Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump · ¶465

For matters of foreign affairs and national security, the Court has traditionally recognized that Congress “must of necessity paint with a brush broader than that it customarily wields in domestic areas.” Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U. S. 1, 17 (1965). And to reiterate, numerous statutes “ `authorizing action by the President in respect of subjects affecting foreign relations' ” “ `either leave the exercise of the power to his unrestricted judgment, or provide a standard far more general than that which has always been considered requisite with regard to domestic affairs.' ” Department of Transportation v. Association of American Railroads, 575 U. S. 43, 80, n. 5 (2015) (Thomas, J., concurring in judgment) (quoting United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U. S. 304, 324 (1936)). Therefore, as Justice Thomas has explained, the Court's precedents establish that “the Constitution grants…

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