Simone Lawson
The US Constitution grants the federal courts the authority to impose sanctions on parties or attorneys who engage in misconduct, such as disobedience of a court order or obstruction of justice. This power is known as the contempt authority. The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) also grants the President the power to impose economic sanctions on foreign persons or entities that threaten national security or foreign policy objectives. These sanctions can have a significant impact on individuals, groups, and countries, and they are meant to be used sparingly in extraordinary circumstances. However, there have been concerns about the lack of checks and balances on the President's power to impose sanctions, with some calling for Congress to reform it.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Sanctions imposed by the US | To impose economic pressure on governments, companies, or individuals acting in contravention of US foreign policy and national security objectives. |
| Who do sanctions apply to? | US citizens, permanent resident aliens, persons and entities within the US, US-incorporated entities and their foreign branches. |
| Exceptions | Humanitarian activities, such as donating food, clothing, and medicine; import and export of informational materials and communications; postal, telegraphic, and telephonic communications. |
| Who decides on sanctions? | The President of the United States, under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and the National Emergencies Act (NEA). |
| Who regulates sanctions? | Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) |
| Court decisions | The Supreme Court has held that federal courts have the authority to punish contempt and impose sanctions on those who engage in misconduct. |
| Limitations | Limitations on inferior federal courts are often based on the Supreme Court's supervisory power, while limitations on state courts are based on constitutional dimensions. |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The US President's powers to impose sanctions
The US President's power to impose sanctions is largely unchecked. The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), passed in 1977, gives the president the authority to declare a national emergency and impose economic sanctions in response to any "unusual or extraordinary threat" to national security, foreign policy, or economic stability. This can include freezing assets and prohibiting financial transactions with targeted countries, entities, or individuals. While IEEPA was intended for rare and brief emergencies, it has become a routine instrument of foreign policy, with little congressional oversight and no clear metrics to assess its success or failure.
The Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA), passed in 1917 during World War I, also grants the president broad powers to restrict trade with enemies during wartime. While TWEA remains the underlying legislation for sanctions against Cuba, IEEPA is the more commonly invoked authority today. Under IEEPA, the president can investigate, regulate, and prohibit economic relations with any country, US person, or property interest subject to US jurisdiction. This includes US citizens, permanent residents, entities within the US, and foreign branches of US-incorporated entities.
The United Nations Participation Act (UNPA) is another source of legislative authority, empowering the president to impose economic sanctions when mandated by the United Nations Security Council pursuant to Article 41 of the UN Charter. For example, President Reagan used this power to impose sanctions on South Africa in response to apartheid in 1985. Additionally, Congress has occasionally issued legislation authorizing or mandating the president or the US Department of the Treasury to impose certain sanctions.
The president's power to impose sanctions under IEEPA has been criticized for its lack of substantial checks and balances. There are concerns about vague criteria, limited congressional oversight, and the absence of effective mechanisms to terminate inappropriate uses of the statute. The Brennan Center for Justice has proposed legislative reforms to address these issues and prevent potential abuse of power.
In summary, the US President has significant authority to impose sanctions, particularly under IEEPA, which has been widely used since 9/11. While this power provides flexibility in addressing national security and foreign policy threats, there are ongoing debates about the need for reforms to ensure accountability and prevent potential misuse.
Founders' Vision: Direct Democracy in the US Constitution?
You may want to see also
The Supreme Court's authority to punish contempt
The Supreme Court has repeatedly asserted that federal courts have the inherent authority to punish contempt, which includes disobedience of a court order or obstruction of justice. This contempt power is essential for preserving order in judicial proceedings and enforcing court orders. While the 1831 statute defined the scope of contempt power, it did not outline the procedures for punishing a contemnor. The Supreme Court has distinguished between criminal and civil contempt in its rulings. Civil contempt is viewed as the refusal of an individual in a civil case to obey a mandatory order, and it can be purged by obedience to the court order. On the other hand, classic criminal contempt involves a completed act of contempt, and punishment serves to vindicate the court's authority.
The Supreme Court's rulings have played a significant role in shaping the understanding and application of contempt power. In Ex parte Robinson (1874), the Court determined that a district judge could not disbar an attorney for contempt, as the 1831 statute limited punishments to fines or imprisonment. This ruling highlighted the inherent contempt power of courts while acknowledging the potential for congressional limitation. In Michaelson v. United States (1924), the Court interpreted sections of the Clayton Act related to punishment for contempt in labour disputes. The Court upheld the right to a jury trial for criminal contempt when the punishment exceeded that of a petty offence, typically six months.
The Supreme Court has also addressed the distinction between direct and indirect contempt. Direct contempt occurs in the view of the court, while indirect contempt happens within the court's presence but outside its direct view. In Ex parte Terry (1888), former California Chief Justice David Terry was found guilty of direct contempt for assaulting a U.S. marshal in a federal courtroom. Additionally, the Court has ruled on contempt in the context of grand jury proceedings. In Harris v. United States, the Court held that summary contempt proceedings in aid of a grand jury probe did not constitute contempt "in the actual presence of the court."
The contempt power of federal courts extends beyond the Supreme Court to inferior federal courts, and these courts' limitations are often based on the Supreme Court's supervisory power. However, when limitations are applied to inferior federal courts, they may also become constitutional limitations binding on state courts. This dynamic was observed in Cheff v. Schnackenberg (1966) and Bloom v. Illinois (1968), where the Supreme Court's rulings on contempt powers were subsequently applied to both federal and state courts.
In summary, the Supreme Court's authority to punish contempt is well-established and plays a crucial role in maintaining order and enforcing court orders. The Court's rulings have refined the understanding of contempt power, differentiated between criminal and civil contempt, and addressed the nuances of direct and indirect contempt. The Court's decisions have also influenced the contempt powers of inferior federal courts and, by extension, constitutional limitations on state courts.
