- ICC VATICAN PROSECUTION
- Our Issues
- Learn More
- Get Involved
- Our Cases
- About Us
September 25, 2014, New York – Today, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) submitted a…
August 6, 2014—In response to the grave risks faced by the Palestinian Center for Human…
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.