Conducting Foreign Relations Without Authority: The Logan Act

^Pr^ep^ar^{ed f}^o^r^M^e^m^b^ers^an^d^Com^mⁱ^t^t^ees^of^C^ong^r^e^ss

The Logan Act, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 953, states:
^Any^ci^tizen^o^f^th^{e U}ⁿ^{ited State}^s^,^w^h^erev^er^h^e^m^a^y^be,^w^h^o,^w^ith^ou^{t a}^u^t^h^orit^y^of^t^h^{e U}ⁿ^ited
^States^{, directl}^y^{or in}^directl^y^comm^en^ce^s^{or c}^a^r^rⁱ^e^s^oⁿ^aⁿ^y^c^o^r^r^e^s^p^oⁿ^d^eⁿ^c^e^o^rⁱⁿ^t^e^r^c^o^u^r^s^e^wⁱ^t^h
^any^f^o^reign^g^o^v^e^rnm^eⁿ^t^{or any}^o^f^{ficer or ag}^en^{t t}^h^er^eo^f^,ⁱⁿ^r^e^latioⁿ^to^aⁿ^y^dⁱ^sp^u^t^{es o}^r
^con^t^rov^e^rs^ies^wⁱ^t^h^th^e^Unⁱ^t^{ed States}^{, or to def}^{eat t}^h^e^m^e^a^s^u^r^es^of^t^h^{e U}ⁿ^{ited State}^s^{, s}^h^{all be}
^fⁱⁿ^e^d^uⁿ^d^er^th^{is tit}^{le o}^rⁱ^m^p^r^is^oⁿ^edⁿ^o^t^m^o^r^e^th^aⁿ^th^r^ee^y^ear^{s, o}^r^b^o^t^h^.
^T^h^{is sectio}ⁿ^s^h^allⁿ^o^{t ab}^rⁱ^d^g^e^th^{e r}ⁱ^g^h^{t o}^f^{a ci}^tizen^to^ap^p^l^y^,^hⁱ^m^s^el^f^o^r^hⁱ^{s a}^g^en^{t, to}^an^y
^fo^r^eⁱ^g^{n go}^ve^rⁿ^me^nt^o^r^t^h^e^a^g^eⁿ^t^s^t^h^e^r^e^o^f^fo^r^r^e^d^r^e^{ss o}^f^aⁿ^{y i}ⁿ^j^u^r^y^w^hⁱ^c^h^he^ma^y^ha^ve
^s^u^s^t^aiⁿ^e^{d f}^r^o^m^s^u^c^h^g^o^v^e^rⁿ^m^eⁿ^t^{or any}^o^f^its^a^g^en^t^s^{or s}^u^bj^ects^.
The Logan Act was intended to prohibit United States citizens without authority from interfering
in relations between the United States and foreign governments. There appear to have been no
prosecutions under the Act in its more than 200 year history. However, there have been a number
of judicial references to the Act, and it is not uncommon for it to be used as a point of challenge
concerning dealings with foreign officials. Although attempts have been made to repeal the Act, it
remains law and at least a potential sanction to be used against anyone who without authority
interferes in the foreign relations of the United States.

Introduc tion ..................................................................................................................................... 1
History of the Logan Act.................................................................................................................1
Judicial References to the Logan Act..............................................................................................2
Department of State References......................................................................................................8
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 9
Author Contact Information..........................................................................................................10

The Logan Act, designed to cover relations between private citizens of the United States and
foreign governments, has prompted much controversy as to its scope and effect in its more than

200 years. Described as either a “paper dragon or sleeping giant” by one commentator,

proclaimed to be possibly unconstitutional by others, it represents a combination of legal and
policy factors in both domestic and international concerns.
As amended, the Act states:
^Any^ci^tizen^o^f^th^{e U}ⁿ^{ited State}^s^,^w^h^erev^er^h^e^m^a^y^be,^w^h^o,^w^ith^ou^{t a}^u^t^h^orit^y^of^t^h^{e U}ⁿ^ited
^States^{, directl}^y^{or in}^directl^y^comm^en^ce^s^{or c}^a^r^rⁱ^e^s^oⁿ^aⁿ^y^c^o^r^r^e^s^p^oⁿ^d^eⁿ^c^e^o^rⁱⁿ^t^e^r^c^o^u^r^s^e^wⁱ^t^h
^any^f^o^reign^g^o^v^e^rnm^eⁿ^t^{or any}^o^f^{ficer or ag}^en^{t t}^h^er^eo^f^,ⁱⁿ^r^e^latioⁿ^to^aⁿ^y^dⁱ^sp^u^t^{es o}^r
^con^t^rov^e^rs^ies^wⁱ^t^h^th^e^Unⁱ^t^{ed States}^{, or to def}^{eat t}^h^e^m^e^a^s^u^r^es^of^t^h^{e U}ⁿ^{ited State}^s^{, s}^h^{all be}
^fⁱⁿ^e^d^uⁿ^d^er^th^{is tit}^{le o}^rⁱ^m^p^r^is^oⁿ^edⁿ^o^t^m^o^r^e^th^aⁿ^th^r^ee^y^ear^{s, o}^r^b^o^t^h^.
^T^h^{is sectio}ⁿ^s^h^allⁿ^o^{t ab}^rⁱ^d^g^e^th^{e r}ⁱ^g^h^{t o}^f^{a ci}^tizen^to^ap^p^l^y^,^hⁱ^m^s^el^f^o^r^hⁱ^{s a}^g^en^{t, to}^an^y
^fo^r^eⁱ^g^{n go}^ve^rⁿ^me^nt^o^r^t^h^e^a^g^eⁿ^t^s^t^h^e^r^e^o^f^fo^r^r^e^d^r^e^{ss o}^f^aⁿ^{y i}ⁿ^j^u^r^y^w^hⁱ^c^h^he^ma^y^ha^ve¹
^s^u^s^t^aiⁿ^e^{d f}^r^o^m^s^u^c^h^g^o^v^e^rⁿ^m^eⁿ^t^{or any}^o^f^its^a^g^en^t^s^{or s}^u^bj^ects^.
In 1994 the fine was changed from $5,000 to “under this title.”² Otherwise, there do not appear to
have been any substantial changes in the Act since its original enactment on January 30, 1799, as

1 Stat. 613.

After the French Revolution, difficulties developed between the Federalist Administration of the ³
United States and the various revolutionary governments of France. Because the United States
had not assisted the French revolutionaries to their satisfaction and because the United States had
ratified the Jay Treaty with Great Britain, the French government authorized plunderings of
American merchant ships. In 1797 President Adams sent John Marshall, Charles C. Pinckney, and
Elbridge Gerry as special envoys to France to negotiate and settle claims and causes of
differences which existed between the French Directory and the United States. This mission
resulted in the XYZ letters controversy, and its failure led to such strong anti-France feelings in
the United States that preparations for war were begun by the Congress.
After the unsuccessful envoys returned from France, Dr. George Logan, a Philadelphia Quaker, a
doctor, and a Republican, decided to attempt on his own to settle the controversies. Bearing a
private certificate of citizenship from his friend, Thomas Jefferson, who at the time was Vice
President, Logan sailed for France on June 12, 1798. In France he was hailed by the newspapers

¹^{18 U}^.^S.C^.^§⁹⁵^3.
²^P^.^L.¹⁰³^-³²^2,^{§ 33}⁰⁰¹⁶⁽¹⁾⁽^K⁾^.^See^{18 U}^.^S^.^{C. s}^e^c^tio^{n 3}⁵⁷¹^f^o^{r s}^c^h^e^dule^of^fⁱ^ne^s^a^pplic^a^b^le^t^o^oⁿ^e^f^ound^g^u^ilty^of^t^y^pe
^of^f^e^lony^r^e^pr^e^s^eⁿ^te^{d by}^L^o^g^a^{n A}^c^t.
³^For^a^dditi^ona^l^inf^o^r^m^a^{tion o}ⁿ^t^h^e^his^t^or^y^of^the^L^o^g^a^{n A}^c^t,^see^Kea^r^ney^,^Priv^ate^Citizeⁿ^{s i}ⁿ^F^o^re^ign^Affairs^{, 36}
^E^MO^RY^L^.^J^.²⁸^{5 (}¹⁹⁸⁷⁾^;^Va^g^t^s^,^T^h^e^Lo^ga^{n Ac}^t:^P^ape^r^Tige^r^or^Sle^e^ping^Gⁱ^aⁿ^t?^{, 6}⁰^A^.^J^.^I^.^L^.²⁶^{8 (}¹⁹⁶⁶⁾^{; a}^{nd W}^a^r^r^e^n,
^Hi^st^o^r^{y o}^f^L^a^{ws P}^r^ohⁱ^bⁱ^tⁱⁿ^g^C^o^rresp^oⁿ^d^eⁿ^{ce wi}^t^h^a^F^o^rei^gⁿ^Go^vern^m^en^t^an^{d A}^ccep^t^aⁿ^{ce o}^f^a^Co^m^mⁱ^ssi^oⁿ^{, S.}^D^o^c^.^th
^No^.⁶⁹^6,⁶⁴^C^ong^.,^2d^Se^s^s^.⁽¹⁹¹⁷⁾^.

