Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino
Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino | |
---|---|
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Harlan, joined by Warren, Black, Douglas, Clark, Brennan, Stewart, Goldberg |
Dissent | White |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. |
Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398 (1964), was a
Background
In July 1960, the
An American commodity broker, Farr, Whitlock & Co. had contracted to buy this sugar from C.A.V., but after it was seized, they bought it directly from the Cuban government. After receiving the sugar, however, Farr, Whitlock & Co. did not pay the Cuban government; instead, they paid C.A.V.'s legal representative in the U.S., Sabbatino.
Procedural history
The plaintiff, the National Bank of Cuba (acting on behalf of the Cuban government) filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the defendant, Sabbatino, to recover the money paid for the sugar. The district court[1] and the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the defendant,[2] and the case was appealed to the Supreme Court.
The issue taken by the Supreme Court was whether to apply the Act of State doctrine, which would uphold the legality of the expropriation because it was an official act of another country, not subject to question in US courts.
The defendant contended that the doctrine was inapplicable for three reasons:
- Because the act in question was a violation of international law;
- Because the doctrine should not be applied unless the Executive branchasks the court to do so;
- Because Cuba had brought the suit as a plaintiff and had given up its sovereign immunity.
Opinion of the court
The court, in an opinion by Justice John Marshall Harlan II, found that the act of state doctrine did apply in this case. The court refused to hold that the expropriation violated international law, because there was no clear unity of international opinion disapproving the seizure of land or property in a country by the government of that country. It noted also that interposition of the Executive was unnecessary to prevent the courts from interfering in affairs of state, as a single court could upset delicate international negotiations through the assertion of U.S. law in another country. Finally, the Court found no bar to application of the doctrine should be imposed by the fact that Cuba had brought the suit, comparing this to the sovereign immunity enjoyed by U.S. states which can sue, but can not be sued.
The court also raised and dismissed a potential Erie doctrine problem, noting that although this suit was brought under diversity jurisdiction, federal interests so outweighed that of the state that federal common law must apply, instead of the law of the state where the suit was filed.
White's dissent
Justice White wrote a "dismayed" dissenting opinion, asserting that the court's application of the act of state doctrine was too rigid: more so, in fact than the doctrine as applied by other countries.
Subsequent developments
Not surprisingly, the Sabbatino case provoked an uproar in the
References
- ^ Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 193 F. Supp. 375 (S.D.N.Y. 1961).
- ^ Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 307 F.2d 845 (2d Cir. 1962).
Further reading
- Dawson, Frank G.; Weston, Burns H. (1963). "Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino: New Wine in Old Bottles". JSTOR 1598733.
External links
- Text of Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398 (1964) is available from: Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)