· 3/11/1918

Oetjen v. Central Leather Co.

Citations

246 U.S. 297
38 S. Ct. 309
62 L. Ed. 726
1918 U.S. LEXIS 1548

Syllabus

The court notices judicially that the Government of the United States recognized the Government of Carranza as the de facto government of the Republic of Mexico, on October 19, 1915, and as the fie jure government on August 31, 1917. Semble,.that the Hague Conventions, in view of their terms and international character, do not apply to a civil war, and that the regulations annexed to the Convention of 1007 do not forbid such- a- military seizure and sale of private property as is involved in this rase. The conduct of our foreign relations-is committed by the Constitution to the executive and legislative — the political — departments of the Government, and the propriety of what may be done in the exercise of this political power is not subject to judicial inquiry or decision... Who is the sovereign dé jure or de facto of a foreign territory is a political question the determination of which by the political departments of the Government conclusively binds the judges. When a government which originates in revolution or revolt is recognized by, the political department of our Government as the de jure government of the country in which it is established, such recognition is retroactive in effect and validates all the actions and conduct of the government so recognized from the commencement of its existence. ' Every sovereign State is bound to respect the indépendenee of every other sovereign State and the courts of one country will not sit in judgment on the acts of the government of another done within its own territory.- Redress of grievances by reason of such acts must be obtained through the means open to be availed of by sovereign powers as between themselves. The principle that the conduct of one independent government cannot, be successfully questioned in the courts of another is as applicable to a case involving the title to property brought within the custody of a court as to claims for damages based upon acts done

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

concluding that the action of a “duly commissioned military commander” of the Mexican government “[pjlainly ... was the action, in Mexico, of the legitimate Mexican government when dealing with a Mexican citizen”
emphasizing that the conduct of foreign relations is committed to the political branches and is not subject to judicial inquiry
concluding that the action of a 20 “duly commissioned military commander” of the Mexican 21 government “[p]lainly . . . was the action, in Mexico, of 22 the legitimate Mexican government when dealing with a 30 1 Mexican citizen”
holding act of state doctrine barred American courts from considering the sale of animal hides by the Mexican government
holding act of state doctrine barred American courts from considering the sale of animal hides by the Mexican government
finding that the Constitution relegates issues of foreign policy to the political departments of the government

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Clarke

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.