as the envoy of peace and was received by Talleyrand. The French Directory, having concluded
that it was politically wise to relax tensions with the United States, issued a decree raising the
embargo on American merchant ships and freed American ships and seamen.
Logan, however, received a less friendly response from the United States after he returned.
Secretary of State Pickering told him that the French decree was illusory. General Washington
expressed his disapproval of Logan’s actions. President Adams recommended that Congress take
action to stop the “temerity and impertinence of individuals affecting to interfere in public affairs ⁴
between France and the United States.” Representative Roger Griswold of Connecticut
introduced a resolution in Congress to prevent actions similar to Logan’s:
^Res^o^lved^,^T^h^at^{a com}^mⁱ^t^t^{ee be}^appoiⁿ^t^{ed t}^oⁱⁿ^quⁱ^r^{e i}ⁿ^t^o^t^h^{e e}^xpedi^en^c^y^of^a^m^en^diⁿ^g^t^h^{e act}
^en^titled^“Aⁿ^{act i}ⁿ^ad^d^itioⁿ^to^th^{e act f}^o^r^th^{e p}^uⁿⁱ^s^h^m^eⁿ^t^o^f^ce^r^t^ain^crⁱ^m^{es a}^g^aiⁿ^s^{t t}^h^e^Uⁿⁱ^t^e^d
^{States,” so}^f^a^r^{as to}^ex^ten^d^th^{e p}^eⁿ^a^{lties, if}ⁿ^eed^b^e^{, to}^all^p^e^r^s^oⁿ^{s, citizen}^{s o}^f^th^{e U}ⁿ^ited
^St^a^t^e^s^,^w^h^o^s^h^a^l^l^u^s^ur^p^t^h^e^E^x^e^c^u^tⁱ^ve^a^u^t^h^o^rⁱ^t^y^o^f^t^hⁱ^s^G^o^ve^rⁿ^me^nt^,^b^y^c^o^mme^ncⁱ^{ng o}^r
^c^a^r^r^yⁱⁿ^{g o}ⁿ^aⁿ^y^c^o^r^r^e^s^p^oⁿ^d^e^nc^e^wⁱ^t^h^t^h^e^G^o^ve^rⁿ^me^nt^s^of^any^f^o^rei^gⁿ^priⁿ^ce^or^s^t^at^e,^rel^a^tⁱⁿ^g
^t^o^con^t^rov^e^rsⁱ^e^s^{or di}^s^p^u^t^es^w^hⁱ^c^h^{do or s}^h^a^{ll e}^x^is^{t bet}^w^{een s}^u^c^h^prin^{ce or s}^t^{ate, an}^{d t}^h^e⁵
^Un^ited^State^s^.
The resolution was passed, and the committee was appointed. On January 7, 1799, Griswold
introduced in the House a bill based on the resolution:
^{Be it en}^a^c^ted^,^etc.^{, t}^h^{at i}^f^an^y^p^e^r^s^oⁿ^{, b}^eⁱⁿ^g^a^citizeⁿ^o^f^t^h^e^Un^ited^States,^o^rⁱⁿ^aⁿ^y^f^o^r^eⁱ^gⁿ
^couⁿ^t^r^y^,^sh^al^l^,^wⁱ^t^h^out^t^h^e^permⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^{or a}^u^t^h^ori^t^y^of^t^h^e^G^o^v^e^rnm^eⁿ^t^of^t^h^{e U}ⁿⁱ^t^e^d^S^t^at^es^,
^directl^y^{or i}ⁿ^directl^y^{, co}^mm^eⁿ^{ce or carr}^y^oⁿ^aⁿ^y^v^e^rbal^or^w^rⁱ^t^t^e^{n corres}^pon^den^{ce or}
ⁱⁿ^ter^c^o^u^r^s^{e w}ⁱ^th^aⁿ^y^f^o^r^e^igⁿ^Go^v^e^rⁿ^m^eⁿ^t^,^o^r^an^y^o^f^{ficer or ag}^en^t^th^ereof^,^relatⁱ^ng^{to any}
^dⁱ^sp^ut^e^o^r^c^o^nt^r^o^ve^r^s^y^b^e^t^w^e^e^{n a}ⁿ^y^fo^r^eⁱ^g^{n G}^o^v^e^rnm^eⁿ^t^an^{d t}^h^e^Uⁿⁱ^t^ed^S^t^at^es^{, w}ⁱ^t^h^anⁱⁿ^t^e^nt
^t^oⁱⁿ^fl^ue^nc^e^t^h^e^me^a^s^ur^e^s^o^r^c^o^nd^uc^t^o^f^t^h^e^G^o^ve^rⁿ^m^e^nt^ha^viⁿ^g^dⁱ^sp^ut^e^s^o^r^c^o^nt^r^o^ve^r^sⁱ^e^s
^wⁱ^t^h^t^h^{e U}ⁿⁱ^t^e^d^S^t^at^es^{, a}^s^a^f^ores^ai^d;^{or of}^any^pers^on^{, bei}ⁿ^g^{a ci}^tⁱ^zen^o^f^{or res}ⁱ^den^t^wⁱ^t^hⁱⁿ^,
^th^{e U}ⁿ^{ited S}^t^ates^{, a}ⁿ^{d n}^o^{t d}^u^l^y^a^u^th^{orized s}^h^{all co}^uⁿ^s^e^{l, ad}^vⁱ^s^e^{, aid or as}^sⁱ^s^t^,^{in any}^s^u^c^h
^corres^pon^den^ce^wⁱ^t^hⁱⁿ^t^eⁿ^t^a^s^af^ores^ai^d,^h^e^{or t}^h^e^y^sh^al^l^{be dee}^m^{ed gu}ⁱ^l^t^y^o^f^a^hⁱ^gh
^mⁱ^s^d^e^m^eaⁿ^o^r;^an^{d, on conv}ⁱ^c^tⁱ^on^bef^o^{re a}ⁿ^y^cou^r^t^o^f^t^h^{e U}ⁿⁱ^t^e^{d S}^t^at^{es h}^a^vⁱ^ng^j^u^ri^s^dⁱ^c^tⁱ^on
^th^ereof^,^s^h^{all be pu}ⁿⁱ^s^h^{ed by}^a^fⁱⁿ^eⁿ^o^{t ex}^ceediⁿ^g—t^h^ou^s^aⁿ^d^dollars^{, an}^{d by}ⁱ^m^pri^s^onm^eⁿ^t⁶
^du^ring^{a ter}^mⁿ^o^{t le}^s^s^t^h^an—^m^oⁿ^t^h^s^,ⁿ^o^{t ex}^ceediⁿ^g—^y^ears^.
The bill was debated at length, and various amendments were proposed, some of which passed
and some of which did not. The House of Representatives passed the bill on January 17, 1799,
and the Senate passed it on January 25, 1799. It was signed and became a law on January 30,

1799.

There appear to have been few indictments under the Logan Act.⁷ The one indictment found
occurred in 1803 when a grand jury indicted Francis Flournoy, a Kentucky farmer, who wrote an

⁴^{1 M}^ESSA^G^E^{S A}^N^D^P^AP^E^R^S^O^F^T^H^E^P^RE^S^I^DE^N^T^{267 (}^R^ic^ha^r^d^s^o^{n e}^d^.^,¹⁸⁹⁷⁾^.
⁵^{9 A}^NN^AL^S^O^F^C^ONGRE^S^S^2489,⁵^th^C^ong^{. (}¹⁷⁹⁸⁾^.
⁶^Id^.^a^t²⁵⁶⁵^{, 2}⁵⁸³⁽¹⁷⁹⁹⁾^.
⁷^Se^e^Va^g^t^s^,^a^t²⁷^1.

