Document: 493 U.S. 400 110 S.Ct. 701 107 L.Ed.2d 816 W.S. KIRKPATRICK & CO., INC., et al., Petitionersv.ENVIRONMENTAL TECTONICS CORPORATION, INTERNATIONAL. No. 87-2066. Argued Nov. 27, 1989. Decided Jan. 17, 1990. Syllabus According to respondent's complaint, petitioners obtained a construction contract from the Nigerian Government by bribing officials. law prohibits both payment and receipt of such bribes. Respondent, an unsuccessful bidder for contract, filed action damages against others under various federal state statutes. The District Court ruled that suit was barred act doctrine, which in its view precluded judicial inquiry into motivation sovereign would result embarrassment sovereign, or constitute interference with conduct United States foreign policy. court granted summary judgment because resolution case favor respondent require imputing officials unlawful (the obtaining bribes), accordingly might embarrass Executive Branch relations. Appeals reversed remanded trial, holding on facts this doctrine did not apply no affairs evident. Held: does nothing present requires declare invalid official sovereign. See, e.g., Ricaud v. American Metal Co., 246 304, 38 312, 62 L.Ed. 733. It suffice necessary establish claim will also unlawful, since contract's legality is simply question must decide. Banana Co. Fruit 213 347, 357-358, 29 511, 513, 53 826 (Holmes, J.), distinguished. Nor it respondents impute improper performance acts. To say international comity, respect sovereignty nations, avoidance relations are policies underlying applicable whenever those implicated. rule abstention courts deciding properly presented cases controversies Executive's may be adversely affected; decision that, process deciding, acts sovereigns taken within their own jurisdictions deemed valid. Pp. 404-410. 847 F.2d 1052 (CA3 1988), affirmed. SCALIA, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. Edward Brodsky, New York City, petitioners. Thomas B. Rutter, respondent. W. Merrill U.S., as amicus curiae, support respondent, special leave Justice SCALIA 1 In we decide whether bars entertaining cause rest upon asserted invalidity but bribes) act. 2 * alleged complaint follows: 1981, Harry Carpenter, who then chairman board chief executive officer petitioner Kirkpatrick Inc. (Kirkpatrick), learned Republic Nigeria interested contracting equipment aeromedical center at Kaduna Air Force Base Nigeria. He made arrangements Benson "Tunde" Akindele, citizen, whereby Akindele endeavor secure Kirkpatrick. agreed event awarded Kirkpatrick, pay two Panamanian entities controlled "commission" equal 20% price, turn given bribe Government. accordance plan, International (Kirkpatrick International), wholly owned subsidiary Kirkpatrick; paid promised appointed entities; funds were disbursed All parties agree bribes connection award government contract. 3 Respondent Environmental Tectonics Corporation, International, brought matter attention Embassy Lagos. Following investigation Federal Bureau Investigation, Attorney Jersey charges Carpenter violations Foreign Corrupt Practices Act 1977, 91 Stat. 1495, amended, 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-1 seq., pleaded guilty. 4 civil petitioners, others, seeking Racketeer Influenced Organizations Act, 18 1961 Robinson-Patman 49 1526, 13 Anti-Racketeering N.J.Stat.Ann. 2C:41-2 seq. (West 1982). defendants moved dismiss Rule 12(b)(6) Rules Civil Procedure ground doctrine. 5 Court, having requested received letter expressing views legal adviser Department State applicability treated motion one 56 motion. 659 F.Supp. 1381 (1987). concluded applies "if determination includes policy States." Id., 1392-1393 (citing Clayco Petroleum Corp. Occidental Corp., 712 404, 407 (CA9 1983)). Applying principle hand, held had dismissed order prevail have show "the certain them intended wrongfully influence Contract bribe, Nigeria, other representatives knew offered consideration awarding actually anticipated 'but for' anticipation ETC been Contract." F.Supp., 1393 (footnote omitted). 6 Third Circuit reversed. (1988). Although agreeing military procurement can be, circumstances, sufficiently formal expression government's public interests trigger application" id., 1058, found application unwarranted case. particularly persuasive State, stated purpose behind produce "unique embarrassment, particular affairs, sovereign's invalid." 1061. acknowledged Department's conclusions reach controlling courts," factual assessment fulfillment responsibilities prejudiced course litigation entitled substantial respect." 1062. light harmed prosecution action, met burden showing should go forward; accordingly, trial. 