Term: 2017
Docket: 16-1220
Animal Science Products v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co.
- Pro
16-1220 ANIMAL SCIENCE PRODUCTS V. HEBEI WELCOME DECISION BELOW: 837 F.3d 175 LIMITED TO QUESTION 2 PRESENTED BY THE PETITION. CERT. GRANTED 1/12/2018 QUESTION PRESENTED: 1.Whether the Second Circuit, in conflict with the decisions of three courts of appeals, erred in exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 over a pre-trial order denying a motion to dismiss following a full trial on the merits. 2. Whether a court may exercise independent review of an appearing foreign sovereign's interpretation of its domestic law (as held by the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits), or whether a court is "bound to defer" to a foreign government's legal statement, as a matter of international comity, whenever the foreign government appears before the court (as held by the opinion below in accord with the Ninth Circuit). 3. Whether a court may abstain from exercising jurisdiction on a case-by-case basis, as a matter of discretionary international comity, over an otherwise valid Sherman Antitrust Act claim involving purely domestic injury. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 13-4791
The U.S. Supreme Court case Animal Science Products v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co., 2017, revolved around the issue of price-fixing in international trade and whether foreign companies could be held accountable under U.S. antitrust laws for their actions abroad that affect American commerce. The plaintiffs, two American corporations (Animal Science Products Inc and Ranis Company), accused Chinese vitamin C manufacturers including Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co., of conspiring to fix prices and control supply exported to the United States market, which is a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. However, these Chinese firms argued they were compelled by their government's regulations to do so - an argument supported by China’s Ministry of Commerce in amicus briefs submitted during litigation proceedings at lower courts. In June 2018, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivered the unanimous opinion for a 9-0 decision favoring Animal Science Products Inc., stating that just because a foreign government filed an amicus brief claiming its law required certain conduct does not make it binding on U.S courts interpreting foreign law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 44.1.
The dissenting opinion in the case of Animal Science Products v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co., 2017, argued that U.S. courts should defer to a foreign government's interpretation of its own laws unless it is clearly unreasonable. The dissenters believed that the majority decision undermined international comity by not giving sufficient weight to China’s explanation of its own regulations regarding price-fixing agreements among vitamin C manufacturers. They contended that this could potentially strain diplomatic relations and lead other countries to disregard U.S interpretations of American law in their courts as well.
