497,539 U.S. 396 (2003). The Court`s opinion in the case of Ladies and Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654 (1981), was rich in learning on many topics with executive agreements, but the preventive force of the agreements, which relied exclusively on the power of the president, was not on the agenda, as the Court concluded that Congress had authorized various presidential actions or had long accepted them in others. The implementation of executive agreements increased considerably after 1939. Prior to 1940, the U.S. Senate had ratified 800 treaties and presidents had concluded 1,200 executive agreements; From 1940 to 1989, during World War II and the Cold War, presidents signed nearly 800 treaties, but concluded more than 13,000 executive treaties. Britannica.com: Encyclopedia Article on Executive Agreements In the United States, executive agreements are internationally binding when negotiated and concluded under the authority of the President on foreign policy, as commander-in-chief of the armed forces or from a previous act of Congress. For example, the President, as Commander-in-Chief, negotiates and concludes Armed Forces Agreements (SOFAs) that govern the treatment and disposition of U.S. forces deployed in other nations.
However, the President cannot unilaterally enter into executive agreements on matters that are not in his constitutional jurisdiction. In such cases, an agreement should take the form of an agreement between Congress and the executive branch or a contract with the Council and the approval of the Senate.  Zschernig had been dormant for some time and, although it had recently been examined by the Court, it remains the only instance in which the Court applied a dormant foreign policy power to make state law too throes. In the 1990s, there was renewed academic interest in Zschernig, when some national and local governments sought ways to express dissatisfaction with foreign governments` human rights policy or to restrict trade with non-favoured countries.20 Christmas Signs. B, Michael D. Ramsey, The Power of the States in Foreign Affairs: The Original Understanding of Foreign Policy Federalism, 75 Notre Dame L. Rev. 341 (1999) ; Carlos Manuel Vazquez, Whither Zschernig?, 46 Vill.
L. Rev. 1259 (2001); Jack L. Goldsmith, Federal Courts, Foreign Affairs and Federalism, 83 Va. L. Rev. 1617 (1997); Peter J. Spiro, Foreign Relations Federalism, 70 U. Colo. L. Rev.
1223 (1999). See also Louis Henkin, Foreign Affairs and the Constitution 149-69 (2d ed. 1996). In 1999, the court repealed the Massachusetts Burmese Sanctions Act on the basis of the legal pre-emption situation and refused to consider the alternative holding of the Court of Appeal used by Zschernig.21Foot-Crosby/National Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363, 374 n.8 (2000). For the application of the Zschernig Court of Appeal, see National Council of Foreign Trade v. Natsios, 181 F.3d 38, 49:61 (1st cir. 1999). Similarly, in 2003, the court found that the California Victim Insurance Relief Act had been anticipated as an interference with the foreign policy of the Confederation, which is reflected in the executive agreements, and although the court had discussed Zschernig at length, it did not consider it necessary to resolve issues related to its scope22Foot-NoteAmerican Ins. Ass`n v. Garamendi, 539 U.S.
to 419-n.11 (2003). 491 301 U.S. 324 (1937). In B. Altman-Co. v. United States, 224 U.S. 583 (1912), the Court recognized that the reference to a « treaty » of a court statute included an executive arrangement.