Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-1220_3e04.pdf
Page Number: 9

6 

ANIMAL SCIENCE PRODUCTS, INC. v. 
HEBEI WELCOME PHARMACEUTICAL CO. 
Opinion of the Court 

amount of deference” owed to the Ministry’s characteriza-
tion  of  Chinese  law.    Ibid.    Cognizant  of  “competing  au-
thority”  on  this  question,  ibid.,  the  Court  of  Appeals  set-
tled  on  a  highly  deferential  rule:  “[W]hen  a  foreign 
government, acting through counsel or otherwise, directly 
participates  in  U. S.  court  proceedings  by  providing  a 
[statement]  regarding  the  construction  and  effect  of  [the 
foreign  government’s]  laws  and  regulations,  which  is 
reasonable  under  the  circumstances  presented,  a  U. S. 
court  is  bound  to  defer  to  those  statements,”  id.,  at  189.  
The  appeals  court  “note[d]  that[,]  if  the  Chinese  Govern-
ment  had  not  appeared  in  this  litigation,  the  [D]istrict 
[C]ourt’s  careful  and  thorough  treatment  of  the  evidence 
before  it  in  analyzing  what  Chinese  law  required  at  both 
the  motion  to  dismiss  and  summary  judgment  stages 
would have been entirely appropriate.”  Id., at 191, n. 10. 
  Applying  its  highly  deferential  rule,  the  Court  of  Ap-
peals concluded that the Ministry’s account of Chinese law 
was  “reasonable.”    In  so  concluding,  the  Court  of  Appeals 
inspected only the Ministry’s brief and sources cited therein.  
Id.,  at  189–190.    Because  it  thought  that  “a  U. S.  court 
[must]  not  embark  on  a  challenge  to  a  foreign  govern-
ment’s  official  representation,”  id.,  at  189,  the  Court  of 
Appeals  disregarded  the  submissions  made  by  the  U. S. 
purchasers  casting  doubt  on  the  Ministry’s  account  of 
Chinese  law,  id.,  at  189–190.    Based  solely  on  the  Minis-
try’s statements, the Court of Appeals held that “Chinese 
law required [the Chinese sellers] to engage in activities in 
China  that  constituted  antitrust  violations  here  in  the 
United States.”  Ibid. 
  We  granted  certiorari  to  resolve  a  Circuit  conflict  over 
this  question:  Is  a  federal  court  determining  foreign  law 
under Rule 44.1 required to treat as conclusive a submis-
sion from the foreign government describing its own law?