This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The Supreme Court heard arguments on April 23, 2003, in a dispute over a California law that would require disclosure of information about foreign‑insurance policies tied to Holocaust‑era claims. The petitioners argue the law interferes with U.S. foreign policy and the International Commission on Holocaust Era Insurance Claims (ICHEIC). The United States, filing as amicus, says the statute intrudes on a matter traditionally handled by the federal government and violates the Constitution. California says it has a legitimate interest in obtaining the information.
- [1] 65fda72fa93be9a20ba6-r1-f220775f324cefee.pdf, p. 1
- [2] 65fda72fa93be9a20ba6-r1-f220775f324cefee.pdf, p. 19
- [3] 65fda72fa93be9a20ba6-r1-f220775f324cefee.pdf, p. 22
- [4] 65fda72fa93be9a20ba6-r1-f220775f324cefee.pdf, p. 42
- [5] 65fda72fa93be9a20ba6-r1-f220775f324cefee.pdf, p. 1
- [6] 65fda72fa93be9a20ba6-r1-f220775f324cefee.pdf, p. 1
- [7] 65fda72fa93be9a20ba6-r1-f220775f324cefee.pdf, p. 19
- [8] 65fda72fa93be9a20ba6-r1-f220775f324cefee.pdf, p. 22
- [9] 65fda72fa93be9a20ba6-r1-f220775f324cefee.pdf, p. 23
- [10] 65fda72fa93be9a20ba6-r1-f220775f324cefee.pdf, p. 25
- [11] 65fda72fa93be9a20ba6-r1-f220775f324cefee.pdf, p. 30
- [12] 65fda72fa93be9a20ba6-r1-f220775f324cefee.pdf, p. 42
- [13] 65fda72fa93be9a20ba6-r1-f220775f324cefee.pdf, p. 43
- [14] 65fda72fa93be9a20ba6-r1-f220775f324cefee.pdf, p. 35
- [15] 65fda72fa93be9a20ba6-r1-f220775f324cefee.pdf, p. 36
Background and question before the Court
The case was scheduled for oral argument at 10:10 a.m. before the Supreme Court.
According to Justice, justices asked whether the President can preempt state law on foreign‑policy grounds.
According to Justice (question), justices inquired whether a preemptive statute or treaty would invoke the Supremacy Clause rather than the President’s foreign‑affairs power.
What each side argues
American Insurance Association (Petitioner)
According to American Insurance Association, the United States has facilitated and encouraged the establishment of the International Commission on Holocaust Era Insurance Claims (ICHEIC).
According to Petitioners, the law would interfere with U.S. foreign‑policy goals and the ICHEIC system, which two Presidents have said serves the best interests of Holocaust victims.
United States (Amicus)
According to United States, the California statute is not a general law but targets foreign insurance transactions from more than 50 years ago, a matter traditionally handled by the national government.
According to United States, disclosure is a form of regulation that falls under federal securities law, so a state may not enforce its policies on disclosure of information in other states.
According to United States, the statute violates the Constitution because it impedes longstanding national efforts to cooperate with European countries on Holocaust claims.
According to United States, the impact of the statute would be felt by the nation as a whole, affecting U.S. relations with European countries.
California (Respondent)
According to California, california has an interest in obtaining information that companies doing business in the state have been unwilling to provide.
What happened at oral argument
Kenneth S. Geller appeared for the petitioners; Edwin S. Kneedler appeared for the United States as amicus; Frank Kaplan appeared for the respondent.
According to Justice, justices asked whether the President can preempt state law on foreign‑policy grounds.
According to Justice (question), justices questioned whether a preemptive statute or treaty would invoke the Supremacy Clause rather than the President’s foreign‑affairs power.
Justice Souter asked whether a congressional condemnation would preclude California from enforcing the statute.
According to Justice (unspecified), justices raised questions about a letter from Eizenstat concerning subpoenas and disclosure, seeking clarification on its scope.
According to Chief Justice Rehnquist, chief Justice Rehnquist concluded the argument with the remark “de minimis non curat lex.”
- [1] 65fda72fa93be9a20ba6-r1-f220775f324cefee.pdf, p. 1
- [2] 65fda72fa93be9a20ba6-r1-f220775f324cefee.pdf, p. 35
- [3] 65fda72fa93be9a20ba6-r1-f220775f324cefee.pdf, p. 36
- [4] 65fda72fa93be9a20ba6-r1-f220775f324cefee.pdf, p. 44
- [5] 65fda72fa93be9a20ba6-r1-f220775f324cefee.pdf, pp. 53–55
- [6] 65fda72fa93be9a20ba6-r1-f220775f324cefee.pdf, p. 56
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 65fda72fa93be9a20ba6-r1-f220775f324cefee.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 20, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.