Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1566_l5gm.pdf
Page Number: 3

Cite as:  596 U. S. ____ (2022) 

3 

Syllabus 

non-federal claims.  If the private suit were filed in state court, Cali-
fornia’s choice-of-law rule would govern.  And if the private suit were 
filed in federal court, the same would be true, because a federal court 
sitting in diversity borrows the forum State’s choice-of-law rule.  See 
Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U. S. 487, 496.  If California’s 
choice-of-law rule applies in the private-museum suit, it must also ap-
ply in the suit here, against the Foundation.  That is the only way to
ensure—as Section 1606 demands—that the Foundation, although a 
Spanish instrumentality, will be liable in the same way as a private 
party.

Even absent the clarity of Section 1606, the Court would likely reach 
the same result.  Scant justification exists for federal common lawmak-
ing in this context.  Judicial creation of federal common law to displace 
state-created rules must be “necessary to protect uniquely federal in-
terests.”    Texas  Industries,  Inc.  v.  Radcliff  Materials,  Inc.,  451  U. S. 
630, 640.  While foreign relations is an interest of that kind, here even
the Federal Government disclaims any necessity for a federal choice-
of-law rule in FSIA suits raising non-federal claims.  Pp. 5–9. 

824 Fed. Appx. 452, vacated and remanded. 

KAGAN, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.