I want to put in another word for Curtiss-Wright. I heard on the live feed that one of the concerns is that the literature recommends "limiting" rather than "overturning" Curtiss-Wright, but in a sense, all of the literature advocating limits on the decision are, in fact, advocating that it be overruled. The decision is what creates plenary power for the executive in foreign policy, so limits overturn the key holding in the case, i.e., that the executive's foreign policy power is plenary.