The United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 1936, is a landmark Supreme Court case that established the broad executive powers in foreign affairs. The Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation was indicted for conspiring to sell fifteen machine guns to Bolivia, which was engaged in an armed conflict with Paraguay, violating a Joint Resolution of Congress and a proclamation issued by President Roosevelt. The corporation argued that these actions were unconstitutional as they delegated legislative power to the executive branch. However, the Supreme Court upheld their conviction and ruled against them stating that the federal government could exercise authority over foreign affairs without interference from individual states or need for Congressional approval beyond what's constitutionally required due to inherent international powers vested in it by virtue of national sovereignty.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp case was delivered by Justice McReynolds, who disagreed with the majority's view that foreign affairs powers were not exclusively vested in Congress but could also be exercised by the President. He argued that this interpretation went against constitutional principles of checks and balances, as it allowed for an excessive concentration of power within a single branch of government. Furthermore, he contended that there was no historical basis or precedent to support such broad executive authority over foreign affairs. Instead, he believed that all governmental powers - including those related to international relations - should remain divided among different branches as stipulated by the Constitution.