High Court Rejects NAFTA Review

The Supreme Court on Monday sidestepped a constitutional challenge to White House power to negotiate trade pacts and other international deals.

Justices were being pressed to strike down the North American Free Trade Agreement because it was not endorsed by a two-thirds vote of the Senate, a constitutional requirement for treaties.

The court declined, without comment, to review the case, which could have jeopardized the standing of other agreements and made it harder for presidents to negotiate future pacts.

The United Steelworkers of America argued that presidents should not be allowed to handle international deals such as congressional-executive agreements to get around the Senate vote requirement for treaties.

“Whether we are right or wrong, our submission--and the question we raise--is one that goes to the heart of the Constitution’s structural framework for making international agreements,” the union’s attorneys said.

Winning congressional approval can be difficult, as it was with NAFTA. The agreement, which had been signed by then-President Clinton, was approved by Congress in 1993 by votes of 234-200 in the House and 61-38 in the Senate.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta said the Constitution “clearly granted the political branches an enormous amount of authority in the area of foreign affairs and commerce.” The court also said the lawsuit raised a political question inappropriate for the courts to decide.

NAFTA eliminates trade barriers between America, Mexico and Canada gradually over 15 years.