Case Status
4 results
AM. INS. ASSN., ET AL. v. LOW, HARRY, ETC. (35442)
Order dated: 01/10/03Docket number: 02-722
Action:
The motion of Chamber of Commerce of the United States, et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted.
AM. INS. ASSN., ET AL. v. LOW, HARRY, ETC. (35442)
Order dated: 03/10/03Docket number: 02-722
Action:
The motion of Mitsubishi Materials Corporation, et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae is granted.
AM. INS. ASSN., ET AL. v. LOW, HARRY, ETC. (35442)
Order dated: 04/07/03Docket number: 02-722
Action:
The motions of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument are granted.
AM. INS. ASSN., ET AL. v. LOW, HARRY, ETC. (35442)
Order dated: 08/25/03Docket number: 02-722
Action:
The petitions for rehearing are denied.
A description of the questions presented by the case has been prepared:
California's Holocaust Victim Insurance Relief Act (HVIRA) requires California insurers to provide extensive information regarding every insurance policy issued in Nazi dominated Europe between 1920 and 1945 by any insurer with which the California insurer now has a legal relationship. The district court enjoined enforcement of the Act on three constitutional grounds: interference with the federal government's power over foreign affairs, due process, and the Foreign Commerce Clause. Over the objections of the U.S. government and affected foreign governments, and in direct conflict with Gerling Global Reinsurance Corp. v. Gallagher, 267 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2001), the Ninth Circuit reversed and upheld the HVIRA in all respects. 1. Whether the HVIRA, which the U.S. government has called an actual interference with U.S. foreign policy, and which affected foreign governments have protested as inconsistent with international agreements, violates the foreign affairs doctrine of Zschering v. Miller, 389 U.S. 429 (1968). 2. Whether the HVIRA, which attempts to regulate insurance transactions that occurred overseas between foreign parties more than half a century ago, exceeds California's legislative jurisdiction under the Due Process Clause. 3. Whether the McCarran-Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C. 1011-1015, insulates the HVIRA form review under the Foreign Commerce Clause.
An opinion has been handed down: