[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index ][Thread Index ]

Reuters-U.S. Supreme Court to revie

Subject: Reuters-U.S. Supreme Court to review Myanmar trade law

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_001F_01BF3BA1.A2A29280
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Monday November 29, 11:52 am Eastern Time=20
U.S. Supreme Court to review Myanmar trade law
By James Vicini=20

WASHINGTON, Nov 29 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Monday =
to review a Massachusetts law that restricts state purchases from =
companies that do business with Myanmar in a case about trade limits to =
protest human rights conditions in foreign nations.=20

The high court said it would rule on the constitutionality of the =
Massachusetts Burma Law, which was adopted in 1996 in response to =
widespread human rights abuses by the military regime in the southeast =
Asian country.=20

The case has far-reaching implications as a number of other states or =
cities adopted similar measures in the 1980s and 1990s involving Myanmar =
and other foreign nations.=20

The ``selective purchasing law'' directs state officials to publish a =
list of companies doing business with Myanmar, which formerly was called =
Burma, and restricts the ability of those firms to sell goods and =
services to Massachusetts agencies.=20

The justices will review a U.S. appeals court ruling that struck down =
the law as unconstitutional because it interferes with the federal =
government's exclusive power to set foreign policy and regulate foreign =
commerce.=20

A federal law providing for economic sanctions against Myanmar -- =
adopted three months after the Massachusetts law -- preempts the state =
law, the appeals court ruled.=20

The law effectively barred firms that do business with Myanmar from =
doing any business with Massachusetts and its state agencies by adding =
10 percent to any bids received from such companies.=20

The state adopted the law because Myanmar's military dictatorship has =
been accused of drug trafficking, torture and using slave labor.=20

Massachusetts Attorney General Thomas Reilly defended the law in his =
appeal to the Supreme Court.=20

Reilly said the law closely resembled the private boycotts and scores of =
divestment and selective purchasing laws adopted by state and local =
governments nationwide in the 1980s to protest against apartheid in =
South Africa.=20

He said the appeals court ruling cast doubt on similar laws adopted by =
about 20 cities involving Myanmar as well as a number of state and local =
laws concerning Cuba, China, Northern Ireland, Nigeria and other =
countries.=20

Reilly said the recent rise in global commerce and international trade =
agreements heightened the need for review of whether the state laws =
unconstitutionally interfere with foreign commerce and foreign affairs.=20

He said the issue involved national importance and should be settled by =
the Supreme Court.=20

Supporting Massachusetts were 14 other states, a number of cities with =
similar laws and a bipartisan group from Congress consisting of one =
senator and 54 members of the House of Representatives.=20

The lawmakers said Congress has consistently refused to preempt state =
and local selective purchasing laws, including the Massachusetts law.=20

A lawsuit challenging the law had been filed by the National Foreign =
Trade Council, a group that represents U.S. businesses.=20

Lawyers for the group said the appeals court ruling was correct. Still, =
the lawyers said the Supreme Court justices should hear the case if they =
believed it raised unsettled issues.=20

The justices will hear arguments in the case in the spring, with a =
decision due by the end of June.=20


------=_NextPart_000_001F_01BF3BA1.A2A29280
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2614.3500" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><B>Monday November 29, 11:52 am =
<SMALL>Eastern=20
Time</SMALL></B>=20
<H2><FONT size=3D4>U.S. Supreme Court to review Myanmar trade =
law</FONT></H2><!--rf|943894320--><!-- TextStart -->
<P>By James Vicini=20
<P>WASHINGTON, Nov 29 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on =
Monday to=20
review a Massachusetts law that restricts state purchases from companies =
that do=20
business with Myanmar in a case about trade limits to protest human =
rights=20
conditions in foreign nations.=20
<P>The high court said it would rule on the constitutionality of the=20
Massachusetts Burma Law, which was adopted in 1996 in response to =
widespread=20
human rights abuses by the military regime in the southeast Asian =
country.=20
<P>The case has far-reaching implications as a number of other states or =
cities=20
adopted similar measures in the 1980s and 1990s involving Myanmar and =
other=20
foreign nations.=20
<P>The ``selective purchasing law'' directs state officials to publish a =
list of=20
companies doing business with Myanmar, which formerly was called Burma, =
and=20
restricts the ability of those firms to sell goods and services to =
Massachusetts=20
agencies.=20
<P>The justices will review a U.S. appeals court ruling that struck down =
the law=20
as unconstitutional because it interferes with the federal government's=20
exclusive power to set foreign policy and regulate foreign commerce.=20
<P>A federal law providing for economic sanctions against Myanmar -- =
adopted=20
three months after the Massachusetts law -- preempts the state law, the =
appeals=20
court ruled.=20
<P>The law effectively barred firms that do business with Myanmar from =
doing any=20
business with Massachusetts and its state agencies by adding 10 percent =
to any=20
bids received from such companies.=20
<P>The state adopted the law because Myanmar's military dictatorship has =
been=20
accused of drug trafficking, torture and using slave labor.=20
<P>Massachusetts Attorney General Thomas Reilly defended the law in his =
appeal=20
to the Supreme Court.=20
<P>Reilly said the law closely resembled the private boycotts and scores =
of=20
divestment and selective purchasing laws adopted by state and local =
governments=20
nationwide in the 1980s to protest against apartheid in South Africa.=20
<P>He said the appeals court ruling cast doubt on similar laws adopted =
by about=20
20 cities involving Myanmar as well as a number of state and local laws=20
concerning Cuba, China, Northern Ireland, Nigeria and other countries.=20
<P>Reilly said the recent rise in global commerce and international =
trade=20
agreements heightened the need for review of whether the state laws=20
unconstitutionally interfere with foreign commerce and foreign affairs.=20
<P>He said the issue involved national importance and should be settled =
by the=20
Supreme Court.=20
<P>Supporting Massachusetts were 14 other states, a number of cities =
with=20
similar laws and a bipartisan group from Congress consisting of one =
senator and=20
54 members of the House of Representatives.=20
<P>The lawmakers said Congress has consistently refused to preempt state =
and=20
local selective purchasing laws, including the Massachusetts law.=20
<P>A lawsuit challenging the law had been filed by the National Foreign =
Trade=20
Council, a group that represents U.S. businesses.=20
<P>Lawyers for the group said the appeals court ruling was correct. =
Still, the=20
lawyers said the Supreme Court justices should hear the case if they =
believed it=20
raised unsettled issues.=20
<P>The justices will hear arguments in the case in the spring, with a =
decision=20
due by the end of June. <!-- TextEnd --></P></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_001F_01BF3BA1.A2A29280--