Brief of Professors of International Litigation As Amici Curiae in Support of Neither Party, in Animal Science Products, Inc. v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.

34 Pages Posted: 8 Mar 2018

See all articles by William S. Dodge

William S. Dodge

University of California, Davis - School of Law

Date Written: March 2, 2018

Abstract

This amicus brief was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in Animal Science Products, Inc. v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. The brief was written by Professor William S. Dodge and joined by Professors Ronald A. Brand, Anthony J. Colangelo, Maggie Gardner, Stephen C. McCaffrey, John T. Parry, Michael D. Ramsey, Aaron D. Simowitz, Adam N. Steinman, and Edward T. Swaine.

Petitioners alleged that respondents established a cartel to fix the prices of vitamin C exported to the United States. Claiming that Chinese law required them to fix prices, respondents raised the act of state doctrine, the doctrine of foreign sovereign compulsion, and principles of international comity as defenses. On appeal, the Second Circuit held that the district court was bound to defer to the Chinese Government’s representations about Chinese law and was required to abstain from deciding the case on grounds of international comity. The Supreme Court granted cert limited to the question whether a court is bound to defer to a foreign government’s representations about its own law.

The amicus brief takes no position on the question presented but argues that, in answering that question, the Supreme Court should take care not to endorse the Second Circuit’s doctrine of abstention based on international comity. First, the brief notes that the principle of international comity is the foundation for many doctrines of U.S. law, each of which has specific requirements tailored to a particular context. How much weight a U.S. court should give as a matter of international comity to the representation of a foreign government about the content of its own law is a separate question from whether a U.S. court should be allowed to dismiss a case over which it has subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of international comity.

Second, the brief argues that the Second Circuit’s doctrine of abstention based on international comity conflicts with the Supreme Court’s decisions disapproving a case-by-case balancing approach to extraterritoriality and with the “virtually unflagging” obligation of the federal courts to exercise jurisdiction. The brief also points out that the Second Circuit’s doctrine threatens to supplant more narrowly tailored doctrines of international comity like foreign sovereign compulsion and the act of state doctrine.

Keywords: international comity, abstention, vitamin c

Suggested Citation

Dodge, William S., Brief of Professors of International Litigation As Amici Curiae in Support of Neither Party, in Animal Science Products, Inc. v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. (March 2, 2018). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3133228 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3133228

William S. Dodge (Contact Author)

University of California, Davis - School of Law ( email )

Martin Luther King, Jr. Hall
Davis, CA CA 95616-5201
United States

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
90
Abstract Views
981
Rank
513,029
PlumX Metrics