerce Clause grounds, given that Crosby did not address, and thus did not foreclose or limit the use of, these constitutional arguments. At the same time, questions remain as to the outcome of these arguments in a particular case. For example, if state or local sanctions were challenged on Foreign Commerce Clause grounds, would congressional silence be construed by a reviewing court as implied authorization of these measures or, instead, as a manifestation of an overriding federal policy that a particular country not be subject to restrictive U.S. measures? Whether the market participant exception applies in Foreign Commerce Clause cases also remains unclear. Where a state law is challenged as intruding into the federal foreign affairs power, the Supreme Court's ruling in Garamendi suggests that executive agreements or statements might preempt state action, despite a lack of specific agreement language showing the intent to do so. At the same time, the Court recommended following Justice Harlan's standard from the Zschernig case as a minimum threshold for foreign affairs preemption, that is, that the state legislation should "produce something more than incidental effect in conflict with express foreign policy of the National Government." Some commentators have provided practical criticisms of the state divestment laws. For instance, state investors rely on private organizations to identify firms with business interests in targeted countries. The particular concern is that this information might be inaccurate or fail to take account of the federal government's interests. This could lead to divestment activities inconsistent or directly counter to U.S. foreign policy goals. In response, the National Conference of State Legislatures has asked the federal government to provide U.S. investors with "authoritative information" regarding foreign and domestic firms with financial and investment activities in states that sponsor terrorism. There are also overarching concerns about whether public plans are suitable means for achieving foreign policy goals. Besides questions of their efficacy in changing foreign government behavior, divestment measures could diminish the rate of return on investment. There are increased administrative costs related to screening investments for ties to targeted nations. Broad restrictions on investment in certain companies could also undermine the goal of a diversified portfolio. These risks are likely to be especially problematic because there may well be limited overlap between those authorizing and making divestment decisions and the stakeholders whom these decisions will affect. The Sudan Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007 ( P.L. 110-174 ), enacted into law on December 31, 2007, authorizes state and local governments to adopt divestment measures involving (1) federally identified persons with investments and business in the Sudanese energy and military equipment sectors or (2) persons having a direct investment in or carrying on a trade or business with Sudan or the Government of Sudan, provided certain notification requirements are met; the statute also provides that a measure falling within the scope of the authorization is not preempted by any federal law or regulation. The enactment is based on S. 2271 , an original bill of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs ( S.Rept. 110-213 ). H.R. 180 (Lee) and S. 831 (Durbin) also addressed Sudan divestment by state and local governments; H.R. 180 passed the House on July 31, 2007. President George W. Bush, upon signing the act, stated that "the executive branch shall construe and enforce this legislation in a manner that does not conflict" with the federal government's "exclusive authority" to conduct foreign relations. The Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act ( P.L. 111-195 ), enacted into law on July 1, 2010, includes provisions authorizing state and local governments to divest or prohibit investments of public monies in Iran. Responding to state and local divestment activities related to Iran, Congress designed Title II's divestment provisions to "remove [] any doubt as to the constitutionality of these measures." Specifically, states can require public divestment from businesses making investments of (or extending credit to persons who will make investments of) $20 million or more in Iran's energy sector. States must provide notice to those affected by divestment measures and give those affected the opportunity to comment or challenge the measures' applicability to their business dealings. If 90 days elapse after notice is given without the notified company changing its behavior, divestment can occur. The statute clearly states that no federal laws or regulations preempt actions taken by the states under these provisions. Below is a list of state laws related to divestment of public funds from companies doing business in foreign countries. Unless otherwise indicated, the provided statute fits the general model of identifying companies doing business in a country and, after giving notice and opportunity to discontinue the offending activity, requiring divestment of public funds from these companies. Some, but not all, of these measures include language providing for their expiration in the event that Congress or the President take specified action.

Summary:
States and localities have occasionally enacted measures restricting their agencies from conducting economic transactions with entities that do business with or in foreign countries whose conduct these jurisdictions find objectionable. While some maintain that sub-federal entities may enact such laws under sovereign proprietary powers and other constitutional prerogatives, others argue that these measures impermissibly invade federal commerce and foreign affairs authorities and may, in some cases, be preempted by federal statute. In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held in Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council that a Massachusetts law restricting state transactions with firms doing business in Burma was preempted by federal statute. In its 2003 decision in American Insurance Association v. Garamendi, the Court reaffirmed the relevance of the dormant federal foreign affairs power to preemption analysis when it struck down a California law requiring certain businesses to disclose information regarding Holocaust-era insurance policies sold in Europe, but the scope of the 5-4 decision is unclear. In recent years, a number of states have proposed or enacted some type of divestment legislation against Sudan in response to the troubled situation in Darfur. States have also considered or adopted divestment legislation involving Iran, Cuba, or terrorist states in general. In February 2007, a federal district court held Illinois's Sudan sanctions law unconstitutional and permanently enjoined its enforcement (National Foreign Trade Council v. Giannoulias). Illinois subsequently repealed its statute, and the state's appeal in the case was dismissed as moot later that year. In 2012, a U.S. federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring the enforcement of a Florida statute which, among other things, restricted the state or local governments from entering into contracts with certain entities that do business in Cuba. In recent years, Congress has enacted legislation authorizing states to prohibit investments in, or divest assets from, Sudan and Iran. The Sudan Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-174) authorizes states and local governments to adopt divestment or investment prohibition measures involving (1) persons the state or local government determines are conducting business operations in the Sudanese energy and military equipment sectors or (2) persons having a direct investment in or carrying on a trade or business with Sudanese entities or the Government of Sudan, provided certain notification requirements are met. The Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act (P.L. 111-195) which was enacted in 2010, includes provisions authorizing state and local governments to divest from those businesses making investments of $20 million or more in Iran's energy sector after adequate investigation and notification have occurred. Both laws provide that a measure falling within the scope of the authorization is not preempted by any federal law or regulation.