What major court rulings have struck down or narrowed state 'foreign law' bans and why?
Executive summary
The set of reporting provided for this query focuses on federal travel and immigration proclamations, litigation against presidential actions, and a handful of Supreme Court dockets, but it does not include coverage of state “foreign law” bans or the federal and state-court rulings that have historically struck them down or narrowed them (limitation of reporting) [1] [2] [3]. Because the sources supplied do not discuss state-level “foreign law” bans or the relevant litigation, this analysis cannot authoritatively list or explain specific court rulings from those materials and instead documents that gap while pointing readers to where such rulings are normally reported [2] [4].
1. Federal focus in the provided reporting, not state-level foreign-law litigation
The documents and articles assembled for review center on presidential proclamations restricting travel and other high-profile federal litigation — including travel bans and Supreme Court dockets about international-law causes of action and tariffs — rather than state statutes banning the application of foreign law in state courts, meaning the supplied reporting does not contain the decisions needed to answer the question as framed [1] [3] [4].
2. What the available sources show about judicial attention to national-level actions
Reporting in the provided set documents how recent litigation has concentrated on executive immigration and foreign-affairs measures — for example, expanded presidential proclamations limiting entry by nationals of many countries and trackers of litigation targeting administration policies — and highlights the Supreme Court’s docketing of high-profile federal cases, but these pieces do not extend to cataloging or analyzing state “foreign law” bans or the judicial rulings that have upheld, narrowed, or invalidated them [1] [3] [2] [4].
3. Why this gap matters for answering the question
The specific question asks which major court rulings have struck down or narrowed state “foreign law” bans and why; answering requires citation to the actual federal- and state-court opinions, appellate rulings, or respected secondary reporting that analyze constitutional grounds (First Amendment, Establishment Clause, due process, equal protection) or statutory preemption — none of which appear in the provided reporting set, so no such rulings can be responsibly identified or explained from these materials (limitation of reporting) [2] [4].
4. How readers can get the missing judicial decisions and authoritative analysis
To fill this reporting gap, authoritative sources typically include federal district and circuit opinions, law-review articles, and specialized litigation trackers; the provided litigation-tracker material demonstrates the value of such compilation for executive-action cases and suggests similar trackers or databases (e.g., federal opinion repositories, SCOTUSblog, specialized immigration and constitutional law trackers) would be the appropriate next step to locate and analyze rulings targeting state “foreign law” bans — but those materials are not part of the supplied set and therefore cannot be cited here [2] [4].
5. Bottom line: cannot responsibly answer from these sources; next steps
Given the reporting provided, it is not possible to authoritatively name or explain the major court rulings that have struck down or narrowed state “foreign law” bans or to summarize the legal reasoning those courts used, because the necessary case opinions and analyses are absent from the dataset; obtaining trial and appellate opinions, plus secondary analyses from legal news outlets and law journals, is the required next step to produce a sourced, accurate account (limitation of reporting) [2] [4].