The government of Nigeria awarded a military contract to W. S. Kirkpatrick & Co. The losing bidder, Environmental Tectronics Corporation (ETC), investigated the circumstances under which the contract had been awarded and learned that the winner had bribed key government officials who were responsible for making the award. Ultimately, the U.S. Department of Justice conducted an investigation that confirmed ETC's findings, and high Kirkpatrick officials pled guilty to violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Thereafter, ETC brought a civil lawsuit against Kirkpatrick in the United States under the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act and U.S. antitrust laws. Kirkpatrick moved to dismiss the lawsuit on the basis that the Act of State Doctrine prohibited the federal court from considering the matter. The district court granted Kirkpatrick's motion, but the Court of Appeals reversed the district court.
1. In light of Kirkpatrick, should Act of State Doctrine ever be relevant in foreign corruption cases?
2. What is the policy favoring the Act of State Doctrine? What policy does Justice Scalia note against it?
3. How would the Act of State Doctrine affect an attempt to challenge a Venezuelan government official edict that breaches a commercial agreement to comply with the modern-traditional doctrine?