Testimony in the ongoing review by the US Supreme Court of the Animal Science v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical case continued on Tuesday, April 24, where as lawyers for both countries faced off offered amici curiae arguments over whether complying with Chinese law can exempt Chinese companies from certain aspects of US antitrust laws.
The nine justices heard arguments in an appeal by two American companies of a lower court ruling that threw out price-fixing claims against two Chinese vitamin C manufacturers based on submissions by China’s government explaining that nation’s regulations. Many of the justices signaled skepticism toward that ruling.
The nine justices heard arguments in an appeal by two American companies of a lower court ruling that threw out price-fixing claims against two Chinese vitamin C manufacturers based on submissions by China’s government explaining that nation’s regulations. Many of the justices signaled skepticism toward that ruling, as reported by Bloomberg.
The arguments gave both countries a chance to air their differences over an aspect of their trade relationship. The Supreme Court took the unusual step of letting China present arguments even though it is not an official party in the case. Typically, only the US government is given that privilege.
China’s lawyer, Carter Phillips, told the justices Tuesday that the Chinese companies were simply following their country’s export laws. “Chinese law required the defendants to do precisely what they did in this case,” he said. China contends that U.S. courts generally must defer to a foreign country’s interpretation of its own laws.
The Trump administration isn’t taking a position on the requirements of Chinese law. But the Justice Department says U.S. courts have broad latitude to consider various sources when interpreting foreign law and don’t necessarily have to accept the foreign government’s view.
The appeals court was “too rigid and too deferential to foreign sovereign submissions,” Justice Department lawyer Brian Fletcher argued.
The hour-long Supreme Court session suggested the justices weren’t inclined to give Chinese officials the final say. Justice Elena Kagan said it wasn’t clear that courts anywhere would be that deferential.
“How can you say that the only thing that shows respect to foreign governments is to do something that we don’t know that any other foreign nation does?” she asked Phillips.
The court will decide on the case by the end of June.
Full Content: Bloomberg
Want more news? Subscribe to CPI’s free daily newsletter for more headlines and updates on antitrust developments around the world.
Featured News
Walmart Withdraws and Refiles Antitrust Review Application for Vizio Acquisition
Mar 28, 2024 by
CPI
Apple Prevails in Dismissal of Crypto-Payment Antitrust Lawsuit
Mar 27, 2024 by
CPI
Amazon Fined in Poland for Misleading Customers
Mar 27, 2024 by
CPI
Credit Card Rewards Under Threat as Visa, Mastercard Settlement Impacts Swipe Fees
Mar 27, 2024 by
CPI
UK Fashion Giants Commit to Honest Environmental Claims
Mar 27, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Real Estate & Antitrust
Mar 27, 2024 by
CPI
Systematic National Evidence of Steering by Real Estate Agents
Mar 27, 2024 by
CPI
Compliance Now! Actionable Antitrust Advice for the Residential Real Estate Industry
Mar 27, 2024 by
CPI
Real Estate Commissions: Some Insights from the Economics of Multi-Sided Platforms
Mar 27, 2024 by
CPI
New Ideas for Promoting Real Estate Brokerage Price Competition
Mar 27, 2024 by
CPI