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).]

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]