1067. We certiorari, 492 905, 109 3213, 106 563 (1989). II 7 This Court's description jurisprudential foundation has undergone some evolution over years. once viewed law, resting highest considerations comity expediency," Oetjen Central Leather 297, 303-304, 309, 311, 726 (1918). more recently described it, however, consequence domestic separation powers, reflecting strong sense Judicial engagement task passing validity hinder" Banco Nacional de Cuba Sabbatino, 376 398, 423, 84 923, 937, 11 804 (1964). Some Justices suggested possible exceptions where foregoing seemingly served: exception, example, consist commercial transactions, neither modern nor current position our accorded immunity acts, see Alfred Dunhill London, Cuba, 425 682, 695-706, 96 1854, 1861-1867, 48 301 (1976) (opinion WHITE, J.); exception represented objection denying act, impeding goals, First National City Bank 406 759, 768-770, 92 1808, 1813-1815, 32 466 (1972) REHNQUIST, J.). 8 argued length about these exceptions, and, generally, furthered find unnecessary, pursue inquiries, predicate exist. Nothing invalid, thus ineffective "a country," 310, 314, 733 (1918), 9 every applicable, relief sought defense interposed required performed territory. Underhill Hernandez, 168 250, 254, 83, 85, 42 456 (1897), defendant's detention plaintiff tortious effect "acts commander representing authority revolutionary party government, afterwards succeeded recognized supra, title claimed through purchase Mexico declaring prior seizure property, territory, legally ineffective. See Oetjen, S.Ct., 311; Ricaud, 314. upholding Cuba's expropriation goods located Havana null void. case, contrast, any Nigeria's was, not, effective. 10 Petitioners point out, unlawful. Specifically, they note prove made, received, payments violate would, assert, finding law. Assuming true, still suffice. vague "principle binding alike." 427, 939 (emphasis added). As said boundaries . becomes country." issues only arise when decide—that is, outcome turns upon—the When That situation here. Regardless what court's findings suggest decided suit, there occasion requires. Cf. Sharon Time, Inc., 599 538, 546 (SDNY 1984) ("The issue [the alleged] valid, occurred"). cast doubt cite Holmes' (1909). antitrust laws, alleging Costa Rica's plaintiff's property induced conspiracy. lengthy Holmes observed, citing Underhill, thing complained elsewhere courts." 513. statement concededly puzzling. indeed stand proposition cannot elsewhere—in being declared elsewhere. Banana, like here, trying undo disregard governmental obtain private procured it. Arguably, then, imply lie if state's actions though invalidated, impugned. 12 Whatever mind, his lends inadequate petitioners' reasons. First, brief aside, entirely unnecessary decision. squarely (later substantially overruled, Continental Ore Union Carbide Carbon 370 690, 704-705, 82 1404, 1413-1414, 777 (1962)) laws extraterritorial application, so "what defendant Panama Rica scope statute." 357, Second, whatever dictum provide than overcome later Sisal Sales 274 268, 47 592, 71 1042 (1927). There notwithstanding, Mexico's enactment "discriminating legislation" could form part basis laws. 276, 593. Simply put, case; way relevant survived Sales. insist, cases—international nations relations—are implicated because, found, demanded accepted "would impugn nobility nation's motivations," "result 1392-1393. States, favors same approach disagreeing produces urges, "attach dispositive significance fact involves 'motivation' for, rather 'validity' of, act," Brief Amicus Curiae 37, eschew "any rigid formula generally," 9. future perhaps, "litigation based corruption contracts commercially oriented activities governments touch 'national nerves' related principles appropriately bar suit," 40 (quoting 428, 940), therefore resolve narrowest ground, viz., gives sufficient indication "in setting case," poses adjudication, ibid.* 14 These urgings deceptively similar observed sometimes, even territory called question, justify application. sort balancing applied—the balance shifting committed "challenged state" longer existence. 940. But appropriate avoid unquestioning acceptance similarly quite opposite expanding incapacities directly (or indirectly) involved. suggest, have, considered whether, despite doctrine's technical availability, nonetheless invoked; something different unto themselves, justifying expansion (or, puts unspecified "related abstention") new uncharted fields. short this: Courts power, ordinarily obligation, them. governments, merely shall issue. 16 17 ordered. Even Government's fundamental approach, characterization adviser's absence adjudication. letter, reprinted appendix Appeals, 1052, 1067-1069 purport proceed, responded (correctly, hold today) applicable.

Category: 8