article in the F^RA^NKF^OR^TG^UA^R^D^I^A^{N OF}F^REEDOM under the pen name of “A Western American.”
Flournoy advocated in the article a separate Western nation allied to France. The United States
Attorney for Kentucky, an Adams appointee and brother-in-law of Chief Justice Marshall, went
no further than procuring the indictment of Flournoy, and the purchase of the Louisiana Territory
later that year appeared to cause the separatism issue to become obsolete.
So far as can be determined, there have been no prosecutions under the Logan Act. However,
there have been a number of judicial references to the Act, among which are the following.
Judge Sprague of the Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts mentioned the Logan Act in
two charges that he made to grand juries during the Civil War. On October 18, 1861, he said:
^T^h^er^{e ar}^e^o^t^h^e^r^d^e^f^eⁿ^s^{es to}^w^h^ich^o^u^r^atteⁿ^tioⁿⁱ^s^called^b^y^th^{e p}^r^esen^{t co}ⁿ^d^itioⁿ^o^f^o^u^r
^co^uⁿ^t^r^y^.^A^f^e^w^m^oⁿ^t^h^s^siⁿ^{ce a m}^e^m^b^er^o^f^t^h^{e B}^r^itish^p^a^r^lia^m^eⁿ^t^d^eclar^ed^{, in}^t^h^e^m^o^s^t^p^u^b^lⁱ^c
^m^aⁿⁿ^{er, th}^at^h^e^h^a^{d receiv}^e^{d m}^a^ny^letters^f^r^o^m^t^h^{e Northern}^s^t^ates^of^Am^{erica u}^r^ging
^parlia^m^eⁿ^t^{to ac}^kⁿ^o^w^l^ed^g^e^t^h^{e i}ⁿ^depen^d^en^ce^of^th^e^South^e^{rn conf}^ederac^y^.^S^u^c^h^aⁿ
^anⁿ^o^uⁿ^c^e^m^eⁿ^t^ough^t^t^o^arres^t^t^h^{e at}^t^eⁿ^tⁱ^oⁿ^of^g^r^an^{d j}^u^ri^es^;^{for i}^f^any^su^c^h^co^m^m^uni^catⁱ^on
^h^a^s^beeⁿ^m^a^{de b}^y^a^citizeⁿ^{of t}^h^{e U}ⁿ^{ited S}^t^ates^{, i}^t^is^a^hⁱ^g^h^mis^d^e^m^eaⁿ^o^{r. St. 1799, c. 1. (1}
^S^t^at^{. 613)}^w^a^s^e^s^peci^al^l^y^desi^gⁿ^e^d^t^o^prev^eⁿ^t^s^u^c^h^unw^arran^t^abl^eⁱⁿ^t^e^r^f^eren^ce^wⁱ^t^h^t^h^e⁸
^di^pl^om^ac^y^an^{d pu}^rpos^es^of^o^u^{r g}^o^v^e^rnm^e^nt^.
In the second grand jury charge referring to the Logan Act, made in 1863, Judge Sprague stated:
^W^e^ha^ve^se^eⁿⁱ^t^st^a^t^e^dⁱⁿ^suc^h^f^o^r^m^a^s^t^o^a^r^r^e^st^a^t^t^eⁿ^tⁱ^o^n,^t^h^a^t^una^ut^ho^rⁱ^z^e^dⁱⁿ^dⁱ^vi^d^u^a^l^s^ha^ve
^en^ter^e^dⁱⁿ^to^co^m^m^uⁿⁱ^catioⁿ^with^m^e^m^b^er^{s o}^f^p^a^r^lia^m^eⁿ^t^aⁿ^d^f^o^r^e^igⁿ^mⁱⁿⁱ^ster^{s a}ⁿ^d^o^f^fⁱ^cer^s
ⁱⁿ^{order t}^oⁱⁿ^fl^u^eⁿ^{ce t}^h^ei^{r condu}^ct^{, i}ⁿ^coⁿ^t^rov^e^rsⁱ^e^s^wⁱ^t^h^t^h^e^Uⁿⁱ^t^e^{d St}^at^es^{, or t}^o^def^eat^t^h^e
^m^easu^r^es^of^ou^r^g^o^v^e^rnm^eⁿ^t^{. It}^ou^gh^t^t^o^{be k}ⁿ^o^wⁿ^t^h^at^s^u^c^h^a^c^t^s^h^a^v^e^been^l^ong^prohⁱ^bⁱ^t^e^d⁹
^by^l^a^w^.
American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co.¹⁰ referred to the Logan Act as follows:
^No^d^o^u^b^tⁱⁿ^r^e^gⁱ^oⁿ^{s s}^u^b^j^{ect to}ⁿ^o^so^v^e^r^e^igⁿ^,^lik^{e t}^h^{e h}ⁱ^g^h^se^{as, o}^r^toⁿ^o^la^w^th^{at ci}^v^ilized
^couⁿ^t^ries^w^o^u^l^d^recogⁿⁱ^ze^as^a^d^equ^a^te,^s^u^c^h^c^o^uⁿ^t^rⁱ^e^s^m^a^y^t^r^e^a^t^s^o^m^e^r^e^l^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^b^e^tw^e^eⁿ^t^h^ei^r
^citizens^as^g^o^v^e^rⁿ^{ed b}^y^t^h^eir^o^wⁿ^la^w^aⁿ^{d k}^{eep to}^s^o^m^e^e^x^t^eⁿ^t^t^h^{e old n}^o^tioⁿ^{of pers}^on^al
^so^v^e^r^e^igⁿ^t^y^ali^v^{e [}^c^itatioⁿ^s^o^m^itted^]^{. T}^h^e^y^g^o^f^u^r^t^h^e^r^,^at^ti^m^e^{s, a}ⁿ^d^d^eclar^{e th}^at^th^e^y^wⁱ^l^l
^puⁿⁱ^s^h^any^oⁿ^e^,^su^bj^ect^{or n}^o^t^,^w^h^o^s^h^al^l^{do cert}^a^{in thing}^sⁱ^f^th^e^y^caⁿ^catc^h^hⁱ^m^,^asⁱⁿ^t^h^e
^cas^{e of}^pirates^on^th^{e h}ⁱ^g^h^s^e^a^s^.^In^cas^esⁱ^m^m^e^diatel^y^a^f^f^e^c^tⁱⁿ^gⁿ^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^lⁱⁿ^t^e^r^e^s^t^s^th^ey^m^a^y^g^o
^f^u^r^t^h^e^r^{still a}ⁿ^d^m^a^y^m^a^k^e^{, an}^d^,^if^th^e^y^g^e^{t th}^{e c}^h^an^{ce, ex}^ec^u^t^e^si^m^ilar^t^h^r^{eats as to}^act^s^d^oⁿ^e
^wⁱ^t^hⁱⁿ^an^o^t^h^e^r^r^eco^gⁿⁱ^zed^j^u^rⁱ^sd^ictioⁿ^.^An^ill^u^s^tr^atioⁿ^f^r^o^m^o^u^r^statu^t^{es i}^s^f^o^uⁿ^d^wⁱ^t^h^r^e^g^a^r^d¹¹
^{to crim}ⁱⁿ^{al corres}^pon^den^ce^wⁱ^th^f^o^rei^gⁿ^g^o^v^e^rⁿ^m^eⁿ^t^s^.^R^e^v^.^{Stat., § 533}^5.
Burke v. Monumental Division, No. 52¹² was a case charging a union member with betraying the
interests of his union at the time of negotiation between the union and a railroad during a labor
dispute. The court compared the union’s reaction toward the act of its member with Congress’s
feelings at the time of enactment of the Logan Act.

⁸³⁰^Fe^{d. C}^a^s^.¹⁰⁴⁹^{, 1}⁰⁵⁰^-⁵^{1 (}^N^o.^18,²⁷⁷⁾^.
⁹³⁰^Fe^{d. C}^a^s^.¹⁰⁴²^{, 1}⁰⁴⁶⁽^N^o.^18,²⁷⁴⁾^.
¹⁰²¹^{3 U}^.^S^.³⁴⁷⁽¹⁹⁰⁹⁾^.
¹¹^Id^.^a^t³⁵^6.
¹²²⁸⁶^F.⁹⁴^{9 (}^D^.^M^d.¹⁹²²⁾^.

