## Facts

- A U.S. labor association representing members in petroleum-using industries sued OPEC member states, alleging coordinated oil production and price-setting caused sharp U.S. price increases in the 1970s.
- The complaint characterized the defendants’ conduct as a horizontal price-fixing agreement violating Sherman Act § 1 and sought injunctive relief (and initially damages).
- The defendants did not appear; arguments were presented through amici and court-appointed experts.
- The district court dismissed the case, including the injunctive-relief claim against member states, citing lack of jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and noting additional possible defects.

## Issues

1. Whether a federal court may adjudicate and enjoin foreign sovereign states’ collective oil pricing and production decisions under U.S. antitrust law, or whether the act of state doctrine bars the action.
2. Whether analysis under FSIA’s commercial-activity framework is necessary when the challenged conduct is treated as a sovereign act for act-of-state purposes.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the injunctive-relief claim.
- The court held the act of state doctrine precluded judicial review because resolving the antitrust claim would require passing on the legality of official acts of multiple foreign governments involving control of natural resources and foreign commerce.
- The court declined to decide whether FSIA would permit jurisdiction under a commercial-activity theory, treating act of state as dispositive.
- The court did not reach substantive antitrust questions (including statutory coverage and causation).

## Legal Principles

- The act of state doctrine bars federal courts from adjudicating claims that require judging the validity or legality of public acts of a foreign sovereign performed within its own territory.
- The doctrine is a domestic separation-of-powers limitation aimed at avoiding judicial interference with the Executive’s conduct of foreign relations.
- Sovereign immunity (including FSIA) concerns jurisdiction; the act of state doctrine concerns whether a court should decide the merits even if jurisdiction could exist.
- When a plaintiff’s theory would require a court to condemn or enjoin foreign states’ official economic and resource policies, the act of state doctrine can require dismissal without reaching statutory or immunity questions.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that a private antitrust suit seeking to enjoin foreign states’ coordinated oil pricing and production policies was nonjusticiable because the act of state doctrine required judicial abstention, and it therefore affirmed dismissal without deciding FSIA or antitrust merits.


Int’l Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. Org. of Petroleum Exporting Countries, 649 F.2d 1354 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1163 (1982)