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."[2]
^Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, 530U.S.363 (2000).
Further reading
Denning, Brannon P.; McCall, Jack H. (2000). "Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council. 120 S.Ct. 2288". American Journal of International Law. 94 (4). The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 94, No. 4: 750–758. doi:10.2307/2589803. JSTOR2589803. S2CID229170511.
Stumberg, Robert; Porterfield, Matthew C. (2001). "Who Preempted the Massachusetts Burma Law? Federalism and Political Accountability under Global Trade Rules". Publius. 31 (3). Publius, Vol. 31, No. 3: 173–204. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.pubjof.a004903. JSTOR3330999.