Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-1220_3e04.pdf
Page Number: 4.0

Cite as:  585 U. S. ____ (2018) 

1 

Opinion of the Court 

NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the 
preliminary  print  of  the  United  States  Reports.  Readers  are  requested  to 
notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash-
ington,  D. C.  20543,  of  any  typographical  or  other  formal  errors,  in  order 
that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 16–1220 
_________________ 

ANIMAL SCIENCE PRODUCTS, INC., ET AL., 
PETITIONERS v. HEBEI WELCOME 
PHARMACEUTICAL CO. LTD., ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 

[June 14, 2018] 

  JUSTICE GINSBURG delivered the opinion of the Court. 
  When  foreign  law  is  relevant  to  a  case  instituted  in  a 
federal court, and the foreign government whose law is in 
contention  submits  an  official  statement  on  the  meaning 
and  interpretation  of  its  domestic  law,  may  the  federal 
court  look  beyond  that  official  statement?    The  Court  of 
Appeals  for  the  Second  Circuit  answered  generally  “no,” 
ruling that federal courts are “bound to defer” to a foreign 
government’s  construction  of  its  own  law,  whenever  that 
construction  is  “reasonable.”    In re  Vitamin  C  Antitrust 
Litigation, 837 F. 3d 175, 189 (2016). 
  We  hold  otherwise.    A  federal  court  should  accord  re-
spectful  consideration  to  a  foreign  government’s  submis-
sion,  but  is  not  bound  to  accord  conclusive  effect  to  the 
foreign government’s statements.  Instead, Federal Rule of 
Civil Procedure 44.1 instructs that, in determining foreign 
law,  “the  court  may  consider  any  relevant  material  or 
source . . . whether or not submitted by a party.”  As “[t]he 
court’s  determination  must  be  treated  as  a  ruling  on  a 
question of law,” Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 44.1, the court “may