Nathaniel Holmes v. Melvin Laird, as Secretary of the United States Department of Defense

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that “when the corrective machinery specified in the [agreement] itself is nonjudicial” the U.S. courts are without power to act
• stating that “when the corrective machinery specified in the [agreement] itself is nonjudicial,” the courts are without power to act
• noting that \corrective machinery specified in the treaty itself is nonjudicial\
• declining to enforce NATO SOFA provisions because “the corrective machinery specified in the treaty itself is nonjudicial” and instead provides for “diplomatic recourse only”
• “[T]he 21 rights [appellants] claim to the provisions of an international agreement the enforcement 22 mechanism of which is diplomatic recourse only.”
• “intervention by an American court … is foreclosed by the very terms of the document from which the rights insisted upon are said to spring”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).