Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino
Supreme Court of the United States Official seal of the Supreme Court of the United States File links The following pages link to this file: Marbury v. ...
Argued --- Decided ---
Full case name: --- Citations: 376 U.S. 398 Prior history: --- Subsequent history: ---
Holding
---
Court membership
Chief Justice --- Associate Justices ---
Case opinions
Majority by: --- Joined by: --- Concurrance in the judgment by: --- Dissent by: --- Joined by: ---
Laws applied
---

Banco National de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398 (1964) was a United States Supreme Court case that determined that the policy of United States federal courts would be to honor the act of state doctrine, which dictates that the propriety of decisions of other countries relating to their internal affairs would not be questioned in the courts of the United States. Court citation is a standard system used in common law countries such as the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia to uniquely identify the location of past court cases in special series of books called reporters. ... 1964 was a leap year starting on Wednesday (link will take you to calendar). ... The Supreme Court Building, Washington, D.C. The Supreme Court Building, Washington, D.C., (large image) The Supreme Court of the United States, located in Washington, D.C., is the highest court (see supreme court) in the United States; that is, it has ultimate judicial authority within the United States... The United States federal courts are the system of courts organized under the Constitution and laws of the federal government of the United States. ...

Facts

In July of 1960, the Cuban government retaliated against the United States for various measures imposed against the Castro government by expropriating property held by U.S. citizens in Cuba. This included the seizure of sugar owned by a company called C.A.V. A different American company, 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, Sabbatino. 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 and the Court of Appeals rules in favor of the defendant, and the case was appealed to the Supreme Court. 1960 was a leap year starting on Friday (link will take you to calendar). ... Fidel Castro Fidel Castro Ruz (born August 13, 1926), has led Cuba since 1959, when, leading the 26th of July Movement, he overthrew the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista, and transformed Cuba into the first Communist-led state in the Western Hemisphere. ... A sugar is a carbohydrate which is sweet to taste. ... A plaintiff, also known as a claimant, or a complainant is the party who initiates a lawsuit (also known as an action) before a court. ... A lawsuit is a civil action brought before a court in which the party commencing the action, the plaintiff, seeks a legal remedy. ... The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) is the Federal district court whose jurisdiction is comprised of the following counties: New York, Bronx, Westchester, Putnam, Rockland, Orange, Dutchess, and Sullivan. ... A defendant is any party who is required to answer the complaint of a plaintiff in a civil lawsuit before a court, or any party who has been formally charged or accused of violating a criminal statute. ...

Issue

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 U.S. courts.

The defendant contended that the doctrine was inapplicable for three reasons:

1. Because the act in question was a violation of international law;
2. Because the act should not be applied unless the Executive branch asks the court to do so;
3. Because Cuba had brought the sought as a plaintiff, and should be subject to a counterclaim.

International law deals with the relationships between states, or between persons or entities in different states. ... Under the doctrine of the separation of powers, the executive is the branch of a government charged with implementing, or executing, the law. ...

Result

The Court, in an opinion by Justice John Marshall Harlan, 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. John Marshall Harlan John Marshall Harlan (June 1, 1833 – October 14, 1911) was an American Supreme Court associate justice. ... Sovereign immunity or crown immunity is a type of immunity that, in common law jurisdictions traces its origins from early English law. ...

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. The Erie doctrine is a fundamental legal doctrine of Civil procedure in the American legal system that stems from Supreme court Justice Louis Brandeis watershed opinion in 304 US 64 (1938). ... Diversity jurisdiction is a term used in civil procedure to refer to the situation in which a United States district court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear a civil case because the parties are diverse, meaning that they come from different states. ... Federal common law is a term used in the United States to describe common law that is developed by the federal courts, instead of by the courts of the various states. ...

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.