Congress renews its commitment to non-nuclear sanctions – how this will affect states’ sanctions that remain on the books is anybody’s guess.
In the wake of Donald Trump’s presidential election triumph, world leaders grapple with the possibility of a major shift in U.S. policy vis-á-vis Iran. http://www.timesofisrael.com/eu-ministers-reaffirm-iran-deal-in-face-of-trump-presidency/
John E. Smith, director of the Office of Foreign Assets Control at the U.S. Department of Treasury, gave a substantive address on the Iran sanctions at the Atlantic Council on June 16. Read more http://www.tehrantimes.com/news/403750/OFAC-elaborates-on-implementation-of-the-Iran-nuclear-deal
The Texas governor responds to Mull’s letter, ignoring the encouragement of the administration to withdraw state-level sanctions. Read more http://gov.texas.gov/news/press-release/22315
Jack Goldsmith and Amira Mikhail agree with Kontorovich in that presidential preemption policies enshrined in the Court’s decision in American Insurance Association v. Garamendi likely do not apply in the case of the JCPOA and state sanctions, and that the Court’s ruling in Medellin further emphasizes this. However, they argue that federal preemption relying on
Michael Ramsey writes in support of Kontorovich, arguing that states are on “very strong ground” in fighting to keep their sanctions because of the Supreme Court’s decision in Medellin. Read more http://originalismblog.typepad.com/the-originalism-blog/2016/04/the-legality-of-state-sanctions-on-iranmichael-ramsey.html
This New York Post op-ed capitalizes on Kontorovich’s argument to present a case for New York Governor Andrew Cuomo to keep the state’s sanctions in place. Read more http://nypost.com/2016/04/20/how-cuomo-can-say-no-to-obama-on-iran-sanctions/