^[^T^]^h^e^p^l^aⁱⁿ^tⁱ^f^f^’^s^c^oⁿ^d^u^c^tⁱ^s^c^h^a^r^a^c^t^e^rⁱ^z^e^d^a^s^“t^r^aⁱ^t^o^r^o^u^s^,^”^aⁿ^dⁱ^tⁱ^s^s^aⁱ^d^t^h^a^t^h^e^h^a^s^c^o^m^m^itted
^“m^oral^perj^u^r^y^.^{” T}^hⁱ^sⁱ^s^s^t^ro^ng^laⁿ^g^u^a^g^e^{; b}^u^{t t}^h^{ere i}^sⁿ^o^reas^on^{to q}^u^es^tioⁿ^t^h^{at i}^t^is^reall^y
^m^ean^{t, an}^d^th^{at th}^o^s^{e r}^e^sp^oⁿ^sib^l^{e f}^o^r^{its u}^s^{e b}^e^liev^e^{it to}^b^e^f^u^ll^y^j^u^sti^f^ied^.^T^h^{e tr}^u^t^h
^dou^bt^l^e^s^sⁱ^s^t^h^at^t^o^t^h^e^m^t^h^e^Brot^h^e^rh^{ood an}^{d t}^h^{e roa}^d^s^{appear t}^o^{be al}^m^o^s^t^di^s^tⁱⁿ^ct
^so^v^e^r^e^igⁿ^tie^s.^A^t^{a ti}^m^e^w^h^eⁿⁱ^t^{is at g}^r^ip^wⁱ^t^h^th^{e co}^m^p^aⁿ^ie^{s, f}^o^r^a^m^e^m^b^er^to^{let o}ⁿ^{e o}^f^t^h^e
^latter^su^eⁱⁿ^hⁱ^sⁿ^a^m^e^{, f}^o^r^t^h^{e p}^u^r^p^o^s^{e o}^f^p^r^ev^eⁿ^tiⁿ^g^th^e^u^s^{e b}^y^{it o}^f^oⁿ^e^o^f^it^s^m^o^{st e}^f^fⁱ^cieⁿ^t
^m^eans^of^w^a^r^f^{are, does}^{to th}^em^s^e^e^m^treas^on^able^{. W}^ithⁱⁿ^t^h^{e li}^mⁱ^t^s^o^f^t^h^eir^p^o^w^e^r^,^th^e^y^ar^e
^determⁱⁿ^{ed to pu}ⁿⁱ^sh^any^su^ch^proceedin^g^.^T^h^ey^f^{eel abou}^{t it as}^{did C}^oⁿ^g^r^es^s^w^h^enⁱⁿ¹⁷⁹⁹
^{it en}^{acted th}^{e s}^o^-^cal^{led L}^o^g^aⁿ^A^c^t...^m^a^kⁱ^ng^{it a cri}^m^{e f}^o^{r an}^y^cⁱ^tⁱ^z^eⁿ^t^o^h^a^v^eⁱⁿ^t^e^r^c^o^u^r^s^e^wⁱ^th¹³
^a^fo^r^eⁱ^gn^go^ve^rⁿ^me^nt^wⁱ^t^hⁱⁿ^t^e^nt^t^o^d^e^fe^a^t^t^h^e^m^e^a^s^ur^e^s^o^f^hⁱ^{s o}^w^n.
United States v. Bryan¹⁴refers to 18 U.S.C. § 5, which is the predecessor of 18 U.S.C. § 953:
^T^h^{at th}^{e su}^b^j^{ect o}^f^uⁿ^-^A^m^e^rⁱ^c^aⁿ^an^d^s^u^b^v^er^si^v^e^acti^v^itie^{s is}^wⁱ^t^hⁱⁿ^t^h^{e in}^v^e^s^tig^atⁱⁿ^g^p^o^w^e^r
^of^t^h^e^C^oⁿ^g^r^essⁱ^s^obvⁱ^ous^{. C}^oⁿ^cei^v^a^bl^y^,ⁱⁿ^f^o^r^m^atⁱ^{on i}ⁿ^t^hⁱ^s^fⁱ^el^d^m^a^y^ai^{d t}^h^e^C^oⁿ^g^r^essⁱⁿ
^legⁱ^s^l^atiⁿ^g^coⁿ^cernⁱ^ng^aⁿ^y^oⁿ^{e of}^m^a^ny^m^a^tters^,^s^u^c^h^a^s^corres^pon^den^ce^wⁱ^t^h^f^o^reigⁿ¹⁵
^g^o^v^e^rnm^eⁿ^t^s^....
United States v. Peace Information Center¹⁶held that Congress had the power to enact the Foreign
Agents Registration Act of 1938 under its inherent power to regulate external affairs as well as
under its constitutional power to legislate concerning national defense and that the Act is not
subject to any constitutional infirmity. The court mentioned similarities between the Logan Act
and the Foreign Agents Registration Act, and the language used appears to indicate that the Logan
Act, like the Foreign Agents Registration Act, is constitutional.
^Citizeⁿ^{s o}^f^t^h^{e U}ⁿ^ited^State^s^a^r^{e f}^o^r^b^id^d^eⁿ^to^car^r^y^oⁿ^co^r^r^e^sp^oⁿ^d^eⁿ^{ce o}^rⁱⁿ^ter^c^o^u^r^s^e^wⁱ^th
^aⁿ^y^fo^r^eⁱ^g^{n go}^ve^rⁿ^m^e^nt^wⁱ^t^h^aⁿⁱⁿ^t^e^nt^t^oⁱⁿ^fl^ue^nc^eⁱ^t^s^m^e^a^s^ur^e^s^o^r^c^o^nd^uc^tⁱⁿ^r^e^l^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^t^o^any
^dis^p^u^t^es^{or con}^t^rov^e^rs^ie^s^wⁱ^t^h^th^{e U}ⁿ^{ited States}^.
^T^h^{e A}^c^{t u}ⁿ^d^{er s}^c^rutinyⁱⁿ^t^hⁱ^s^cas^{e repres}^en^ts^th^{e conv}^ers^e^{of th}^{e las}^t^m^eⁿ^tioⁿ^e^d^s^t^a^t^u^t^e^.^Th^e
^f^o^r^m^er^d^eals^wⁱ^th^c^itizeⁿ^{s o}^f^th^{e Un}^ited^S^t^ates^w^h^o^atte^m^p^{t to}^coⁿ^d^u^c^{t co}^r^r^esp^oⁿ^d^eⁿ^ce^wⁱ^t^h
^f^o^r^e^igⁿ^g^o^v^e^rⁿ^m^eⁿ^t^{s. T}^h^{e latter}^af^f^ect^{s ag}^eⁿ^{ts o}^f^f^o^r^e^igⁿ^p^rⁱⁿ^cip^a^ls^w^h^o^car^r^y^oⁿ^cer^tain
^sp^ecifⁱ^ed^acti^v^itie^{s i}ⁿ^t^h^{e U}ⁿ^ite^d^{States. B}^o^th^m^a^tter^s^ar^{e eq}^u^a^ll^y^wⁱ^thⁱⁿ^t^h^e^fⁱ^eld^o^f^e^x^terⁿ^al¹⁷
^a^ffaⁱ^r^{s o}^f^t^hⁱ^s^c^o^uⁿ^t^r^y^,^aⁿ^d^,^t^h^e^r^e^f^o^r^e^,^wⁱ^t^hⁱⁿ^t^h^eⁱⁿ^he^ren^t^re^g^u^l^a^t^o^ry^po^w^e^r^of^t^h^e^C^ong^ress^.
In Martin v. Young,¹⁸ which concerned a petition for habeas corpus by a serviceman awaiting trial
by a general court martial, the principal issue was whether the petitioner could be tried in a civil
court for the offense charged against him by the Army. A part of the specification stated:
^[^T^h^a^{t p}^e^titioⁿ^e^r^w^h^{ile i}ⁿ^terⁿ^edⁱⁿ^{a No}^r^t^h^Ko^r^ean^p^r^isoⁿ^er^o^f^w^a^r^ca^m^p^{, d}ⁱ^d^]^wⁱ^t^h^o^u^t^p^r^o^p^e^r
^au^th^orit^y^,^w^r^ong^fu^ll^y^,^uⁿ^l^a^w^f^u^ll^y^,^aⁿ^{d kn}^o^wⁱⁿ^g^l^y^{collaborate, com}^m^{unicate an}^d^h^o^ld
ⁱⁿ^ter^c^o^u^r^s^{e, d}ⁱ^r^ectl^y^an^dⁱⁿ^dⁱ^r^ectl^y^,^w^ith^t^h^{e en}^e^m^y^b^y^j^oⁱⁿⁱⁿ^g^wⁱ^t^h^{, p}^a^r^ticip^atin^gⁱⁿ^{, an}^d
^l^e^a^dⁱ^{ng d}ⁱ^sc^us^si^oⁿ^gr^o^u^p^s^aⁿ^d^c^l^a^sse^{s c}^o^nd^uc^t^e^d^b^y^t^h^e^eⁿ^e^m^y^re^f^l^ectⁱⁿ^g^vⁱ^e^w^s^aⁿ^d^opiⁿⁱ^ons

¹³^Id^.^a^t⁹⁵^2.
¹⁴⁷²^F.^Su^pp.⁵⁸⁽^D^.D^.C^.¹⁹⁴⁷⁾^.
¹⁵^Id^.^a^t⁶²^.
¹⁶⁹⁷^F.^Su^pp.²^{55 (}^D^.D^.C^{. 1}⁹⁵¹⁾^.
¹⁷^Id^.^a^t²⁶^1.
¹⁸¹³^{4 F}^.^S^u^p^p^.²⁰^{4 (N}^.D^{. Ca}^l.¹⁹⁵⁵^).

