that is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, The court laid out a four-factor balancing test that lower courts must weigh before determining if congressional subpoenas involving the President and his papers are valid.Trump v. Vance, Article II and the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution do not categorically preclude, or require a heightened standard for, the issuance of a state criminal subpoena to a sitting president. Foreign Chae Chan Ping v. United States, Immigration statutes are constitutional even when conflicting with the terms of an international treaty. Congress has the plenary power to regulate all aspects of immigration; neither Congress nor federal consular officers are subject to judicial review. The Paquete Habana, The President may not issue exemptions to customary international law at discretion. Federal courts may look to customary international law because it is an integrated part of American law. United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., The Constitution implies that the ability to conduct foreign policy is vested entirely in the President. The President has plenary power in the foreign affairs field that does not depend on congressional delegation. Medellín v. Texas, International treaties are not binding domestic law unless Congress enacts statutes implementing them or unless the treaties are self-executing. Also, decisions of the International Court of Justice are not binding domestic law, and without authority from Congress or the Constitution, the President lacks the power to enforce international treaties or decisions of the International Court of Justice.Trump v. Hawaii, Presidential Proclamation 9645 did not violate the INA or the Establishment Clause by suspending the entry of aliens from several nations. Substantial deference must be accorded to the Executive in the conduct of foreign affairs and the exclusion of aliens. Other areas Voting and RedistrictingBaker v. Carr, The redistricting of state legislative districts is not a political question, so it is justiciable by the federal courts.Gray v. Sanders, Formulated the "one person, one vote" standard. State elections must adhere to the "one person, one vote" principle.Wesberry v. Sanders, The Constitution requires that the members of the House of Representatives be selected from districts composed, as nearly as is practicable, of equal population.Reynolds v. Sims, The populations of state legislative districts must be as equal as mathematically possible so as to ensure equal protection.Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, A state's conditioning of the right to vote on the payment of a fee or