The United States v. Belmont et al., Executor, 1936 case involved the U.S. government and August Belmont, a New York banker who served as an agent for the Soviet Union's government in its financial transactions with American businesses. The Supreme Court ruled that executive agreements made by the President of the United States have supremacy over state laws and do not require Senate approval to be valid under international law. This decision arose from a dispute over whether or not assets seized during Russia’s Bolshevik Revolution could be claimed by American creditors of Russia or if they belonged to the U.S. government following an agreement between President Roosevelt and Russian representatives recognizing their government officially for the first time since 1917 revolution.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Belmont et al., Executor, Justice James Clark McReynolds disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold an executive agreement between President Roosevelt and Soviet Russia without Senate approval. He argued that such a move was unconstitutional as it bypassed the treaty-making power of Congress outlined in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. Furthermore, he contended that this unilateral action by the Executive Branch violated state rights by allowing federal law to supersede New York State law regarding property claims from foreign nations. In essence, Justice McReynolds believed that upholding this executive agreement would set a dangerous precedent for future abuses of presidential power and undermine both congressional authority and state sovereignty.