1964 United States Supreme Court case
Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino
|
---|
|
|
Full case name
| Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, Receiver, et al.
|
---|
Citations
| 376
U.S.
398
(
more
)
|
---|
|
Prior
| Complaint dismissed, 193
F. Supp.
375
(
S.D.N.Y.
1961); affirmed, 307
F.2d
845
(
2d Cir.
1962);
cert.
granted,
372
U.S.
905 (1963).
|
---|
|
The Court determined that the policy of
United States federal courts
would be to honor the
act of state doctrine
, which dictates that the propriety of decisions of other countries relating to their internal affairs would not be questioned in the courts of the
United States
.
|
|
- Chief Justice
- Earl Warren
- Associate Justices
- Hugo Black
·
William O. Douglas
Tom C. Clark
·
John M. Harlan II
William J. Brennan Jr.
·
Potter Stewart
Byron White
·
Arthur Goldberg
|
|
Majority
| Harlan, joined by Warren, Black, Douglas, Clark, Brennan, Stewart, Goldberg
|
---|
Dissent
| White
|
---|
|
Act of State Doctrine
;
U.S. Const.
|
Wikisource
has original text related to this article:
Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino
, 376 U.S. 398 (1964), was a
United States Supreme Court
case that determined that the policy of
United States federal courts
would be to honor the
Act of State Doctrine
, which dictates that the propriety of decisions of other countries relating to their internal affairs would not be questioned in the courts of the
United States
.
Background
[
edit
]
In July 1960, the
Cuban
government retaliated against the
United States
for various measures imposed against the
Castro
government by
expropriating
property held by U.S. citizens in Cuba. This included the seizure of
sugar
owned by a Cuban company called Compania Azucarera Vertientes-Camaguey de Cuba (C.A.V.), owned by American stockholders.
An American commodity broker, Farr, Whitlock & Co. had contracted to buy this sugar from C.A.V., but after it was seized, they bought it directly from the
Cuban government
. After receiving the sugar, however, Farr, Whitlock & Co. did not pay the Cuban government; instead, they paid C.A.V.'s legal representative in the U.S., Sabbatino.
Procedural history
[
edit
]
The plaintiff, the
National Bank of Cuba
(acting on behalf of the Cuban government) filed a
lawsuit
in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the
defendant
, Sabbatino, to recover the money paid for the sugar. The district court
[1]
and the
Court of Appeals
ruled in favor of the defendant,
[2]
and the case was appealed to the Supreme Court.
The issue taken by the Supreme Court was whether to apply the Act of State doctrine, which would uphold the legality of the expropriation because it was an official act of another country, not subject to question in US courts.
The defendant contended that the doctrine was inapplicable for three reasons:
- Because the act in question was a violation of
international law
;
- Because the doctrine should not be applied unless the
Executive branch
asks the court to do so;
- Because Cuba had brought the suit as a plaintiff and had given up its sovereign immunity.
Opinion of the court
[
edit
]
The court, in an opinion by Justice
John Marshall Harlan II
, found that the act of state doctrine did apply in this case. The court refused to hold that the expropriation violated international law, because there was no clear unity of international opinion disapproving the seizure of land or property in a country by the government of that country. It noted also that interposition of the Executive was unnecessary to prevent the courts from interfering in affairs of state, as a single court could upset delicate international negotiations through the assertion of
U.S. law
in another country. Finally, the Court found no bar to application of the doctrine should be imposed by the fact that Cuba had brought the suit, comparing this to the
sovereign immunity
enjoyed by
U.S. states
which can sue, but can not be sued.
The court also raised and dismissed a potential
Erie doctrine
problem, noting that although this suit was brought under
diversity jurisdiction
, federal interests so outweighed that of the state that
federal common law
must apply, instead of the law of the state where the suit was filed.
White's dissent
[
edit
]
Justice White
wrote a "dismayed" dissenting opinion, asserting that the court's application of the act of state doctrine was too rigid: more so, in fact than the doctrine as applied by other countries.
Subsequent developments
[
edit
]
Not surprisingly, the Sabbatino case provoked an uproar in the
U.S. Congress
. Before the case could be reviewed by the district court (on remand), Congress passed the so-called
Second Hickenlooper Amendment
(or Sabbatino Amendment) that revoked this presumption in favor of the validity of the act of state doctrine that the Sabbatino court had established. The Amendment was retroactive and subsequently found constitutional by the district court and the Cuban bank's complaint was dismissed. This amendment to the
Foreign Assistance Act
has clarified that courts may proceed with an adjudication on the
merits
unless the President states that such adjudication may embarrass foreign policy efforts, but the amendment has been construed very narrowly by subsequent court decisions.
References
[
edit
]
Further reading
[
edit
]
External links
[
edit
]