NEWS - U.S. Supreme Court to review

[TheTruth@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Subject: NEWS - U.S. Supreme Court to review Myanmar trade law

Monday November 29, 11:52 am Eastern Time

U.S. Supreme Court to review Myanmar trade law

By James Vicini

WASHINGTON, Nov 29 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Monday
to review a Massachusetts law that restricts state
purchases from companies that do business with Myanmar in a case about
trade limits to protest human rights conditions in foreign
nations.

The high court said it would rule on the constitutionality of the
Massachusetts Burma Law, which was adopted in 1996 in response to
widespread human rights abuses by the military regime in the southeast
Asian country.

The case has far-reaching implications as a number of other states or
cities adopted similar measures in the 1980s and 1990s involving Myanmar
and other foreign
nations.

The ``selective purchasing law'' directs state officials to publish a
list of companies doing business with Myanmar, which formerly was called
Burma, and restricts the
ability of those firms to sell goods and services to Massachusetts
agencies.

The justices will review a U.S. appeals court ruling that struck down
the law as unconstitutional because it interferes with the federal
government's exclusive power to set
foreign policy and regulate foreign commerce.

A federal law providing for economic sanctions against Myanmar --
adopted three months after the Massachusetts law -- preempts the state
law, the appeals court ruled.

The law effectively barred firms that do business with Myanmar from
doing any business with Massachusetts and its state agencies by adding
10 percent to any bids
received from such companies.

The state adopted the law because Myanmar's military dictatorship has
been accused of drug trafficking, torture and using slave labor.

Massachusetts Attorney General Thomas Reilly defended the law in his
appeal to the Supreme Court.

Reilly said the law closely resembled the private boycotts and scores of
divestment and selective purchasing laws adopted by state and local
governments nationwide in
the 1980s to protest against apartheid in South Africa.

He said the appeals court ruling cast doubt on similar laws adopted by
about 20 cities involving Myanmar as well as a number of state and local
laws concerning Cuba,
China, Northern Ireland, Nigeria and other countries.

Reilly said the recent rise in global commerce and international trade
agreements heightened the need for review of whether the state laws
unconstitutionally interfere with
foreign commerce and foreign affairs.

He said the issue involved national importance and should be settled by
the Supreme Court.

Supporting Massachusetts were 14 other states, a number of cities with
similar laws and a bipartisan group from Congress consisting of one
senator and 54 members of
the House of Representatives.

The lawmakers said Congress has consistently refused to preempt state
and local selective purchasing laws, including the Massachusetts law.

A lawsuit challenging the law had been filed by the National Foreign
Trade Council, a group that represents U.S. businesses.

Lawyers for the group said the appeals court ruling was correct. Still,
the lawyers said the Supreme Court justices should hear the case if they
believed it raised unsettled
issues.

The justices will hear arguments in the case in the spring, with a
decision due by the end of June.