The executive agreement should be concluded between two parties and it must be submitted to the government department. Other phrases, such as «this applies to governments, but not to ordinary citizens,» can make no sense and should not be considered an executive agreement. The U.S. Supreme Court Pink (1942) found that international agreements, which were concluded in law, have the same legal status as treaties and do not require Senate approval. To Reid v. Concealed (1957), the Tribunal, while reaffirming the President`s ability to enter into executive agreements, found that such agreements could not be contrary to existing federal law or the Constitution. The Case-Zablocki Act of 1972 requires the President to notify the Senate within 60 days of an executive agreement. The president`s powers to conclude such agreements have not been restricted. The reporting requirement allowed Congress to vote in favor of repealing an executive agreement or to refuse funding for its implementation.  In the United States, executive agreements are binding at the international level if they are negotiated and concluded under the authority of the President on foreign policy, as commander-in-chief of the armed forces or from a previous act of Congress. For example, the President, as Commander-in-Chief, negotiates and concludes Armed Forces Agreements (SOFAs) that govern the treatment and disposition of U.S. forces deployed in other nations.
However, the President cannot unilaterally enter into executive agreements on matters that are not in his constitutional jurisdiction. In such cases, an agreement should take the form of an agreement between Congress and the executive branch or a contract with the Council and the approval of the Senate.  It is a true statement that can be treated as an executive agreement. Five years later, in the «Usa» / 494 cases, the Court adopted these principles another case concerning the attribution and recognition of the Soviet government by Litvinov. The question was whether the United States had the right to recover the assets of the New York branch of a Russian insurance company. The company argued that the Soviet government`s forfeiture decrees did not apply to its property in New York and could not apply in contradiction to the U.S. and New York Constitutions. The court, which was decided by Justice Douglas, brushed aside these arguments. An official statement from the Russian government itself resolved the issue of the extraterritorial operation of the Russian nationalization decree and was binding on the US courts.
The power to remove such obstacles to the full recognition of the claims of our nationals is «a modest tacit power of the president, who is the «only organ of the federal government in the field of international relations».