^th^{at t}^h^{e Un}^ited^Natioⁿ^s^an^d^th^{e Un}^ited^States^w^e^r^e^ille^g^a^{l ag}^g^r^es^so^r^sⁱⁿ^t^h^{e Ko}^r^ean¹⁹
^con^f^lic^t....
The court stated that the conduct described in the specification violated at least three criminal
statutes under which the petitioner could be tried in a civil court, one of which was the Logan Act,
and granted the petition. However, the Department of Justice did not prosecute Martin under the
Logan Act.
Pennsylvania v. Nelson²⁰ held that the Smith Act,²¹ which prohibits the knowing advocacy of the
overthrow of the United States Government by force and violence, supersedes the enforceability
of the Pennsylvania Sedition Act, which proscribes the same conduct. The reason given for the
pre-emption is that the federal statutes touch a field in which the federal interest is so dominant
that the federal system must be assured to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject.
The Court mentioned that “[s]tates are barred by the Constitution from entering into treaties and
by 18 U.S.C. § 953 from correspondence or intercourse with foreign governments with relation to ²²
their disputes or controversies with this Nation.”
Briehl v. Dulles²³upheld certain Department of State regulations which provided that no passport
shall be issued to members of the Communist Party. The court referred to other valid federal
statutes which restrict persons in the area of foreign relations:
^W^e^h^a^v^e^s^t^at^u^t^es^dealiⁿ^g^wⁱ^t^h^pers^on^s^w^h^{o act as}^ag^eⁿ^ts^of^a^f^o^reign^g^o^v^e^rⁿ^m^eⁿ^t^{, or th}^os^e
^w^{ho h}^a^v^e^“^c^orres^pon^den^ce”^with^{a f}^o^reign^g^o^v^e^rnm^e^nt^w^ithⁱⁿ^{tent to in}^f^l^u^eⁿ^{ce its}^m^e^a^s^u^r^e^s
ⁱⁿ^r^e^latioⁿ^to^dⁱ^sp^u^t^{es o}^r^coⁿ^t^r^o^v^e^r^s^ies^wⁱ^th^o^u^r^Go^v^e^rⁿ^m^eⁿ^t^o^r^to^d^e^f^{eat th}^e^m^e^a^s^u^r^e^s^o^f^th^e²⁴
^Un^ited^State^s^.
In Waldron v. British Petroleum Co.²⁵the plaintiff sued for triple damages under the Clayton Act
for alleged conspiracy of the defendants to prevent the importation and sale by the plaintiff of
Iranian oil. The defendants asserted that the plaintiff had obtained his contract through a series of
violations of criminal statutes including the Logan Act. The court held that, in order to maintain
this defense, the defendants would have to show that the plaintiff sought to thwart some clearly
and unequivocally asserted policy measures of the United States instead of merely statements of
opinion, attitude, and belief of government officials. The defendants were unable to show this.
Further, the court noted that:
^An^o^t^h^e^rⁱⁿ^fⁱ^r^m^it^yⁱⁿ^d^e^f^eⁿ^d^an^t^s^’^clai^m^th^{at p}^l^ain^tⁱ^f^f^vⁱ^o^l^ated^th^{e L}^o^g^aⁿ^A^c^{t is th}^{e e}^x^isteⁿ^c^e
^of^{a dou}^bt^fu^l^qu^es^tⁱ^on^wⁱ^t^h^{regard t}^o^t^h^{e cons}^tⁱ^t^u^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^lⁱ^t^y^of^t^h^at^st^at^ut^{e [L}^o^g^an^A^c^t^]^uⁿ^d^er
^th^{e Si}^x^t^h^Am^eⁿ^d^m^eⁿ^{t. T}^h^{at dou}^{bt is}^en^g^eⁿ^d^{ered by}^th^{e s}^t^atu^t^e^’^s^u^s^{e of}^t^h^{e v}^a^gu^{e an}^d
ⁱⁿ^d^e^fⁱⁿ^{ite ter}^m^s,^“^d^ef^{eat” an}^d^“m^eas^u^r^{es” [}^c^itatioⁿ^o^m^itted^]^{. Neith}^er^o^f^th^ese^w^o^r^d^{s is an}
^ab^str^actioⁿ^o^f^co^m^m^oⁿ^cer^taiⁿ^t^y^o^r^p^o^{ssesses a d}^e^fⁱⁿⁱ^{te stat}^u^t^o^r^y^o^r^j^u^dⁱ^{cial d}^e^fⁱⁿ^itioⁿ^.

¹⁹^Id^.^a^t²⁰^7.
²⁰³⁵^{0 U}^.^S^.⁴⁹⁷⁽¹⁹⁵⁵⁾^.
²¹^{18 U}^.^S.C^.^§²³⁸⁵^.
²²^Id^.^a^t⁵¹^{6, f}ⁿ^5.
²³²⁴⁸^F.^2d⁵⁶^{1 (}^D^.^C^.^Cⁱ^r^.¹⁹⁵⁷⁾^.
²⁴^Id^.^a^t⁵⁸^7.
²⁵²³^{1 F}^.^S^u^p^p^.^{72 (}^S^.D^.N^.Y^.¹⁹⁶⁴⁾^.

^Sin^ce,^h^o^w^e^v^e^{r, t}^h^{ere are oth}^e^{r g}^r^ouⁿ^d^s^f^o^{r dis}^posⁱⁿ^g^of^t^hⁱ^s^m^o^tion^,^{it is}ⁿ^o^tⁿ^eces^s^a^r^y^to
^d^ecid^e^th^{e co}ⁿ^s^titu^tioⁿ^a^{l q}^u^e^s^ti^oⁿ^{. Fu}^r^t^h^e^r^m^o^r^{e, an}^y^“^a^m^bⁱ^g^uⁱ^t^y^s^h^o^u^ld^b^e^r^e^so^lv^edⁱⁿ^f^a^v^o^r²⁶
^o^f^lenⁱ^t^y^{” [}^c^itatioⁿ^o^m^itted^]^.
The court also indicates that, although Congress should perhaps eliminate the vagueness of the
Logan Act, the Act remains valid despite the lack of prosecutions under it.
^T^h^e^Co^ur^t^fi^nd^{s no}^me^rⁱ^tⁱⁿ^p^l^aⁱ^ntⁱ^f^f’^s^a^r^gu^me^nt^t^h^a^t^t^h^e^Lo^g^a^{n A}^c^t^ha^s^b^e^eⁿ^a^b^r^o^ga^t^e^d^b^y
^des^u^et^u^d^{e. From}^t^h^{e abs}^eⁿ^{ce of}^{reported cas}^es^{, on}^{e m}^a^y^{deduce th}^{at th}^e^s^t^at^u^t^{e h}^a^sⁿ^o^{t been}
^{called in}^{to play}^becaus^eⁿ^o^f^act^u^a^{l s}ⁱ^t^u^ation^requ^iriⁿ^gⁱ^t^sⁱⁿ^v^o^ca^tⁱ^oⁿ^h^a^s^b^e^eⁿ^p^r^e^s^eⁿ^t^e^d^t^o^t^h^e
^cou^r^ts^{. C}^f^{. S}^h^ak^e^s^{peare, M}^EA^S^U^{RE F}^O^R^M^EA^S^U^R^E^{, A}^c^{t II, Scen}^{e ii (“}^T^h^{e la}^w^h^a^t^hⁿ^o^{t been}
^d^e^a^d^,^t^h^o^{ugh i}^t^ha^t^h^sl^e^p^t^.^”⁾
^{It m}^a^y^,^h^o^w^e^v^e^{r, be ap}^prop^{riate f}^o^{r th}^{e C}^o^u^r^t^(C^an^oⁿ^s^of^J^u^di^{cial Eth}ⁱ^cs^{, J}^u^dici^a^l^C^aⁿ^oⁿ²³⁾
^toⁱⁿ^v^ite^Coⁿ^g^r^e^ssioⁿ^{al atten}^tⁱ^oⁿ^to^th^{e p}^o^ssib^l^{e n}^eed^f^o^r^a^m^en^d^m^eⁿ^{t o}^f^T^{itle 1}⁸^U.S.C.^§
^{953 t}^o^elⁱ^mⁱⁿ^at^e^t^hⁱ^s^probl^e^m^by^usⁱⁿ^g^m^o^{re preci}^s^e^w^o^rds^t^h^an^“^d^ef^eat^{” a}ⁿ^d^“m^easu^r^es^”²⁷
^an^d^,^{at th}^{e sa}^m^e^ti^m^e^{, u}^sⁱⁿ^g^laⁿ^g^u^a^g^e^p^a^r^a^llelin^g^t^h^{at n}^o^wⁱⁿ^§⁹⁵⁴^.
United States v. Elliot²⁸also refers to the Logan Act and reaffirms the statute as it is discussed in
Waldron:
^P^e^r^tin^en^{t, to}^o^,^is^Wa^l^d^r^oⁿ^v.^British^Petro^l^eu^{m Co}^.^,^[^cⁱ^t^atioⁿ^o^m^itted^]^w^h^er^eiⁿ^thⁱ^s^co^u^r^{t h}^e^ld
^vⁱ^t^a^l^{a prev}ⁱ^ous^l^y^uⁿ^e^nf^{orced s}^ectⁱ^oⁿ^of^t^h^{e L}^o^g^aⁿ^A^c^t^{(18 U}^.^S^.^C^.^{§ 953}^{) pr}^om^u^l^g^a^t^e^{d i}ⁿ²⁹
^1799.
In Agee v. Muskie³⁰suit was brought to revoke Agee’s passport on the basis that his activities
abroad were causing serious damage to the national security or foreign policy of the United
States. In the Appendix to the case there are comments on various specific laws which Agee had
allegedly violated. One of these was the Logan Act.
^Ag^{ee is}^qu^{oted as}^s^t^atiⁿ^g^t^h^at^“in^recen^t^w^e^e^k^s^”^{prior to Decem}^{ber 23, 1979 h}^e^pr^opos^{ed t}^o
^th^e^“m^ilitaⁿ^t^s”ⁱⁿ^I^r^an⁽^w^h^o^o^b^v^io^u^s^l^y^uⁿ^d^er¹⁸^{U.S.C. §}¹¹^ar^{e a “}^f^actioⁿ^an^d^b^o^d^y^o^f
ⁱⁿ^s^u^r^g^eⁿ^t^s^”^c^o^nstⁱ^t^u^tⁱⁿ^{g a}^“^f^o^r^eⁱ^gn^go^ve^rⁿ^me^nt^”⁾^t^h^{at t}^h^e^y^s^hou^{ld co}^m^p^{el th}^{e U}ⁿ^{ited State}^s
^t^o^“^e^x^c^h^aⁿ^g^e^...t^h^e^C^.^I.^A^.^’s^fi^l^e^s^onⁱ^t^s^operatⁱ^oⁿ^sⁱⁿ^{Iran s}ⁱⁿ^{ce 1950 f}^o^{r t}^h^{e C}^a^ptⁱ^v^e
^Am^er^icaⁿ^{s” [}^c^itatioⁿ^o^m^itted^]^{. Su}^ch^coⁿ^d^u^c^{t v}ⁱ^o^l^ate^s¹⁸^{U.S.C. §}⁹⁵³^w^h^ic^h^p^r^o^h^ib^{its an}^y
^citizen^of^t^h^{e Un}^{ited State}^s^f^r^o^m^carr^y^ing^on^corres^pon^den^{ce or in}^tercou^rs^{e w}ⁱ^th^aⁿ^y^f^o^r^e^igⁿ
^go^ve^rⁿ^me^nt⁽^t^he^I^r^aⁿⁱ^aⁿ^t^e^r^r^o^rⁱ^s^t^fa^c^tⁱ^oⁿ⁾^“^wⁱ^t^{h i}ⁿ^t^eⁿ^t^t^oⁱⁿ^fl^u^e^nc^e^[ⁱ^t^s^]^m^e^a^s^ur^e^s^o^r^c^o^nd^uc^t
^{or [th}^a^{t] of}^any^...ag^eⁿ^t^t^h^ereof^[f^ootn^o^{te o}^m^itted].^A^g^ee^’s^vⁱ^olation^o^f^t^h^{is act}^wⁱ^t^h^t^h^e³¹
^T^e^r^r^oris^ts^is^s^e^l^f^ev^ideⁿ^{t f}^r^o^m^hⁱ^s^o^wⁿ^un^con^t^{radicted s}^t^ate^m^en^t.
In ITT World Communications, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission³²the court found
that the lower court had misread ITT’s complaint concerning violation of the Logan Act.

