It was left to focus, instead, on alleged tension between the HVIRA
and "policy objectives implicit in the ...
In its holding, the Court invalidated HVIRA because it was an unconstitutional exercise of state authority that interfered with the federal government's ability to establish foreign policy.
at 401; Holocaust Victim Insurance Relief Act (HVIRA), CAL.
at 439 (Ginsburg, J., dissenting) (noting that because the HVIRA takes no position on any contemporary foreign government, it "requires no assessment of any existing foreign regime").
"[At issue in Garamendi,] was California's Holocaust Victim Insurance Relief Act of 1999 (HVIRA)], 'by making exclusion from a large sector of the American insurance market the automatic sanction for noncompliance with the State's own policies on disclosure,' which required broader disclosure than the ICHEIC, '[HVIRA] undercut the President's diplomatic discretion and the choice he ...
"Because enforcement of the California law would mean that the President could not wield the full "coercive power of the national economy' as a tool of diplomacy in negotiating a process for settling claims, the Court concluded that the HVIRA 'compromise[d] the very capacity of the President to speak for the Nation with one voice in dealing with other governments to resolve claims against European companies arising out of World War II.' Id.
The HVIRA's disclosure requirement, although not directly in conflict with the government's policy to encourage use of the ICHEIC to resolve Holocaust-era insurance claims, nonetheless undermined the Government's objective by 'thwarting the Government's policy of repose for companies that pay through the ICHEIC' and by undercutting privacy protections of European allies.
The injunction was not vacated, so that the insurers could present to the trial court the question of whether the provisions of HVIRA might violate the due process of rights of the insurers.
Under these circumstances, there was no state usurpation of foreign policy power: "We read the Holocaust Act to embrace state legislation like HVIRA." See 240 F.3d at 748.
The Federal Government promptly notified California officials that HVIRA created two major problems.
Petitioner insurance entities then filed the present action in California federal court, charging that HVIRA violated the U.S.
Moreover, the Court is not persuaded by California's argument that, even if HVIRA does interfere with Executive Branch foreign policy, Congress permitted the states to pass laws of this type in the McCarran-Ferguson Act and in the U.S.