Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-1220_3e04.pdf
Page Number: 11

8 

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

determination of foreign law “must be treated as a ruling 
on  a  question  of  law,”  rather  than  as  a  finding  of  fact.4  
Correspondingly,  in  ascertaining  foreign  law,  courts  are 
not limited to materials submitted by the parties; instead, 
they  “may  consider  any  relevant  material  or  source  . . . , 
whether or not . . . admissible under the Federal Rules of 
Evidence.”  Ibid.  Appellate review, as is true of domestic 
law  determinations,  is  de novo.    Advisory  Committee’s 
Note,  at  892.    Rule  44.1  frees  courts  “to  reexamine  and 
amplify  material  . . .  presented  by  counsel  in  partisan 
fashion  or  in  insufficient  detail.”    Ibid.    The  “obvious” 
purpose  of  the  changes  Rule  44.1  ordered  was  “to  make 
the  process  of  determining  alien  law  identical  with  the 
method  of  ascertaining  domestic  law  to  the  extent  that  it 
is possible to do so.”  Wright & Miller §2444, at 338–342. 
  Federal  courts  deciding  questions  of  foreign  law  under 
Rule  44.1  are  sometimes  provided  with  the  views  of  the 
relevant  foreign  government,  as  they  were  in  this  case 
through the amicus brief of the Ministry.  See supra, at 2–
3.    As  the  Court  of  Appeals  correctly  observed,  Rule  44.1 
does  not  address  the  weight  a  federal  court  determining 
foreign  law  should  give  to  the  views  presented  by  the 
foreign government.  See 837 F. 3d, at 187.  Nor does any 
other rule or statute.  In the spirit of “international comity,” 
Société  Nationale  Industrielle  Aérospatiale  v.  United 
States  Dist.  Court  for  Southern  Dist.  of  Iowa,  482  U. S. 
522, 543, and n. 27 (1987), a federal court should carefully 
consider  a  foreign  state’s  views  about  the  meaning  of  its 
own  laws.    See  United  States  v.  McNab,  331  F. 3d  1228, 
1241  (CA11  2003);  cf.  Bodum  USA,  Inc.  v.  La  Cafetière, 
Inc., 621 F. 3d 624, 638–639 (CA7 2010) (Wood, J., concur-
ring).  But the appropriate weight in each case will depend 

—————— 

4 Federal  Rule  of  Criminal  Procedure  26.1  establishes  “substantially 
the same” rule for criminal cases.  Advisory Committee’s 1966 Note on 
Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 26.1, 18 U. S. C. App., p. 709.