Irving Sarnoff v. John B. Connally, Sec'y of the Treasury, Dorothy A. Elston, Treasurer of the United States, 457 F.2d 809 (9th Cir. 1972). · Go Syfert
Irving Sarnoff v. John B. Connally, Sec'y of the Treasury, Dorothy A. Elston, Treasurer of the United States, 457 F.2d 809 (9th Cir. 1972). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
12 citation events across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Northrop Corp. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (ca9, 1983-02-28)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Northrop Corp. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.
9th Cir. · 1983 · confidence medium
See Gilligan v. Morgan, 413 U.S. 1 , 93 S.Ct. 2440 , 37 L.Ed.2d 407 (1973) (court supervision of National Guard training constituted a political question); Sarnoff v. Connally, 457 F.2d 809, 809-10 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 929 , 93 S.Ct. 227 , 34 L.Ed.2d 186 (1972) (action challenging war-power provisions of the Foreign Assistance Act presented a political question); Rappenecker v. United States, 509 F.Supp. 1024, 1028-30 (N.D.Cal.1980) (claim that President was negligent in responding to seizure of American cargo vessel by Cambodian gunboats dismissed as political question). 24 2.
cited Cited "see" Koohi v. United States
9th Cir. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
Id. at 211-13 , 82 S.Ct. at 706-08 ; see Sarnoff v. Connally, 457 F.2d 809 (9th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Eben Hopson, Sr. v. Juanita Kreps
9th Cir. · 1980 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., Sarnoff v. Connally, 457 F.2d 809 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 929 , 93 S.Ct. 227 , 34 L.Ed.2d 186 (1972) (constitutional challenge to executive warmaking); Atlee v. Laird, 347 F.Supp. 689 (E.D.Pa.1972), aff'd, 411 U.S. 911 , 93 S.Ct. 1545 , 36 L.Ed.2d 304 (1973) (same).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Irving SARNOFF Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
John B. CONNALLY, Secretary of the Treasury, Dorothy A. Elston, Treasurer of the United States, Defendants-Appellees
71-3049.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Mar 27, 1972.
457 F.2d 809
George T. Altman, Beverly Hills, Cal., for plaintiffs-appellants., William D. Keller, U. S. Atty., Frederick M. Brosio, Jr., Carolyn M. Reynolds, Asst. U. S. Attys., Los Angeles, Cal., for defendants-appellees.
Hamley, Browning, Wright.
Cited by 11 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

Appellants seek a judicial determination that the military assistance and foreign aid provisions of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, specifically 22 U.S.C. §§ 2318, 2360, and 2364, are an invalid delegation to the Executive of power to wage war without a congressional declaration of war, because of the disbursement of funds under these sections for military purposes in Southeast Asia.

The conduct of foreign affairs is within the exclusive province of Congress and the Executive. Whether a plaintiff challenges the selective service system or the foreign aid and appropriations as-[*810] peets of congressional cooperation in the present conflict, he presents a political question which we decline to adjudicate. See DaCosta v. Laird, 448 F.2d 1368 (2d Cir. 1971); Orlando v. Laird, 443 F.2d 1039 (2d Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 869, 92 S.Ct. 94, 30 L.Ed.2d 113 (1971); Simmons v. United States, 406 F.2d 456, 460 (5th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 982, 89 S.Ct. 2144, 23 L.Ed.2d 770 (1969); Luftig v. McNamara, 126 U.S.App.D.C. 4, 373 F.2d 664 (1967), cert. denied, 387 U.S. 945, 87 S.Ct. 2078, 18 L.Ed.2d 1332 (1967).

Dismissal of the complaint is affirmed.