²⁶^Id^.^a^t⁸⁹^.
²⁷^Id^.^a^t⁸⁹^{, f}ⁿ³⁰^.
²⁸²⁶^{6 F}^.^S^u^p^p^.³¹^{8 (S.D}^.N^.Y^{. 1}⁹⁶⁷^).
²⁹^Id^.^a^t³²^6.
³⁰⁶²^{9 F}^.²^d^{80 (}^D^.C^{. C}ⁱ^r^.¹⁹⁸⁰⁾^,^re^v’d^su^{b no}^m.^Haⁱ^g^v.^Ag^e^e^{, 4}^{53 U}^.^S.²⁸^{0 (}¹⁹⁸¹⁾^,^on^g^r^ou^nds^unr^e^l^a^t^e^d^to^the^L^o^g^aⁿ
^A^c^{t re}^feren^ce.
³¹^Id^.^a^t¹¹^2-¹¹³^.
³²⁶⁹^{9 F}^.²^d¹²^{19 (}^D^.C^{. C}ⁱ^r^.¹⁹⁸³⁾^,^r^e^v^’^d^{on othe}^r^gr^ou^nds^{, 4}⁶⁶^U^.^S.⁴⁶³⁽¹⁹⁸⁴⁾^.

^Un^{der th}^e^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^rati^v^e^P^r^ocedu^r^{e A}^c^{t, a part}^y^h^a^s^s^t^aⁿ^diⁿ^g^to^s^ecu^{re j}^u^{dicial rev}ⁱ^e^w^of
^an^y^“^a^g^eⁿ^c^y^act^ioⁿ^”^th^{at ca}^u^s^e^s^{a “}^l^eg^al^w^r^oⁿ^g^{” [}^f^o^o^tⁿ^o^{te o}^m^itted^]^{. T}^h^{e d}ⁱ^strⁱ^{ct co}^u^r^{t h}^e^ld
^th^{at I}^T^T^h^a^sⁿ^o^{t s}^u^f^f^e^r^e^d^a^le^g^a^l^w^r^oⁿ^g^{, r}^eadⁱⁿ^g^it^{s co}^m^p^lain^{t so}^lel^y^to^al^leg^e^a^vⁱ^o^l^atioⁿ^o^f
^th^{e L}^o^g^aⁿ^A^c^t^’^{s p}^r^o^h^ib^itioⁿ^o^f^uⁿ^a^u^t^h^o^rⁱ^zedⁿ^e^g^o^tiatioⁿ^w^ith^f^o^r^eⁱ^gⁿ^g^o^v^e^rⁿ^m^eⁿ^t^s^[^f^o^o^tⁿ^o^t^e
^o^m^itted^]^{. B}^ecau^{se o}ⁿ^l^y^t^h^{e De}^p^a^rtm^eⁿ^t^o^f^{State i}^s^ag^g^r^iev^e^d^b^y^vⁱ^o^l^atioⁿ^s^o^f^t^h^{at cri}^mⁱⁿ^al
^s^t^{atute, th}^{e cou}^r^{t reas}^on^{ed, ITT}^’^s^alleg^e^{d in}^j^u^r^yⁱ^sⁿ^o^{t le}^g^a^ll^y^cogn^izable.
^W^e^res^p^ectf^u^ll^y^con^c^l^u^{de th}^at^th^{e dis}^t^{rict co}^u^r^t^mⁱ^s^r^{ead ITT}^’^s^co^m^p^{laint. T}^h^{e g}^r^av^a^m^eⁿ^of
^ITT^’^s^alleg^a^tion^is^quⁱ^t^{e s}^p^{ecific: “}^T^h^e^activ^it^ies^of^t^h^{e FCC}^{...are u}ⁿ^l^a^w^fu^{l a}ⁿ^d^u^ltra^vires^,
^an^{d in ex}^ce^s^s^o^f^t^h^{e a}^u^th^orit^y^con^f^{erred on}^t^h^e^C^o^m^mⁱ^s^s^ion^by^th^e^C^o^m^m^uni^catⁱ^ons^Act^”
^[^f^o^o^tⁿ^o^{te o}^m^itted^]^{. W}^h^eth^e^r^t^h^{e co}^m^p^lain^t’^{s t}^w^o^r^e^f^e^r^eⁿ^c^e^s^to^th^{e L}^o^g^aⁿ^A^c^{t [}^f^o^o^tⁿ^o^te
^o^m^itted^]^sh^o^u^ld^b^e^coⁿ^s^tr^u^e^d^{as an}^atte^m^p^{t to}^s^t^{ate a sep}^a^r^a^{te cau}^{se o}^f^ac^tioⁿ⁽^a^{s t}^h^e
^Co^m^mⁱ^s^s^ioⁿⁱⁿ^si^sts)^o^r^{as m}^e^r^e^illu^str^a^ti^v^e^m^a^tterⁿ^o^{t in}^ten^d^e^d^to^asser^t^{a claim}⁽^a^{s I}^TT³³
^arg^u^e^s⁾^{, a cau}^s^e^of^actioⁿ^un^{der th}^{e C}^o^m^m^unications^A^c^{t h}^a^s^clearl^y^been^alle^g^e^d.
In Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Arabian American Oil Co.,³⁴ suit was brought ³⁵
to determine whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applied extraterritorially to
regulate employment practices of United States employers who employed United States citizens
abroad. The Court, in its holding that there was not sufficient evidence to indicate that the Act
was intended to apply abroad, stated:
^C^ong^res^s^’^a^w^areⁿ^es^s^o^f^t^h^{e n}^e^{ed to m}^a^k^e^{a clear s}^t^ate^m^eⁿ^{t t}^h^{at a s}^t^{atute applies}^ov^ers^e^a^s^is
^a^m^pl^y^de^m^ons^{trated b}^y^t^h^{e num}^ero^u^s^occas^ioⁿ^s^on^w^h^ich^{it h}^a^s^ex^pres^s^l^y^legⁱ^s^l^{ated t}^h^e
^ex^{traterritorial applica}^tion^of^a^s^t^{atute. See,}^e.g.^,...t^h^e^L^o^g^aⁿ^Act^,^{18 U.S}^.^C^.^{§ 953 (a}^ppl^yⁱ^ng³⁶
^A^c^{t to}^“^a^ny^citizeⁿ^...^w^h^ere^v^{er h}^e^m^a^y^be...”).
United States v. DeLeon³⁷ concerned whether 8 U.S.C. section 1326, which makes it a crime for
an alien who has been previously deported to enter, attempt to enter, or be found in the United
States unless certain conditions are met, applies to conduct occurring outside the United States. In
holding that the statute does apply to conduct occurring outside the United States, the court
stated:
^Mo^r^eⁱ^m^p^o^r^tan^t^{, a}^s^s^u^mⁱⁿ^g^th^a^t^th^e^Coⁿ^v^eⁿ^tioⁿ^[^C^oⁿ^v^en^tⁱ^oⁿ^oⁿ^t^h^{e T}^e^r^r^ito^rⁱ^{al Sea an}^d^th^e
^Coⁿ^tⁱ^g^u^o^u^s^Z^oⁿ^e^]^also^p^r^o^v^id^{es o}^r^r^a^tif^{ies a p}^o^w^e^r^to^r^e^g^u^l^a^{te cer}^tain^coⁿ^d^u^c^t^wⁱ^t^hⁱⁿ^th^e
^con^tigu^ous^zon^e^{, t}^h^at^h^a^s^{a s}^ubs^tan^{tial ad}^v^e^rs^{e e}^f^f^e^c^t^wⁱ^t^hⁱⁿ^th^{e U}ⁿ^{ited State}^s^{. T}^h^{at po}^w^e^r³⁸
^w^a^s^as^s^u^m^e^{d to ex}^is^t^w^e^{ll before th}^{e C}^oⁿ^v^eⁿ^tioⁿ^,^e.g^{., L}^o^g^aⁿ^A^c^t....
In a series of reviews of a general court-martial, styled United States v. Murphy,³⁹ the appellant,
who was charged with committing crimes abroad, urged the Logan Act as a basis for his being
denied effective assistance of counsel.
^T^h^e^a^p^p^e^l^l^a^nt^c^o^nt^eⁿ^d^s^t^h^a^t^he^wa^s^d^eⁿⁱ^e^d^e^f^fe^c^tⁱ^v^e^a^s^sⁱ^s^t^an^ce^of^couⁿ^s^el^at^a^critical^s^t^ag^e^o^f
^th^{e proceedin}^gs^du^{e to a}ⁿ^erron^e^ou^sⁱⁿ^terp^retation^o^f^th^e^L^o^g^aⁿ^A^c^{t.... T}^h^{e L}^o^g^aⁿ^A^c^t

