Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-1220_3e04.pdf
Page Number: 3.0

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

3 

Syllabus 

vant  state  law  is  established  by  a  decision  of  “the  State’s  highest 
court,” that decision is “binding on the federal courts,” Wainwright v. 
Goode,  464  U. S.  78,  84,  but  views  of  the  State’s  attorney  general, 
while attracting “respectful consideration,” do not garner controlling 
weight,  Arizonans  for  Official  English  v.  Arizona,  520  U. S.  43,  76–
77, n. 30.  Furthermore, because the Second Circuit riveted its atten-
tion on the Ministry’s submission, it did not address evidence submit-
ted  by  the  U. S.  purchasers.    The  court  also  misperceived  the  pre-
Rule 44.1 decision of United States v. Pink, 315 U. S. 203.  Under the 
particular  circumstances  of  that  case,  this  Court  found  conclusive  a 
declaration from the government of the Russian Socialist Federal So-
viet  Republic  on  the  extraterritorial  effect  of  a  decree  nationalizing 
assets: The declaration was obtained by the United States through of-
ficial “diplomatic channels,” id., at 218; there was no indication that 
the declaration was inconsistent with the Russian Government’s past 
statements; and the declaration was consistent with expert evidence 
in point. 
  The  Second  Circuit  expressed  concern  about  reciprocity,  but  the 
United  States  has  not  historically  argued  that  foreign  courts  are 
bound  to  accept  its  characterizations  or  precluded  from  considering 
other  relevant  sources.    International  practice  is  also  inconsistent 
with the Second Circuit’s rigid rule.  Pp. 7–12. 

837 F. 3d 175, vacated and remanded. 

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