## Facts

- U.S. purchasers of vitamin C filed a class action in the Eastern District of New York alleging that Chinese vitamin C manufacturers/exporters fixed prices and controlled export quantities in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act.
- The Chinese sellers did not dispute coordinating price and output but argued their conduct was compelled by Chinese law, invoking international comity and foreign sovereign compulsion.
- China’s Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM), appearing as amicus, submitted that the challenged conduct reflected a government-mandated pricing regime.
- Plaintiffs disputed compulsion, citing materials suggesting exporters acted voluntarily and that China had ended relevant export administration earlier.
- Applying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 44.1, the district court independently reviewed Chinese law and rejected the compulsion defense.
- A jury found for plaintiffs; the court entered judgment including substantial damages and injunctive relief.
- The Second Circuit reversed, holding that when a foreign sovereign offers a reasonable interpretation of its own law, a U.S. court is bound to defer and must accept it.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari on whether such “binding deference” is required when determining foreign law under Rule 44.1.

## Issues

1. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 44.1, must a federal court give conclusive, binding deference to a foreign government’s interpretation of its own law when the government appears, or may the court independently determine foreign law while giving the submission respectful consideration?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously vacated the Second Circuit’s judgment and remanded.
- A court determining foreign law under Rule 44.1 must give a foreign government’s submission respectful consideration but is not bound to treat it as conclusive.
- The Court did not decide whether Chinese law actually compelled the conduct, leaving that question to the lower courts under the correct standard.

## Legal Principles

- Determining foreign law under Rule 44.1 is a question of law for the court, and the court may consider any relevant material or source.
- Rule 44.1 is inconsistent with a categorical rule requiring courts to accept a foreign sovereign’s interpretation of its own law as binding.
- A foreign sovereign’s submission about its law is important and ordinarily entitled to weight, but its force depends on context, including clarity, thoroughness, support, purpose, the authority of the speaker, the transparency of the legal system, and consistency with prior positions.
- International comity supports respect for a foreign sovereign’s views but does not require automatic acceptance; courts retain responsibility to reach their own determination of foreign law.

## Conclusion

The Court rejected the Second Circuit’s “binding deference” approach and held that, when applying Rule 44.1, federal courts must independently determine foreign law while giving a foreign government’s interpretation respectful consideration based on the circumstances.


Animal Science Prods., Inc. v. Hebei Welcome Pharm. Co., 138 S. Ct. 1865 (2018)