Treaties and the Constitution

Case: Sei Fuji v. California (1952; CA)

Facts: Sei Fujii is a Japanese alien, and ineligible for US citizenship. He had
purchased land which was escheated to the state (reversion to the state) b/c there
is no treaty btwn Japan and the US that allows Fujii to own land. P contends that
the CA alien land is trumped by the UN Charter (treaty), and so is invalidated.

Issue: When can a treaty supersede local laws which are inconsistent with it?

Holding: UN Charter does not supersede CA alien land law (although it was still
found invalid b/c it violated the 14th amendment)

Reasoning: A treaty does not automatically supersede local laws which are
inconsistent with it unless the treaty provisions are self-executing. A self-
executing treaty operates w/o the aid of implementing legislation and to have the
force and effect of a statute, it must appear that the framers of the treaty
intended to prescribe a rule that, standing alone, would be enforceable in the
courts. In determining whether a treaty is self-executing, courts look at:
○ The intent of the signatory parties as manifested by the language of the
instrument
○ And, if the instrument is uncertain, recourse may be had to the
circumstances surrounding its execution.
Court decides the UN Charter is not self-executing, and therefore doesn’t trump CA
alien land law. However, the CA alien land law was found invalid b/c it violated
the 14 amendment.

RULE: A treaty does not automatically supersede local laws which are inconsistent
with it unless the treaty provisions are self-executing.

• Justice Marshall: A treaty is "to be regarded in courts of justice as equivalent

to an act of the Legislature, whenever it operates of itself, without the aid of
any legislative provision. But when the terms of the stipulation import a contract
- when either of the parties engages to perform a particular act, the treaty
addresses itself to the political, not the judicial department; and the
Legislature must execute the contract, before it can become a rule for the court."

Notes
• P is saying that UN Charter (treaty) shall trump CA law. B/c treaties, US
Constitution, and Federal law trumps state law.
• UN Charter is aspirational, forward-looking in nature, so not self-executing.
• Court gives examples of language from self-executing treaties (pg 187):
○ "national shall be allowed a term of 3 years in which to sell the property
- very definite on what they want to happen
○ Some parts of UN charter are very specific, and have a mandatory aspect to
them, so are self-executing;
§ Language of enforcement: mandatory