³³^Id^.^a^t¹²³¹^.
³⁴⁴⁹^{9 U}^.^S^.²⁴⁴⁽¹⁹⁹¹⁾^.
³⁵⁴²^U^.^S^.^C^.^§§²⁰⁰⁰^e^et^seq^.
³⁶⁴⁹^{9 U}^.^S^.^a^t²⁵⁸^.
³⁷²⁷^{0 F}^.³^d⁹⁰⁽¹^st^Cⁱ^r^.²⁰⁰¹⁾^.
³⁸^Id^.^a^t⁹⁴^.
³⁹⁵⁰^M.J^.^{4 (}¹⁹⁹⁸⁾^;³⁶^M.J^.¹¹³⁷⁽¹⁹⁹³⁾^{; a}^nd³⁰^M.J^.¹⁰⁴⁰⁽¹⁹⁹⁰⁾^.

^proh^ibits^uⁿ^a^u^t^h^o^{rized n}^e^g^o^ti^ation^w^ith^{a f}^o^reign^g^o^v^e^rnmen^t^{.... In}^appellan^t^’^s^cas^{e, t}^h^e
^{Federal R}^e^pu^{blic of}^Ger^m^aⁿ^y^declin^{ed to ex}^er^cis^e^cri^mⁱⁿ^{al j}^u^ris^d^iction^,ⁱⁿ^accordan^ce^wⁱ^th
^ex^istⁱⁿ^g^Sta^t^u^s^o^f^Fo^r^ces^Ag^r^e^e^m^en^{ts [}^f^o^o^tⁿ^o^{te o}^m^itted^]^{. T}^h^{e ap}^p^e^llan^t^’^s^co^uⁿ^{sel d}^ecid^e^d^,
^af^ter^p^e^r^s^oⁿ^al^r^e^sear^ch^an^d^coⁿ^s^u^ltatioⁿ^wⁱ^th^o^t^h^e^r^mⁱ^l^itar^y^l^a^w^y^er^{s, t}^h^at^h^e^w^a^s^p^r^o^h^ib^ited
^f^r^o^m^atte^m^p^tⁱⁿ^g^to^p^e^r^s^u^a^d^e^th^{e Ger}^m^aⁿ^au^t^h^o^r^{ities to}^ex^er^{cise j}^u^rⁱ^sd^ictioⁿ^.^T^h^{e ap}^p^e^llan^t
ⁿ^o^w^ar^g^u^es^th^a^t^hⁱ^{s tr}^ial^d^e^f^eⁿ^s^{e co}^uⁿ^sel^’^s^f^a^ilu^r^e^toⁿ^e^g^o^tiat^e^w^ith^th^e^Fed^e^r^a^{l Rep}^u^b^{lic o}^f
^Ger^m^any^,^w^h^ic^h^doesⁿ^o^{t all}^o^w^{capital p}^u^nis^h^m^eⁿ^t^{, de}ⁿⁱ^e^d^hⁱ^m^e^f^f^ect^iv^{e a}^s^sⁱ^s^t^aⁿ^{ce of}⁴⁰
^couⁿ^s^e^l^{. We dis}^a^g^r^ee....

A search of statements issued by the State Department concerning the Logan Act from 1975 to the
present has found two opinions in the D^IG^EST^OFU^NITEDS^TA^T^E^SP^RA^CT^I^C^E^I^NI^NT^E^R^NA^T^I^O^N^A^L
L^AW, continued, beginning in 1980, with a column in the A^MERICA^NJ^OURNAL^OF
I^NT^E^R^N^A^T^I^ONA^LL^AW. In these instances the Department did not consider the activities in
question to be inconsistent with the Logan Act. One opinion concerned the questioning of certain
activities of Senators John Sparkman and George McGovern with respect to the government of
Cuba. The Department stated:
^T^h^{e clear}ⁱⁿ^ten^t^o^f^th^{is p}^r^o^vⁱ^s^ioⁿ^[^L^o^g^aⁿ^A^c^t]^{is to}^p^r^o^h^ib^{it u}ⁿ^au^t^h^o^r^ized^p^e^r^s^oⁿ^s^f^r^o^m
ⁱⁿ^t^e^r^v^eⁿⁱⁿ^{g i}ⁿ^dⁱ^sp^u^t^e^s^b^e^t^w^e^e^{n t}^h^e^Uⁿⁱ^t^e^d^St^a^t^e^s^aⁿ^d^fo^r^eⁱ^gn^go^ve^rⁿ^m^e^nt^s.^N^o^t^hⁱ^{ng i}ⁿ
^s^ectⁱ^oⁿ^{953, h}^o^w^e^v^e^r,^w^o^u^l^{d a}^{ppear t}^o^res^t^ri^ct^m^e^m^b^ers^o^f^t^h^{e C}^ong^ress^f^r^o^m^eⁿ^g^a^gⁱ^ngⁱⁿ
^dⁱ^scu^s^sioⁿ^s^w^ith^f^o^r^e^igⁿ^o^f^fⁱ^{cials in}^p^u^r^s^u^aⁿ^{ce o}^f^th^eir^legⁱ^slati^v^{e d}^u^tie^{s u}ⁿ^d^er^th^e
^Coⁿ^s^titu^tioⁿ^.^Iⁿ^th^e^{case o}^f^Sen^a^to^r^s^McGo^v^e^rⁿ^aⁿ^d^Sp^a^r^k^m^aⁿ^t^h^{e e}^x^ecu^tⁱ^v^e^b^r^an^c^h^,
^al^t^h^oughⁱ^t^di^{d n}^o^tⁱⁿ^any^w^a^y^en^cou^r^ag^e^t^h^{e S}^eⁿ^a^t^o^rs^t^o^g^o^t^o^C^u^ba,^w^a^s^f^u^l^l^yⁱⁿ^f^o^r^m^{ed of}
^t^h^{e n}^a^t^u^{re a}ⁿ^{d pu}^rpos^{e of}^t^h^eⁱ^{r v}ⁱ^sⁱ^t^,^aⁿ^{d h}^a^{d v}^a^lⁱ^dat^e^{d t}^h^eⁱ^{r pas}^s^port^s^f^o^{r t}^r^av^el^t^o^t^h^at
^c^o^unt^r^y^.
^S^eⁿ^a^t^o^{r McG}^o^v^e^rn’^s^report^of^hⁱ^s^di^s^c^u^s^sⁱ^ons^wⁱ^t^h^Cu^{ban off}ⁱ^ci^al^s^st^at^es^:^“^I^m^a^{de i}^t^cl^ear
^th^{at I}^h^a^dⁿ^o^au^t^h^o^r^it^y^toⁿ^e^g^o^tⁱ^{ate o}ⁿ^b^e^h^a^lf^o^f^th^{e U}ⁿ^ited^Sta^t^es—t^h^a^{t I}^h^a^d^co^m^e^to^listeⁿ^th^st
^an^{d learn}^{....” (C}^u^b^an^R^ealitie^s^:^Ma^y^1975,⁹⁴^C^oⁿ^g^{., 1}^S^e^s^s^.,^A^ugu^s^t^{1975). S}^eⁿ^a^t^o^r
^Sparkm^aⁿ^’^s^con^t^act^s^wⁱ^{th C}^u^b^aⁿ^o^f^fⁱ^cⁱ^als^w^e^{re con}^d^u^c^{ted o}ⁿ^a^sⁱ^m^ilar^basⁱ^s^.^T^h^{e s}^p^eci^fⁱ^c
^is^s^u^es^rais^{ed b}^y^th^{e Se}ⁿ^a^tors^(e.g^{., th}^{e Sou}^t^h^e^rn^Aⁱ^r^w^a^y^s^cas^e;^L^uⁱ^s^Ti^aⁿ^t^’^s^d^e^sⁱ^r^e^t^o^h^a^v^e^hⁱ^s
^paren^t^s^vⁱ^s^{it t}^h^{e Un}ⁱ^t^{ed State}^s⁾^w^{ould, in}^an^y^ev^eⁿ^{t, appear to f}^a^ll^wⁱ^t^hⁱⁿ^th^e^s^econ^d
^parag^r^aph^of^S^ectⁱ^oⁿ^953.
^A^ccording^l^y^,^th^{e Depart}^m^eⁿ^t^doesⁿ^o^t^con^s^ider^t^h^{e acti}^v^iti^es^of^Seⁿ^a^tors^Sparkm^aⁿ^aⁿ^d⁴¹
^McG^o^v^e^rn^t^o^{be i}ⁿ^consⁱ^s^t^eⁿ^t^wⁱ^t^h^t^h^{e s}^tⁱ^p^u^l^atⁱ^oⁿ^s^of^S^e^c^tⁱ^oⁿ^953.
A 1976 statement by the Department of State concerned a letter written by Ambassador Robert J.
McCloskey, Assistant Secretary of State for Congressional Relations, to Senator John V. Tunney
in reply to a constituent’s inquiry about a visit of former President Nixon to the People’s Republic
of China. The letter stated:
^Mr^{. Nix}^oⁿ^’^{s v}ⁱ^{sit to}^th^{e P}^e^o^p^l^e’^s^Rep^u^b^{lic o}^f^C^hⁱⁿ^a^w^a^s^uⁿ^d^e^r^tak^eⁿ^eⁿ^tir^el^yⁱⁿ^hⁱ^{s cap}^acit^y
^as^{a priv}^{ate U}ⁿ^{ited Sta}^t^es^c^itizen^{. In}^accordan^ce^wⁱ^th^t^h^{e ex}^pres^s^e^d^wⁱ^s^h^es^o^f^t^h^e
^Gov^e^rnm^e^{nt of}^th^{e P}^e^ople’^s^R^e^pu^{blic of}^C^hⁱⁿ^{a an}^{d as}^{a n}^o^rm^al^m^a^t^t^{er of}^comⁱ^t^y^bet^w^eeⁿ

