Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-1220_3e04.pdf
Page Number: 10.0

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

7 

Opinion of the Court 

583 U. S. ___ (2018).3 

II 
  At common law, the content of foreign law relevant to a 
dispute was treated “as a question of fact.”  Miller, Federal 
Rule 44.1 and the “Fact” Approach to Determining Foreign 
Law:  Death  Knell  for  a  Die-Hard  Doctrine,  65  Mich. 
L. Rev.  613,  617–619  (1967)  (Miller).    In  1801,  this  Court 
endorsed the common-law rule, instructing that “the laws 
of  a  foreign  nation”  must  be  “proved  as  facts.”    Talbot  v. 
Seeman,  1  Cranch  1,  38  (1801);  see,  e.g.,  Church  v.  Hub-
bart,  2  Cranch  187,  236  (1804)  (“Foreign  laws  are  well 
understood to be facts.”).  Ranking questions of foreign law 
as  questions  of  fact,  however,  “had  a  number  of  undesir- 
able  practical  consequences.”    9A  C.  Wright  &  A.  Miller, 
Federal Practice and Procedure §2441, p. 324 (3d ed. 2008) 
(Wright  &  Miller).    Foreign  law  “had  to  be  raised  in  the 
pleadings”  and  proved  “in  accordance  with  the  rules  of 
evidence.”    Ibid.    Appellate  review  was  deferential  and 
limited  to  the  record  made  in  the  trial  court.    Ibid.;  see 
also Miller 623. 
  Federal  Rule  of  Civil  Procedure  44.1,  adopted  in  1966, 
fundamentally  changed  the  mode  of  determining  foreign 
law  in  federal  courts.    The  Rule  specifies  that  a  court’s 

—————— 

3 Compare  In  re  Vitamin  C  Antitrust  Litigation,  837  F.  3d  175  (CA2 
2016) (case below), with In re Oil Spill by Amoco Cadiz, 954 F. 2d 1279, 
1311–1313  (CA7  1992)  (adopting  French  Government’s  interpretation 
of  French  law,  but  only  after  considering  all  of  the  circumstances, 
including  the  French  Government’s  statements  in  other  contexts); 
United  States  v.  McNab,  331  F.  3d  1228,  1239–1242  (CA11  2003) 
(noting  Honduran  Government’s  shift  in  position  on  the  question  of 
Honduran  law  and  determining  that  the  original  position  stated  the 
proper  interpretation);  McKesson  HBOC,  Inc.  v.  Islamic  Republic  of 
Iran, 271 F. 3d 1101, 1108–1109 (CADC 2001), vacated in part on other 
grounds,  320  F.  3d  280  (CADC  2003)  (declining  to  adopt  the  view  of 
Iranian  law  advanced  by  Iranian  Government  because  it  was  not 
supported by the affidavits submitted by Iran’s experts).