Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump · ¶248

The Court has long conveyed to Congress that it may “invest the President with large discretion in matters arising out of the execution of statutes relating to trade and commerce with other nations.” Marshall Field & Co. v. Clark, 143 U. S. 649, 691 (1892). Since shortly after the founding, the Court has rejected challenges to delegations of power over foreign commerce. See Cargo of Brig Aurora v. United States, 7 Cranch 382, 386, 387–389 (1813). Even when a “challenged delegation, if it were confined to internal affairs, would be invalid,” the Court has upheld the delegation. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U. S., at 315, 322. There is a “fundamental” difference, the Court has explained, between “foreign or external affairs” and “domestic or internal affairs.” Id., at 315. Thus, “Congress may of course delegate very large grants of its power over foreign commerce to the President,”…

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.