Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-1220_3e04.pdf
Page Number: 12

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

9 

Opinion of the Court 

upon the circumstances; a federal court is neither bound to 
adopt  the  foreign  government’s  characterization  nor  re-
quired to ignore other relevant materials.  When a foreign 
government makes conflicting statements, see supra, at 5, 
or,  as  here,  offers  an  account  in  the  context  of  litigation, 
there  may  be  cause  for  caution  in  evaluating  the  foreign 
government’s submission. 
  Given  the  world’s  many  and  diverse  legal  systems,  and 
the  range  of  circumstances  in  which  a  foreign  govern-
ment’s  views  may  be presented,  no  single  formula  or  rule 
will  fit  all  cases  in  which  a  foreign  government  describes 
its  own  law.    Relevant  considerations  include  the  state-
ment’s clarity, thoroughness, and support; its context and 
purpose; the transparency of the foreign legal system; the 
role  and  authority  of  the  entity  or  official  offering  the 
statement;  and  the  statement’s  consistency  with  the  for-
eign government’s past positions. 
  Judged in this light, the Court of Appeals erred in deem-
ing  the  Ministry’s  submission  binding,  so  long  as  facially 
reasonable.  That unyielding rule is inconsistent with Rule 
44.1  (determination  of  an  issue  of  foreign  law  “must  be 
treated  as  a  ruling  on  a  question  of  law”;  court  may  con-
sider  “any  relevant  material  or  source”)  and,  tellingly, 
with this Court’s treatment of analogous submissions from 
States  of  the  United  States.    If  the  relevant  state  law  is 
established  by  a  decision  of  “the  State’s  highest  court,” 
that  decision  is  “binding  on  the  federal  courts.”    Wain-
wright v. Goode, 464 U. S. 78, 84 (1983) (per curiam); see 
Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U. S. 684, 691 (1975).  But views 
of the State’s attorney general, while attracting “respectful 
consideration,”  do  not  garner  controlling  weight.    Arizo-
nans  for  Official  English  v.  Arizona,  520  U. S.  43,  76–77, 
n. 30  (1997);  see,  e.g.,  Virginia  v.  American  Booksellers 
Assn.,  Inc.,  484  U. S.  383,  393–396  (1988).    Furthermore, 
because  the  Court  of  Appeals  riveted  its  attention  on  the 
Ministry’s  submission,  it  did  not  address  other  evidence,