New Hampshire
How Dames & Moore v. Regan applies in New Hampshire: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Constitutional Law.
In New Hampshire, the principles established in Dames & Moore v. Regan regarding executive authority and foreign affairs are respected, particularly in the context of legislative and judicial constraints. New Hampshire courts tend to defer to executive actions that stem from sufficient constitutional authority.
Executive action concerning foreign affairs must be supported by a clear delegation of authority from the legislature when exercising powers that infringe upon individual rights, as established in Dames & Moore.
In this case, the New Hampshire Supreme Court held that the executive's powers in foreign affairs can be limited by state statute, emphasizing the need for a clear legislative mandate.
This case determined that while the executive has broad powers in foreign relations, such powers cannot supersede state constitutional provisions on individual rights.
The court found that unilateral executive decisions must be subject to judicial review to ensure compliance with both state and federal law.
New Hampshire's approach generally aligns with the federal standard established in Dames & Moore, which affirms the executive's ability to act in foreign affairs. However, New Hampshire emphasizes the necessity for statutory backing, providing a stricter requirement than typically seen at the federal level.
The principles from Dames & Moore may appear in the New Hampshire bar exam, particularly in questions assessing executive power and foreign affairs.