Stephen P. Crosby, Secretary of Administration and Finance of Massachusetts, et al., v. National Foreign Trade Council
The Court unanimously struck down, under the federal preemption doctrine, a Massachusetts law that barred state agencies from buying goods and services from companies doing business with Myanmar (Burma).· AI-written
530 U.S. 363 · No. 99-474 · 1999 term · Rehnquist Court
Decided Jun 19, 2000 · argued Mar 22, 2000
Federalism · National supremacy: commodities
Struck down a state law
Majority opinion: David Souter
The voteMajority
9–09 in the majority, 0 in dissent
No dissent (9–0)
Affirmed. Stephen P. Crosby, Secretary of Administration and Finance of Massachusetts, et al., lost.
What this ruling means
Affirmed: the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit, so it stands (sometimes with changes the Court made to it).
Stephen P. Crosby, Secretary of Administration and Finance of Massachusetts, et al., was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Lost” means the Court did not give that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363 (2000), was a unanimous case in which the Supreme Court of the United States used the federal preemption doctrine to strike down the Massachusetts Burma Law, a law that effectively prohibited Massachusetts' governmental agencies from buying goods and services from companies conducting business with Myanmar (Burma), essentially a secondary boycott. The Massachusetts Burma Law was modeled after similar legislation that had targeted the apartheid regime of South Africa.
The Court reasoned that since the United States Congress passed a law imposing sanctions on Myanmar, the Massachusetts law "undermines the intended purpose and 'natural effect' of at least three provisions of the federal Act, that is, its delegation of effective discretion to the President to control economic sanctions against Burma, its limitation of sanctions solely to United States persons and new investment, and its directive to the President to proceed diplomatically in developing a comprehensive, multilateral strategy towards Burma."
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1999 term. Filled: the 9 in the majority. Hollow: the 0 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(9)
David SouterWrote the majority opinion
Antonin ScaliaWrote a concurrence
John StevensJoined the majority
Ruth GinsburgJoined the majority
Stephen BreyerJoined the majority
Sandra O'ConnorJoined the majority
Anthony KennedyJoined the majority
William RehnquistJoined the majority
Clarence ThomasJoined the majority
Dissent(0)
- None.
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- Stephen P. Crosby, Secretary of Administration and Finance of Massachusetts, et al.,Governmental official, or an official of an agency established under an interstate compact (Massachusetts)
- Respondent
- National Foreign Trade CouncilBusiness, corporation
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- Article VI, Section 2 (supremacy clause)
- Kind of law
- Constitution
- Decided by
- Judicial review (state level)
- Struck down
- A state law, as unconstitutional
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Jun 19, 2000DecidedDecided · Decided 9–0: affirmed. Stephen P. Crosby, Secretary of Administration and Finance of Massachusetts, et al., lost.
- Mar 22, 2000ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit: affirmed.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Massachusetts U.S. District Court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
6 other argued cases since 1946 on national supremacy: commodities, newest first.
- Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General, et al. v. Angel McClary Raich et al.Landmark · Federalism545 U.S. 1Jun 6, 2005 · 545 U.S. 1FederalismLandmark · Federalism6–36–3 band
- North Dakota et al. v. United States495 U.S. 423May 21, 1990 · 495 U.S. 423Federalism5–45–4 band
- Allenberg Cotton Co., Inc. v. Pittman419 U.S. 20Nov 19, 1974 · 419 U.S. 20Federalism8–18–1 band
- Hostetter et al. v. Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp.377 U.S. 324Jun 1, 1964 · 377 U.S. 324Federalism6–27–2 band
- Public Utilities Commission of California v. United States355 U.S. 534Mar 3, 1958 · 355 U.S. 534Federalism6–36–3 band
- Testa et al. v. Katt330 U.S. 386Mar 10, 1947 · 330 U.S. 386Federalism9–0Unanimous band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.