When the Second Circuit held in 2016 that U.S. courts are “bound to defer” to a foreign government’s reasonable construction of its own laws, its decision made waves within the international litigation community. [In re Vitamin C Antitrust Litigation, 837 F.3d 175 (2d Cir. 2016).] While others hailed the decision as a landmark for international comity establishing an unflinching rule of deference, some of us questioned in these pages whether the decision represented the sea change many thought it to be and further wondered if the Second Circuit’s broad “rule” would survive. [ See Hranitzky et al., “When A Court Interprets Foreign Law, There Is No Secret Password,” New York Law Journal Vol. 256, No. 112 (2016).]

The U.S. Supreme Court answered our questions last Thursday. In a unanimous opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Supreme Court rejected the Second Circuit’s ruling and held that foreign governments are not entitled to absolute deference on the construction of their own laws. [Animal Science Products v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co., No. 16-1220, --- S. Ct.---, 2018 WL 2973745 (U.S. Jun. 14, 2016).]