W.S. Kirkpatrick v. Environmental Tectonics Corp. Ricaud v. American Metal Co., 246 U.S. 304, 38 S.Ct.

493 U.S. 400 312, 62 L.Ed. 733. It does not suffice that the facts
Digest by: Shekinah Mae Fortuna necessary to establish respondent's claim will also
establish that the Nigerian contract was unlawful, since
the contract's legality is simply not a question that the
DOCTRINE: The act-of-state doctrine does not prohibit District Court must decide. American Banana Co. v.
an action against a U.S. concern based on acceptance United Fruit Co., 213 U.S. 347, 357-358, 29 S.Ct. 511,
of bribes extended by foreign officials. 513, 53 L.Ed. 826 (Holmes, J.), distinguished. Nor
does it suffice that judgment in favor of respondents
FACTS will require the court to impute to foreign officials
Harry Carpenter (defendant), as the chairman and improper motivation in the performance of official acts.
chief executive officer of W.S. Kirkpatrick & Co., Inc. To say that international comity, respect for the
(Kirkpatrick) (defendant), bid on a project in Nigeria. sovereignty of foreign nations, and the avoidance of
Carpenter arranged with a third party to provide bribes embarrassment to the Executive Branch in its conduct
to Nigerian officials in order to secure the contract. The of foreign relations are the policies underlying the act
bribes were accepted, and the contract was awarded of state doctrine is not to say that the doctrine is
to Kirkpatrick. The making and receipt of such bribes applicable whenever those policies are implicated. The
violated Nigerian law. One of the other project bidders, doctrine is not a rule of abstention which prohibits
Environmental Tectonics Corp., International courts from deciding properly presented cases or
(Environmental Tectonics) (plaintiff), learned of the controversies simply because the Executive's conduct
bribes and informed the United States government. of foreign relations may be adversely affected; it is a
The United States filed charges under the Foreign rule of decision which requires that, in the process of
Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 against Carpenter and deciding, the acts of foreign sovereigns taken within
Kirkpatrick. Both pleaded guilty. Environmental their own jurisdictions be deemed valid.”
Tectonics then filed a civil suit against Carpenter,
Kirkpatrick, and others (defendants) in a federal court
in New Jersey. Defendants moved to dismiss the
action pursuant to application of the act-of-state
doctrine. The legal advisor to the U.S. Department of
State (State Department) submitted a letter to the court
asserting the State Department’s opinion that a judicial
investigation into the motivation of the foreign
sovereign’s act in this case would not cause a degree
of embarrassment and interference equivalent to a
determination that the foreign sovereign’s act was
invalid. Notwithstanding that opinion, the district court
dismissed the action. The Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit reversed, concluding that the State
Department’s opinion was convincing and entitled to
considerable respect. Defendants petitioned the United
States Supreme Court for certiorari.

ISSUE:

Does the act-of-state doctrine prohibit an action

against a U.S. concern based on acceptance of bribes
extended by foreign officials?

RULING: NO.

The act-of-state doctrine does not prohibit an action

against a U.S. concern based on acceptance of bribes
extended by foreign officials.  The doctrine is only
considered when a court, in reaching its decision,
would have to declare void the act of a foreign
government within its own territory.  In an action
against a domestic corporation or person based on
alleged bribes of foreign officials, it is the act of the
domestic entity that is at issue, not the motivation of
the foreign official.

Justice Antonin Scalia:

“The act of state doctrine does not apply because

nothing in the present suit requires a court to declare
invalid the official act of a foreign sovereign. See, e.g.,