IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
MIDDLE DIVISION


Made in the USA Foundation, et al.,
                          
        Plaintiffs,                                                                 

v.                                                                                                                     Case No. CV-98-PT-1794-M

United States of America

        Defendant.

FINAL JUDGMENT

        Upon consideration of defendant's motion to dismiss, defendant's motion for summary judgment, and plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment, and for the reasons stated in the court's July 23, 1999 Memorandum Opinion entered in this matter, it is HEREBY

        ORDERED that Defendant's motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED as to plaintiffs Frank Vickers, James L. Brown and David Wilson, and DENIED as to plaintiffs Made in the USA Foundation, United States Steelworkers of America, and Local 12L, United States of America; and it is further

        ORDERED that defendant's motion for summary judgment is hereby GRANTED, and plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment is hereby DENIED; and it is further

        ORDERED that Judgment is entered for defendant United States of America.(1) Each party to bear own costs.

                    DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of August, 1999.


                              /s/                                         
ROBERT B. PROPST                      
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1. After this court filed its memorandum opinion in this matter, it noted the following cases: Weber v. Freed, 239 U.S. 325 (1915), and Brolan v. United States, 236 U.S. 216 (1915). Both cases emphasize the completeness of the foreign commerce power of Congress. Brolan, in fact, suggests that Congress's foreign commerce power is broader than its interstate commerce power. ("[R]eference is made to decisions of this court dealing with the subject of power to regulate interstate commerce, but the very postulate upon which the authority of Congress to absolutely prohibit foreign importations as expounded by the decisions of this court rests on the broad distinction which exists between the two powers.")