## Facts

- A Russian insurance company established a New York branch and deposited assets with the New York Superintendent of Insurance to secure branch-related claims.
- Soviet decrees in 1918–1919 nationalized Russian insurance companies and purported to transfer their property, wherever located, to the Soviet state while cancelling debts and shareholder rights.
- The New York branch continued operating until 1925, when the New York Superintendent took possession of branch assets under a state-court liquidation order to pay U.S. policyholders and creditors.
- After domestic claims were satisfied, more than $1,000,000 remained in the Superintendent’s hands.
- New York courts directed payment of certain foreign creditors and remittance of any surplus to a quorum of the company’s directors.
- In 1933, the United States recognized the Soviet government; as part of recognition, the Soviet Union executed the Litvinov Assignment, assigning to the United States various claims connected to nationalized Russian entities’ property in the United States.
- The United States, as assignee, sued the New York Superintendent to recover the remaining liquidation balance.

## Issues

1. Whether the United States’ claim under the Litvinov Assignment and Soviet decrees presented a federal question permitting Supreme Court review of the state-court judgment.
2. Whether the Soviet nationalization decrees, as a matter of foreign law, transferred title to the New York branch assets to the Soviet state.
3. Whether the Litvinov Assignment and federal foreign-relations determinations required New York to recognize the United States’ claim notwithstanding state policy or prior state-law doctrines.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the New York Court of Appeals.
- The Court held the United States’ claim under the Litvinov Assignment raised a federal question; federal rights dependent on foreign law and federal action were to be determined independently by the Supreme Court.
- The Court concluded that, under Soviet law as authoritatively interpreted by Soviet officials, the nationalization decrees encompassed the company’s property, including the New York branch assets.
- The Court held the Litvinov Assignment was broad enough to include the claims at issue and should be construed to carry out its purpose of reducing international friction.
- New York was required to recognize the United States’ title derived from the assignment and release the remaining assets; state policy could not defeat federal action in foreign affairs.
- A prior Supreme Court affirmance by an equally divided Court in related litigation bound only the parties to that case and did not establish controlling law for this dispute.

## Legal Principles

- A claim by the United States grounded in an executive agreement incident to recognition of a foreign government presents a federal question; the Supreme Court independently determines questions necessary to vindicate the federal right.
- State courts’ determinations of foreign law are not conclusive on federal review where a federal right turns on the content or effect of that foreign law.
- Official foreign-government interpretations of that government’s own law may be treated as authoritative evidence of the law’s meaning and reach.
- Executive agreements in the field of foreign relations may operate as federal law that preempts conflicting state law or policy, and states may not obstruct federal foreign-policy choices.

## Conclusion

The Court held that the United States, as assignee of the Soviet Union under the Litvinov Assignment, had superior title to the remaining New York liquidation assets of a nationalized Russian insurer, and that New York was required to release those assets because federal foreign-relations determinations and executive agreements override contrary state policy.


United States v. Pink, 315 U.S. 203 (1942)