The Senate's Impartiality: A Constitutional Obligation?
You may want to see also
Humanitarian exceptions to sanctions
The use of sanctions by the United States has significantly increased since 1990, with the country having established economic sanctions on more than 20 countries since 1998. Sanctions have been justified on moral grounds, such as punishing authoritarian leaders, stopping aggression, and responding to human rights violations. However, these sanctions have also been criticised for their negative humanitarian impact, including undermining human security and compromising access to healthcare, food, and potable water.
In recognition of these criticisms, the US government has provided exemptions and licenses for humanitarian goods and assistance. For example, in response to the 2023 Turkey-Syria earthquake, the US provided no immediate aid to Syria, with some media outlets incorrectly stating that President Bashar al-Assad was preventing humanitarian aid from reaching certain areas. Additionally, the US Treasury Department issued general licenses allowing the delivery of humanitarian goods to Afghanistan, where millions were at risk of famine due to international sanctions and the freezing of the country's central bank assets.
There are also regulatory exceptions to sanctions, such as those outlined in the U.S.C. Title 50 - War and National Defense. These exceptions include business operations conducted under a license from the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), providing goods or services to marginalized populations or humanitarian organizations, and promoting health or education. Similar exceptions are made for compliance with the Agreement regarding the Headquarters of the United Nations, where admitting an individual to the US is necessary to uphold this agreement.
Despite these exceptions, the effectiveness of humanitarian exemptions has been questioned. In the case of Afghanistan, general licenses were issued, but banks and businesses remained hesitant to engage due to the fear of violating prohibitions and facing subsequent sanctions. This highlights the need for clear guidance for financial institutions and other involved parties to ensure that humanitarian assistance can continue without unintended consequences.
Founding Fathers, Constitution Writers: Were They Pot Smokers?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Sanctions against foreign persons
The US Constitution grants federal courts the authority to impose sanctions on parties or attorneys who engage in misconduct, including disobedience of a court order or obstruction of justice. This power is known as "inherent powers over contempt and sanctions".
The President is responsible for determining if a foreign person has knowingly and materially contributed to the efforts of a foreign country, project, or entity to acquire or develop chemical or biological weapons capabilities. This includes the export of goods or technology under US jurisdiction. If such a determination is made, the President is urged to initiate consultations with the relevant foreign government before imposing sanctions. These consultations can be extended for up to 90 days if the foreign government is taking steps to address the issue.
The sanctions remain in place for at least 12 months and can only be waived by the President if it is deemed vital to US national security interests. During this period, the US government refrains from procuring goods or services from the sanctioned entities and prohibits the importation of their products.
It is important to note that there are exceptions to these sanctions, such as for humanitarian activities, the import and export of informational materials, and personal communications that do not involve transfers of value.
Constitution's Role: Union's War Resolution
You may want to see also
Sanctions against the International Criminal Court
The United States' relationship with the International Criminal Court (ICC) has been strained, with the US never formally joining the court. The Clinton administration signed the Rome Statute in 2000, but it was never ratified by the Senate. The George W. Bush administration stated that it would not join the ICC, and while the Obama administration re-established a working relationship with the court as an observer, it did not formally join or ratify the Rome Statute.
The ICC has faced criticism from US officials, who argue that it poses a threat to American national sovereignty and has "broad unaccountable prosecutorial powers". In March 2019, the US imposed visa bans on ICC staff involved in the potential investigation of US citizens, which was seen as an attempt to deter scrutiny of US conduct. This was followed by the revocation of the visa of the Prosecutor of the ICC, Fatou Bensouda, in April 2019, due to an upcoming investigation into possible war crimes committed by US forces during the War in Afghanistan.
In June 2020, former US President Donald Trump authorized sanctions against the ICC in retaliation for the aforementioned investigation. Trump's Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, referred to the ICC as a "kangaroo court" and claimed that it was "attacking America's rule of law". In February 2025, Trump issued an executive order imposing sanctions on the ICC, following its issuance of arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Galant in November 2024.
On April 2, 2021, President Joe Biden lifted the Trump-era sanctions against Bensouda and Phakiso Mochochoko, the head of the ICC's Jurisdiction, Complementarity, and Cooperation Division. While Secretary of State Antony Blinken maintained the country's objection to the ICC's jurisdiction over personnel of non-States Parties, he expressed a preference for engagement with stakeholders to address concerns.
The US has the authority to impose sanctions on foreign persons or entities under 22 U.S. Code § 2798. This allows the President to impose sanctions if it is determined that a foreign person has knowingly and materially contributed to the efforts of any foreign country, project, or entity to acquire chemical or biological weapons. The sanctions are imposed for a minimum of 12 months and can be waived by the President if it is deemed important to the national security interests of the United States.
Exploring Political Science Through the Lens of the Constitution
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The President has the authority to impose sanctions on foreign persons or entities that are deemed to pose a threat to national security or are involved in illicit activities, such as the acquisition of chemical or biological weapons. The President can also invoke the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose economic sanctions during national emergencies.
The IEEPA grants the President broad powers to impose economic sanctions during national emergencies. It has been criticised for its lack of oversight and due process, with targets of sanctions facing significant challenges and limited recourse.
While the President has significant authority to impose sanctions, Congress can provide checks and balances through its legislative powers. Congress can pass laws and regulations that guide and limit the President's use of sanctions, such as requiring a declaration of a national emergency before imposing certain sanctions.
The US Constitution establishes the separation of powers between the three branches of government, including the President's role in foreign policy. While the Constitution does not directly address sanctions, it outlines the President's authority to take actions necessary for national security and foreign relations, which includes the use of sanctions. The Constitution also guarantees due process, which can be relevant in the context of sanctions targeting individuals or entities.
