This matter is before the court on appellant’s motion for an injunction pending appeal. See Rule 8(a), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. The court has expedited the hearing and has considered the record, the briefs, and the oral arguments of counsel. The motion is denied.
Plaintiff-appellant Dolе is a United States Senator. Defendant-appellee Carter is the President of the United States. The controversy relates to the crown of St. Stephen and related regalia. The crown is a symbol of Hungarian national identity and has played an important role in Hungarian history for many centuries. At the end of hostilities in World War II, the crоwn was voluntarily turned over to armed forces of the United States by a Hungarian emissary and is presently held by the United Stаtes. The parties seem to agree that the crown belongs to the Hungarian people. No claim is made that the crown is the property of the United States.
On December 13,1977, the American Ambassador to Hungary wrotе the Hungarian Minister of Foreign Affairs saying that President Carter had determined that “it is *1110 appropriate and fitting” that the crown be returned to the people of Hungary at a ceremony to be held in Budapest. The letter stated that certain arrangements had been decided by the two governments and specified those arrangements. The letter asked confirmation “of the arrangements as specified above.” By letter dated the samе day, the Hungarian Minister confirmed the arrangements. The ceremony is to be held on January 6-7, 1978.
On December 23,1977, Senator Dole filed in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief. He claims that the understanding for the return of the crown is a bilateral treaty between the United States and Hungary which, under Art. II, Sec. 2, cl. 2 of the Constitution of the United States, requires the advice and consent of the Senate.
After a hearing at which it gave consideration to affidavits and documents offered by the parties, the cоurt on December 30 denied Senator Dole’s request for a preliminary injunction. An appeal to this court wаs filed the same day.
An application to enjoin the return of the crown was denied by the United States District Court fоr the District of Columbia on December 18,1977. See Civil Action No. 77-2069, Curtis v. Carter. The court of appeals summarily affirmed on December 19,1977. See No. 77-2105, Curtis v. Carter, D.C.Cir. In that case reliance was had on Art. IV, Sec. 3, cl. 2 of the Constitution relating to the powеr of Congress over the property of the United States and apparently no consideration was given tо the treaty question. In the case before us no claim is made that the crown is the property of the United Stаtes.
The district court held that the understanding between the United States and Hungary was an executive agreement nоt within the purview of Art. II, Sec. 2, cl. 2 of the Constitution. The court specifically declined to consider matters relating to standing or jurisdiction.
Art. III. Sec. 2, cl. 1 of the Constitution provides that the judicial power extends to cases and сontroversies. Jurisdiction depends on whether a justiciable controversy is presented. The controversy hеre is whether the understanding between the United States and Hungary is a treaty or an executive agreement not rеquiring Senate action. We must determine whether the dispute, having its origin in the field of foreign relations, presents a nоnjusticiable political question. In discussing political questions arising in the context of foreign relations, the Supreme Court said in
Baker v. Carr,
“Our cases in this field [foreign relations] seem invariably to show a discriminating analysis of the particular question posed, in terms of the history of its management by the political branches, of its susceptibility to judicial handling in the light of its nature and posture in the specific case, and of the possible consequences of judiciаl action.”
In
United States v. Bishop,
10 Cir.,
The action of the President is to return to the people of Hungary property which belongs to thеm. The situation is one which “uniquely demandfs] single-voiced statement of the Government’s views.”
Baker
v.
Carr,
*1111 We realize that Senator Dole contends that the President’s action violates the Paris Peace Treaty of 1947. On the record presented to us we find no violation of thаt treaty.
The motion for injunction pending appeal is denied. We note the statement in the order of the trial court that defense counsel have assured that the President will retain possession of the crown until such time as the court could hear the motion for a preliminary injunction. We assume that this assurance will carry over tо permit consideration by the Supreme Court, or a Justice thereof, of this order denying an injunction pending appeal. No petition for rehearing or reconsideration of the motion for an injunction pending appeal will be considered by this court.