Related Cases

What's New

False Accusations of Anti-Semitism Used to Silence Advocacy for Palestinian Rights on U.S. College Campuses

May 18, 2015, New York and Chicago – Today Palestine Solidarity Legal Support (Palestine Legal),…

Center for Constitutional Rights Statement on Humanitarian Crisis in Yemen

May 5, 2015, New York – The following statement was issued today by the Center…

Related Resources

Diggs v. Schultz

Print Friendly and PDF


Diggs v. Schultz is a lawsuit brought on behalf of the Congressional Black Caucus and other groups to invalidate the Byrd Amendment.


Diggs v. Schultz is a lawsuit brought by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) to invalidate the Byrd Amendment. It was brought on behalf of the Black Congressional Caucus and other groups, including Zimbabwean exiles in this country.

In flagrant violation of a United Nations Security Council resolution which it had supported, establishing an embargo on trade with Southern Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), Congress passed a special resolution (the Byrd Amendment) permitting the United States to import Rhodesian chrome, that country’s most important export.

Although the litigation was ultimately unsuccessful in reversing the Byrd Amendment, its impact was large. Rulings in the case broadened access to the courts in situations of this kind, and the court of appeals held that while it could not overrule the Byrd Amendment, allowing the U.S. to import chrome from Rhodesia, it found that Congress had, in passing it, violated international law.