Star-Kist Foods, a U.S. producer of canned tuna, instituted a lawsuit to protest the assessment of duties made by the collector of customs on imported canned tuna. Duty was assessed on the canned tuna at the rate of 12.5 percent pursuant to a trade agreement with Iceland. Prior to the agreement, the tariff rate had been set by Congress in the Tariff Act of 1930 at 25 percent ad valorem. The trade agreement with Iceland, which resulted in lowering the rate of duty, was executed pursuant to the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934. That act authorized the president to enter into foreign trade agreements for the purpose of expanding foreign markets for the products of the United States by affording corresponding market opportunities for foreign products in the United States. To implement an agreement, the president was then authorized to raise or lower any duty previously set by Congress, but not by more than 50 percent. Star-Kist brought this action, contending that the delegation of authority under the 1934 act and the agreement with Iceland were unconstitutional.
1. What was the constitutional authority for the agreement with Iceland?
2. What was the policy objective of Congress in enacting the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act noted by the court? How was the president to implement this policy?
3. Why was the congressional delegation of authority constitutional?