⁴⁰³⁰^M.J^.^a^t¹⁰^47-¹⁰⁴⁸^.
⁴¹^D^IG^E^S^{T O}^F^U^NI^T^E^D^S^TA^T^E^S^P^RA^CTI^C^E^I^N^I^N^T^E^R^NA^T^I^ONA^L^L^AW¹⁹⁷⁵^,^p.⁷⁵^0.

^g^o^v^e^rⁿ^m^eⁿ^t^s,^th^e^U.S.^Go^v^e^rⁿ^m^eⁿ^t^p^e^r^m^itted^aⁿ^air^c^r^a^f^t^f^r^o^m^t^h^{e P}^e^o^p^l^e’^s^Rep^u^b^lic^o^f
^Chⁱⁿ^{a to}^lan^dⁱⁿ^Ca^lif^o^rⁿⁱ^{a in}^coⁿⁿ^ectioⁿ^w^ith^t^h^{e v}ⁱ^sit.^A^s^id^{e f}^r^o^m^activⁱ^{ties r}^e^lated^to^th^e
^C^hⁱⁿ^e^s^{e s}^p^ecial^f^lⁱ^g^h^t^s⁽ⁱⁿ^c^l^u^dⁱⁿ^g^prov^is^ioⁿ^of^aⁿ^e^s^{cort cre}^w^{to ins}^u^re^s^a^f^e^t^y^o^f^operation^s
ⁱⁿ^{U.S. airs}^{pace), th}^{e U.S. Gov}^e^rnm^eⁿ^t^’^s^{role in}^th^e^vⁱ^s^it^w^a^s^li^m^{ited to th}^{e prov}^is^ioⁿ^b^y^th^e
^{Secret Serv}^{ice o}^f^pers^on^{al prot}^ectiv^{e s}^e^r^v^ices^{, a}^s^requ^{ired b}^y^l^a^w^,^{to t}^h^e^f^o^r^m^{er P}^r^es^iden^t....
^I^t^{is th}^{e r}^e^sp^oⁿ^sib^ilit^y^o^f^t^h^{e Dep}^a^r^t^m^eⁿ^t^o^f^J^u^{stice to}^m^a^k^e^d^e^ter^mⁱⁿ^atioⁿ^s^o^f^w^h^eth^e^r
^cri^mⁱⁿ^{al s}^t^at^u^t^e^s^of^t^h^is^s^o^{rt h}^a^v^e^beeⁿ^tran^s^g^res^s^{ed an}^d^w^h^et^h^e^{r in}^di^vⁱ^du^al^s^s^h^ou^{ld b}^e
^pros^ecu^t^e^{d u}ⁿ^d^{er t}^h^e^m^{. H}^o^w^e^v^e^{r, t}^h^{e D}^e^part^m^eⁿ^t^of^S^t^a^t^eⁱ^s^uⁿ^a^w^a^{re of}^any^ba^sⁱ^s^f^o^r
^belⁱ^e^vⁱ^ng^t^h^at^{Mr. N}ⁱ^x^oⁿ^ac^t^e^d^wⁱ^t^h^t^h^{e i}ⁿ^t^e^nt^prohⁱ^bⁱ^t^e^{d by}^t^h^e^L^o^g^aⁿ^A^c^t^.^In^t^hⁱ^s⁴²
^c^o^nne^c^tⁱ^o^n,ⁱ^t^s^h^o^u^l^d^b^e^no^t^e^d^tha^t^no^oⁿ^e^ha^s^e^v^e^r^b^e^eⁿ^p^r^o^s^e^c^u^t^e^d^und^e^r^th^{e L}^o^g^aⁿ^A^c^t....
In a number of instances, people have been alleged, often by political opponents, to have violated
the Logan Act. For example, critics have suggested that Ross Perot’s efforts to find missing
American servicemen in Southeast Asia have violated the Logan Act. Critics alleged that former
House Speaker Jim Wright violated the Logan Act in his relations with the Sandinista
government. In 1984 while campaigning for the Democratic nomination for President, Reverend
Jesse Jackson went to Syria to help in the release of a captured American military flyer and to
Cuba and Nicaragua. The trips by Reverend Jackson occasioned comments from a number of
people, most notably from President Reagan, that Reverend Jackson had violated the Logan Act.
Other private citizens, such as Jane Fonda, have made trips which have been criticized as
violative of the Logan Act, but there have apparently been no official sanctions taken in any of
these instances.

Although it appears that there has never been a prosecution under the Logan Act, there have been
several judicial references to it, indicating that the Act has not been forgotten and that it is at least
a potential point of challenge that has been used against anyone who without authority allegedly
interferes in the foreign relations of the United States. There have been efforts to repeal the Act,
one of the most significant occurring in the late 1970’s. For example, Senator Edward Kennedy ^th
proposed in the 95 Congress to delete the Logan Act from the bill to amend the United States ⁴³
criminal code. Senator James Allen insisted on reenacting the Act in exchange for promising not
to prolong debate over the bill, and Senator Kennedy agreed to this. However, since the House ^th
was unable to consider the criminal reform bill in the 95 Congress, the possibility of deleting the
Act in a conference committee was eliminated. It is possible, nevertheless, that the issue of
whether the Logan Act should remain will be considered by another Congress.

⁴²^D^IG^E^S^{T O}^F^U^NI^T^E^D^S^TA^T^E^S^P^RA^CTI^C^E^I^N^I^N^T^E^R^NA^T^I^ONA^L^L^AW¹⁹⁷⁶^{, pp. 75}^-⁷^6.
⁴³^S.¹⁴^37,⁹⁵^th^C^ong^{., 2d Se}^s^s^.⁽¹⁹⁷⁸⁾^.

^Mich^{ael V. Seitz}^ing^e^r
^L^e^gⁱ^s^l^at^iv^{e A}^t^torn^e^y
^m^s^ei^t^zⁱⁿ^g^e^r^@^crs^.^l^o^c.g^o^v^,^7-⁷⁸⁹⁵