In 1932, two landlocked nations in South America—Bolivia and Paraguay—started killing each other over a swampy piece of dirt called the Gran Chaco. It was a miserable, bloody mess known as the Chaco War. Thousands died from malaria, thirst, and machine-gun fire. Back in Washington, the U.S. government wasn’t exactly thrilled that American companies were profiting from the carnage.
So, Congress did something about it. They passed a Joint Resolution in 1934 that basically said: "Look, if the President thinks banning arms sales to these guys will help bring peace, he can go ahead and pull the trigger on an embargo."
Franklin D. Roosevelt didn't hesitate. He signed a proclamation that same day, making it illegal to sell weapons to the warring parties. But a company called the Curtiss-Wright Export Corp tried to sneak 15 machine guns to Bolivia anyway. They got caught. They got indicted. And then, they did what any high-priced legal team would do—they argued that the law itself was illegal.
👉 See also: How Many School Shootings Have Happened in 2024: What the Numbers Actually Show
This sparked United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., a 1936 Supreme Court case that changed the American presidency forever. You’ve probably never heard of it unless you’re a constitutional law geek, but it’s the reason the President can do things in other countries that would be totally illegal at home.
The "Sole Organ" and the Power of the President
The core of the legal fight was something called the "non-delegation doctrine." Basically, Curtiss-Wright argued that Congress can’t just hand its law-making powers over to the President like a blank check. In domestic matters, they were kinda right. If the President tried to pass his own tax laws or building codes, the courts would shut him down in a heartbeat.
But Justice George Sutherland, writing for a 7-1 majority, basically told them: "Foreign policy is different."
💡 You might also like: Minneapolis Shooting: The Reality Behind the Catholic School Shooter Reports
Sutherland’s opinion is legendary, mostly because of how far it goes. He argued that the federal government’s power over internal affairs comes from the Constitution, but its power over foreign affairs is "inherent." It exists because the United States is a sovereign nation among other nations.
Then he dropped the big one. He called the President the "sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations." Think about that for a second. Sutherland wasn't just saying the President helps out with foreign policy; he was saying the President is the foreign policy. Because the President has secret agents, diplomats, and confidential info that Congress doesn't have, he needs "a degree of discretion and freedom" that would be unthinkable for a mayor or a governor.
What People Get Wrong About the Ruling
A lot of folks think this case gave the President unlimited power. It didn't, but it came close. The real shocker in the ruling was Sutherland's claim that the President’s foreign power doesn’t even necessarily come from the Constitution. He argued it was passed down directly from the British Crown to the Union when the colonies won the Revolution.
Legal scholars have been screaming about this for nearly a century. Historians like Louis Fisher have pointed out that Sutherland’s "history" was, honestly, pretty shaky. The idea that sovereignty skipped the states and the Constitution entirely is a wild theory.
👉 See also: when is mtg up for reelection: The Georgia Special Election Shake-up
Also, the "sole organ" phrase? It was actually stolen from a speech John Marshall gave in 1800. But Marshall wasn’t saying the President should be a king. He was just saying the President is the guy who talks to other countries to deliver the news about what the U.S. has already decided. Sutherland turned a communications role into a decision-making superpower.
The Chaco War Context
- The Combatants: Bolivia and Paraguay.
- The Stakes: Control of the Chaco Boreal (thought to have oil; it didn't really).
- The Result: 100,000 deaths and two bankrupt nations.
- The U.S. Role: Trying to stay "neutral" while manufacturers like Curtiss-Wright tried to cash in.
Why This Case Is Everywhere in 2026
You might think a 90-year-old case about machine guns in a swamp is irrelevant. You’d be wrong. Every time a President uses a drone strike without a formal declaration of war, or signs a massive executive agreement with another country without the Senate's "advice and consent," their lawyers are whispering the words US v Curtiss Wright.
It’s been cited to justify everything from the Iran-Contra affair to the detention of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. It’s the "Get Out of Jail Free" card for the executive branch. When Congress tries to rein in the President’s power to negotiate trade deals or move troops, the Department of Justice almost always points back to 1936 and says, "Sorry, we’re the sole organ."
Justice Robert Jackson famously tried to put some guardrails on this in the 1952 Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer case. He argued that the President's power is at its lowest ebb when he goes against what Congress wants. But even with those rules, the "spirit" of Curtiss-Wright—the idea that the world is a dangerous place and the President needs to be the one in charge—usually wins out in the real world.
Real-World Impact for You
Honestly, the biggest takeaway is how much the "unwritten" rules of the government matter. We’re taught in school about "checks and balances," but United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. shows that those balances are way more lopsided than the textbooks suggest.
The President can effectively make "laws" for the rest of the world that affect our economy, our security, and our reputation, often with very little oversight. It’s a massive amount of trust to place in one person.
If you're looking for ways to actually use this knowledge or keep tabs on how this power is being used today, here are some actionable steps:
- Watch the War Powers: Keep an eye on how the President justifies military actions. If they mention "inherent Article II powers" or "plenary authority," they are using the logic from this case.
- Track Executive Agreements: Most people watch for Treaties, but those are rare now. Most international "deals" are now Executive Agreements that don't need a 2/3 Senate vote. They rely on the "sole organ" doctrine to bypass the hard work of diplomacy.
- Read the Dissent: Take a look at Justice James McReynolds’ brief, lonely dissent (or rather, his disagreement). It’s a reminder that even in "landmark" cases, the decision wasn't always seen as a slam dunk.
- Pressure Your Reps: If you think the President is overreaching in foreign policy, tell your members of Congress to use the "power of the purse." The Court in Curtiss-Wright said the President has the power to act, but Congress still has the power to stop paying for it.